Reply With Quote
First I'm reading of this and damn I saw that tandem bike on the same stretch of road. Might have been the same day. Now I feel bad for laughing at it.
Yeah, again. Here's the latest in the WC "I'm gonna pull something out of my ass cuz hey, it's all brown and gooey down there" file.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...87&postcount=4
If you want me to find more I can.
Yes you do.I don't make things up.
I do. What does that have to do with you making up a statistic?Don't you know how to parse what you read?
I know you made it up purposely.I did that purposely.
It proves a lack of misunderstanding? Is that your final answer?It proves a lack of misunderstanding readers like yourself have,
How does you making up a statistic prove that?that a story can be written factually to give a false impression.
What, you making up statistics?Try to figure out what I did if you can.
First I'm reading of this and damn I saw that tandem bike on the same stretch of road. Might have been the same day. Now I feel bad for laughing at it.
Don't lie. You don't feel bad for laughing at all.
I know that, and I didn't say otherwise. I am only pointing out another possibility for the facts. How do we know the driver veered? Investigators are not always right, and unless there is a witness...
That's all I'm saying!
You refuse to see simple logical facts.
The story said that only 11% of accidents bicyclists have are with cars. If you look around, you'll find that in the US, about 53% of those accidents are the automobile drivers fault.
0.53 x 0.11 = 0.0583, or about 6%
Therefore, only about 6% of bicycle accidents are the fault of a car.
Like I said, you have to learn to parse what you read, or be baffled by bull .
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 11-07-2009 at 05:59 PM.
Cyclists are dangerous. At any stopsign or red light they could attack.
Yeah so 53% of bike/automobile accidents see the driver of the car at fault. I understand. Do you understand?
I'm baffled if you are indeed serious with the above mathematics.Like I said, you have to learn to parse what you read, or be baffled by bull .
Let's do another math exercise shall we?
.47 X .11 = 0.0517 (not .517 silly)
0.0517 X 100 = 5.17(%)
What does that 5.17% signify? A cookie if you know WC.
Absolutely. That is a statistic that few people disagree with.
Why?
Remember, I said I purposely did that to prove you didn't know how to parse what you read. I never said, or implied, that the 6% number applied to accidents between cars and bicycles. You are baffled because you are so easily manipulated by the way the liberal media writes a story. Then when someone who you disagree with does the same thing, you find unwarranted fault.
If I used the same tactics with something you agreed with, you would have the wrong notions in your head. You probably wouldn't have even questioned my method.
Please, learn to parse what you read.
OMG...
So I accidently leave out a zero, but I still say 6%, not 60%.
So ing what. I made a mistake. I'll admit it. Do you ever admit yours? That's the wrong thing to dwell on.
Admit it. You don't know how to parse the news for the truth. Stop side-stepping the point.
I went back and inserted a zero to correct that one post. I guess a thanx is in order, somewhat.
OK, the 5.17% would be a useless number. It represents how many accidents a bicyclist is at fault, but excluding non-car related accidents. There is no determination of how many other accidents the cyclist may be at fault for of the remaining 30% (89% not involving a car - 59% single bicyclist fault). Still, we have a minimum of 59% + 5.17%, or a minimum 64% of bicycle accidents are caused by it's rider.
It depends on what data you look at.
the point I was making is your lack to understand how to parse text.
I think the most important point is your inability to "parse" either mathematics or the truth. This whole "testing your ability to parse" may wash once, but when you keep attempting to repeatedly extricate that particular Lepus from your Bowler, we suspect you are full of , and just spinning your mistakes.
Except it was totally warranted because you claim you were being dishonest on purpose. I think you're full of and tried to prove, using faulty math, that accidents were more often than not caused by bikes.
If you had made up a statistic for something else I probably would've called you on it no matter what it was in support of.If I used the same tactics with something you agreed with, you would have the wrong notions in your head.
I would've questioned you doing elementary math incorrectly, yes.You probably wouldn't have even questioned my method.
I did exactly that. I read through the article YOU posted. I found no evidence of this "6%" and called you on it. You claimed you did it on purpose to see if I could "parse" what I was reading. Yet wouldn't that prove I parsed what I was reading. You never said where you got the 6%, only that it was fact. You suck at life (and math).Please, learn to parse what you read.
My post was to point out that you did math incorrectly. The fact that you thought (lol typo) .53 X .11 was .583 was just a bonus.
That's the problem. I am the one keeping the open mind, it's you guys who are "stuck on stupid" for ignoring other possibilities.
I'm not doing any spinning other than my example to show you and Shasta cannot parse text. I am only saying that we only have what appears to be expert opinion of what happened. There appears to be no witness or confession.
Experts are not always right:
He didn't say it happened that way, he said it appeared to happen that way.He said it appeared that Sullaway, a resident of Helotes, veered off the highway in a Ford F-150 at least once before the cyclists were hit, but investigators don't suspect alcohol played a role. Both cyclists were wearing helmets.
You're welcome.
You could use the same methods when talking about automobiles. Why don't you find some more statistics for us?OK, the 5.17% would be a useless number. It represents how many accidents a bicyclist is at fault, but excluding non-car related accidents. There is no determination of how many other accidents the cyclist may be at fault for of the remaining 30% (89% not involving a car - 59% single bicyclist fault). Still, we have a minimum of 59% + 5.17%, or a minimum 64% of bicycle accidents are caused by it's rider.
Yeah like looking at the relevant data. Data like bicycle accidents when automobiles are involved.It depends on what data you look at.
My lack to understand? Again, final answer?the point I was making is your lack to understand how to parse text.
There you are, stuck on stupid again.
I never thought the answer was 0.583. I just missed putting in a zero.
My God. You are a zero.
Hence "lol typo".
Bikes+cars=recipe for disaster.
I'm an avid rider and ride all the time, but I stay away from anything but quiet backstreets. EVERY rider I know who rides on busy roads has ended up in hospital at least once. Thankfully, Canberra has an excellent off-road cycle path network so I mostly use that - that's what all cities need, really, and all it comes down to is a moderate investment of public money.
I like riding also, but for a good ride, I have to drive and park my bike to someplace like Springwater Trail. I will not ride on the streets in the Portland area.
I wish more people would realize that the streets are dangerous. I simply cannot imagine the lack of concern, stupidity, ignorance, or what ever it is that has riders chance the busy and fast streets.
Something else to consider. In most accidents, and it doesn't matter by vehivle type, are avoidable by defensive driving. There may be one party deemed legally at fault, but I would guess that about 90% of the accidents could have been avoided if the victim practiced better defensive driving. I have now been in two auto accidents in my almost 40 years of driving. I have avoided at least a couple dozen because of defensive driving. The two I was in, were impossible to avoid without driving 3/4 of the speed limit or less. Both times, I had someone pull out in front of me, talking the right-of-way from me, and hitting them under 10 MPH after slamming on the brakes. Just almost stopping in time.
If I was a less defensive driver, I would have nailed at least 4 bicyclists by now, for their stupidity, running stop signs, etc. In nearly all cases I read about happening in my area, the bicyclist was better able to avoid the accident than the car. The most common seems to be a bicyclists driving fast, or fast downhill, passing a vehicle on the right, when the vehicle makes a right turn.
You wrote that in a manner that suggested to me you didn't believe it was a typo.
Just because it is technically legal to ride your bike on the shoulder of a busy highway doesn't mean it's a good idea. It's moronic.
That's why I ask if people are going for the Darwin Award.
I agree, but that doesn't mean the people that run riders over should get a free pass.
This is true also.
However, this thread started with the unproven, but assumed idea that's just what happened.
I have yet to see evidence that the riders did not swerve in front of the vehicle. Only a reasonable assumption.
According to investigators, the Bruehlers had taken off from their home near Braun and Tezel roads in San Antonio and were cycling north of Helotes on Texas 16 when Sullaway’s truck, going about 5 mph over the 65-mph speed limit, came up behind them. The pickup veered off the road and then Sullaway overcorrected, striking the cyclists, who were riding on the shoulder. The truck dragged their tandem bicycle about 200 feet.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions