SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Scouse]

It pays for itself due the millions of new road users you can now fine for a variety of infractions that are currently un-enforceable.

Even if they cause no harm you want to fine them?

What harm are they causing? Or do you just want to fine people "just because"?

cyclists are making it increasingly hazardous

Clearly not, according to the empirical evidence.

As to the figures - most collisions with cyclists go unrecorded because they dont hang around and are impossible to trace so people dont do it unless they are hospitalised - the real problem is masked by this.

Ah. So, the evidence doesn't support your argument - therefore the evidence is wrong, eh?


Nice, rynnor, nice

 

[rynnor]

Even if they cause no harm you want to fine them?

What harm are they causing? Or do you just want to fine people "just because"?

Other than killing and seriously injuring people do you mean - does it need more?

 

[Scouse]

Other than killing and seriously injuring people do you mean - does it need more?

If you're saying a road licencing and taxation system is a proportionate response to 2 deaths a year then you're simply making a fool of yourself.

 

[rynnor]

Ah. So, the evidence doesn't support your argument - therefore the evidence is wrong, eh?

Nice, rynnor, nice

It's not evidence of anything other than the number of reported injuries - it says nothing about the unreported levels.

 

[rynnor]

If you're saying a road licencing and taxation system is a proportionate response to 2 deaths a year then you're simply making a fool of yourself.

It's the injuries as well - serious injuries cover everything up to total paralysis etc. and a random cyclist is unlikely to be able to pay for a lifetime of care that such an injury neccessitates thus the need for insurance.

 

[Scouse]

it says nothing about the unreported levels.

It says as much about the unreported levels as any other evidence does.

The reported levels are so low that it's reasonable to extrapolate that the unreported levels are also incredibly low.

And the thing about serious incidents is that they get reported.


Argue the toss all you like - the evidence shows that cycling simply isn't a serious problem.

Add to that the fact that it's likely to prevent way more death and provide a massive reduction in NHS medical costs a simply through providing a fitter, more active population...

...cycling is win-win.

 

[rynnor]

It says as much about the unreported levels as any other evidence does.

It really doesnt as it makes no attempt to measure such a thing.

 

[rynnor]

Add to that the fact that it's likely to prevent way more death and provide a massive reduction in NHS medical costs a simply through providing a fitter, more active population...

...cycling is win-win.

More people living to an older age = net increase in NHS costs - the older the population the higher the incidence of untreatable chronic diseases such as Alzheimers which require very expensive constant care.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Wasn't this thread hijacked by cyclewank just two pages ago?

Nothing against cyclists, i do enjoy myself a light bi circular jaunt every now and then, but you guys fanboy and atiboy over this thing like it was PS and xbox.

 

[Scouse]

It really doesnt as it makes no attempt to measure such a thing.

Even if I accept that - then my guess is as least as good as yours. And an extrapolation of reported incidents is more likely to be accurate than your plucked out of the air random "it's serious" guess.

So, I'd wager that my estimate is way more accurate than your guess.

More people living to an older age = net increase in NHS costs - the older the population the higher the incidence of untreatable chronic diseases such as Alzheimers which require very expensive constant care.

Now you're wilfully talking shit.

A healthy population for a longer time is the way keeping fit works. Exercise doesn't have a massive life-span increasing effect. Exercise keeps people healthy - and therefore much less of a burden on the NHS - for longer.

And you know that.

 

[Scouse]

Wasn't this thread hijacked by cyclewank just two pages ago?

How can you hijack a thread named "random spam"?

 

[Chilly]

It's the injuries as well - serious injuries cover everything up to total paralysis etc. and a random cyclist is unlikely to be able to pay for a lifetime of care that such an injury neccessitates thus the need for insurance.

No, but the NHS will...?

 

[old.Tohtori]

How can you hijack a thread named "random spam"?

By making it non-random and about cycling all the f*cking time

Make your own damn cyclethread so people can ignore the bullcrap.

 

[Chilly]

Edited - NSFW!

TDC: displaying cocks that are much larger than Deebs' is not allowed :-P

 

[Scouse]

Make your own damn cyclethread so people can ignore the bullcrap.

If a catch-all thread starts to get ignored and people start to post their random thoughts in separate threads, like they used to, then win-win for the forum too

 

[rynnor]

No, but the NHS will...?

Not really - they will pay for the basic healthcare but there are real limits and gaps to what they will provide.

Insurance would pay for a hell of a lot more in terms of care, adaptation of the home, respite for carers etc.

 

[Chilly]

Not really - they will pay for the basic healthcare but there are real limits and gaps to what they will provide.

Insurance would pay for a hell of a lot more in terms of care, adaptation of the home, respite for carers etc.

That's a problem with our healthcare system, though, not cycling regulation.

 

[rynnor]

That's a problem with our healthcare system, though, not cycling regulation.

If they were insured it costs the NHS nowt - should one bunch of road users be required to insure against 3rd party injury and another be expected to be paid from general taxation?

At the moment the money to pay for such injuries comes from the pool you were just worried about that pays for schools/hospitals etc.

 

[Scouse]

should one bunch of road users be required to insure against 3rd party injury and another be expected to be paid from general taxation?

It really, and in all seriousness, depends how big the problem is.

Following your line of thought - should people who injure themselves at home have personal accident injury insurance? I mean - many more people injure themselves at home than cyclists harm others? Or in fact, should not all accidents be covered by personal injury insurance?

Or, to put it another way, should everyone have insurance to cover their medical costs? Or, to put it another way, should we have a private, American, healthcare system?

No. We have the NHS. It covers accidents that have happend to kids that are acting stupid. Shouldn't the parents cover that - after all it's their fucking stupid kids?

Of course not. And in the tiny amount of accidents that involve bicycles - the NHS, quite rightly, covers it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

If a catch-all thread starts to get ignored and people start to post their random thoughts in separate threads, like they used to, then win-win for the forum too

Yeah let's post a thread about every single youtube link and random thought in a seperate thread. Think you'd be the first to go "OMFG stop posting so many threads toht!"

 

[Scouse]

Yeah let's post a thread about every single youtube link and random thought in a seperate thread. Think you'd be the first to go "OMFG stop posting so many threads toht!"

We've got a video thread and random thoughts are best shared through twitter

 

[BloodOmen]

 

[CorNokZ]

I'm gonna get killed for saying this but; Implement cycling lanes in the bigger cities

 

[Olgaline]

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ0ue-XGl9c

 

[Aoami]

just got offered a job in the interview for the first time ever. good feeling.

 

[Chilly]

You ever been denied in the interview?

 

[Madmaxx]

Good luck. Where are you planning on going and what will you study?

Also - don't worry about it too much if you miss a grade. Phone up the admissions at your uni and beg, they may well let you in. Failing that, there's loads of places available via clearing - depending on course. If you're planning to do a science or engineering degree you'll be able to get into loads of places via clearing as the courses tend to be under subscribed (cos they're hard and worthwhile )

I was going for Computer Science at Portsmouth University,
http://www.port.ac.uk/courses/computing-and-creative-technologies/bsc-hons-computer-science/

but it has turned out the college did make some kind of admin errors and no one will get results, they told us they were hoping to get them by the end of august; I merely said I hope so if not I'll burn the fucking college down to the ground I need the results before 30th of Aug or I don't get my place secured at uni.

 

[CorNokZ]

Had an interview yesterday at one in the afternoon. Just as I am about to go out the door, the guy who was supposed to do the interview texts me saying the meeting is off, because his 85y old dad had been hospitalized :/

Hate when I shower for no reason...

 

[Chilly]

Decent compsci department down there. Good luck.

 

[Aoami]

You ever been denied in the interview?

Not at the interview. You'll be pleased to know that it's a junior developer role, so thank you for all the help with my code when i was at uni haha.