Andrew Mitchell MP

[[XAP]Bob]

Where was that written. Anyone care to reply with the actual numbers he asks for - and adding in the Kaiser for cars and, lorries and buses?

[meic]

It would be illuminating to learn how many pedestrians are crippled or killed by cyclists every year.

A real journalist would do some research and find out. Or may be he did do some research and found the actual figures undermined his case.

[Fasgadh]

What a foul and lazy piece of journalism. Note how even the Olympics are being used to bash us. (some medals good, some medals bad?)

Another posting says that Mitchell did not act to the high standards that we need to get a hearing. Trouble is, behave and you get the "sanctimonious, holier than thou" card played.

[snibgo]

Where was that written.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/to ... ng-1348836

[al_yrpal]

The Mirror article is exactly what David Cox feared. It's a wonder it took so long to appear! There have been letters in our local paper in the same vien. Pavement phyclists and redlight jumpers have much to answer for...

Al

[kwackers]

The Mirror article is exactly what David Cox feared. It's a wonder it took so long to appear! There have been letters in our local paper in the same vien. Pavement phyclists and redlight jumpers have much to answer for...

Al

As if.

I've said many times, doesn't matter a jot. When people have an irrational need to give a group a kicking they look for reasons. It's how humans work and it's what we do to any group we're not part of particularly when that group starts to achieve a level of prominence that brings them into the public eye.

If you're serious about appeasing car drivers then get off the road. Every time you get in their way it niggles and they look for excuses to give us all a kicking.

[Tizme]

Does anyone know how to contact Tony Parsons? The only way I can see is via Facebook, which I refuse to have anything to do with!!
After a few minutes surfing the net I was able to come up with a few answers to his questions:
From the Dept For Transport:
2001-2009: 18 pedestrians killed by cyclists, 3,085 seriously injured.
2001-2009: 3,495 pedestrians killed by drivers, 46,245 seriously injured.

2008: 13,272 accidents between bikes and vehicles resulting in 52 cyclists dying, no drivers died in these incidents.
2009: No pedestrians killed by cyclists but 426 were killed by drivers.
2011-107 cyclists killed, 3,085 seriosuly injured.
In 2011 it is estimated that 9,990 casualties were caused by drivers over the legal drink limit, it is also estimated that 280 people died in drink driving accidents (15% of all road fatalities). 14% of fatalities are caused by exceeding the speed limit.

So that's it then, us lycra louts really are a menace to pedestrians

[skidd]

If Andrew Mitchell was raising Cain because he was being discriminated against than good for him. He may not have done it as diplomatically as possible, nevertheless women didn't get the vote, slaves emancipated from slavery and workers free themselves from serfdom by 'harmonizing with partners to implement balanced strategic concepts'.

It truly pains me that one or two posters on this thread have chosen to join the haters and not overtly support someone who has, albeit impolitically, tried to improve things perfectly fairly for cyclists (ergo society as well).

I find it inconsistent that we would want to diss someone such as Tony Parsons for his hateful, prejudiced and ill-informed rant in the Daily Mirror and yet we (apologies to Regulator) allow

"Personally I think the police should have done the world a favour and shot him. Just because he is an objectionable bully with a foul mouth also a politician. I would definitely volunteer for that task."

(One of Edwards's masterpieces)

Regarding cyclists I cannot think of a group who are a) Exercise such a positive effect relative to their 'competitors' b) Are so immorally discriminated against (well perhaps pedestrians as well). I am happy that the CTC is moving in the right direction, but I dread we will be forever stymied by the Uncle Toms who confuse opinion with reality

Amnesty 0 Dignified Silence 1

(Sorry about the obscure reference, see page viewtopic.php?f=6&t=68432&start=45)

[Si]

He may not have done it as diplomatically as possible, nevertheless women didn't get the vote, slaves emancipated from slavery and workers free themselves from serfdom by 'harmonizing with partners to implement balanced strategic concepts'.

Neither did they achieve their freedoms by having a rant at police officers rather than first attempting to follow more diplomatic lines of approach. If you are going to use historical sources in your argument you really ought to understand them a little better first as the ones that you have chosen don't serve you well.

[thirdcrank]

Does anybody really believe that this man was campaigning on behalf of cyclists?
L L

[skidd]

Sorry Si
Re:

Neither did they achieve their freedoms by having a rant at police officers rather than first attempting to follow more diplomatic lines of approach. If you are going to use historical sources in your argument you really ought to understand them a little better first as the ones that you have chosen don't serve you well.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here, but perhaps I was a little bit obtuse so I will try to clarify. What I was trying to say was there is a case for saying that improvements in human rights have been bought about by 'extreme' actions. Examples might include aspects of The Indian Mutiny, The US Civil War and more recently The Arab Spring. Diplomatic lines of approach are great, but not always successful. I suppose the rub is; at what point do we say 'We've had enough' and start taking more vigorous action?

We do not know if Andrew Mitchell tried to be diplomatic with the cop. Even if he launched straight in I would not blame him. You may say he should have been more diplomatic, which is fair enough. We do know that most probably Andrew Mitchell was right in thinking he should not be discriminated against just because he is a cyclist, so the sticking point between us on this should be at what stage in proceedings should the more vigorous protest start and when? It seems to me on the cycling/gate issue cop was wrong, toff was right, get on with it and fix it.

You do not know to what degree I understand historical sources. I would admit poorly, but please don't speculate in order to make ad hominem attacks. I am happy that my posts serve my purpose but agree they might not serve me well.

Thirdcrank

re:

Does anybody really believe that this man was campaigning on behalf of cyclists?
L L

Not me. Are you try to say I do?

[meic]

Your skills of argument are very well refined, so much so that the rest of are left baffled as to what the hell (if anything) you are trying to say or mean.

Thirdcranks comment was rather basic and to the point.
Simply nobody believes he did this for cyclists rights, so the whole argument about supporting him is just a pointless argument.
Well that is how I took it.

[skidd]

meic

Sorry if your baffled.

If there is anything you (or anybody) feels baffled about please highlight it (like below) and I will try to explain

__________________

Assuming you are correct

nobody believes he did this for cyclists rights

how does that enable the conclusion

so the whole argument about supporting him is just a pointless argument

?

Like I said, I would support him regarding the cycle and the gate, because by reducing the costs of cycling relative to motor cars there is a net social gain. He was advocating the reduction of cycling costs, the cop was actively increasing those costs. You may support the cop, and endorse the blocking off of cycle routes, that's your choice. Because I don't agree with you doesn't make the argument pointless. I will continue to argue for general social welfare whatever.

I was asking thirdcrank about his post, not you

Cheers!

[meic]

It is all pointless because your arguments are based on false assumptions, not just false assumptions but apparently, ridiculously (in its true literal meaning) false assumptions.

Anybody attempting to win an argument on those lines is going to be ridiculed, right or wrong.

Nobody believes he did this for cycling rights. The reason that most believe he did this for was personal self-importance.

[skidd]

meic,

Can you illustrate one of my false assumptions within this thread please? £1 to Amnesty for each one. Plus a pound to answer my previous question.

I would illustrate your false assumption,

Simply nobody believes he did this for cyclists rights, so the whole argument about supporting him is just a pointless argument.

as a typical non-sequitur. Your conclusion has nothing to do with your premise. It is a very visible and demonstrable example of illogical thinking. A false assumption. Please do the same courtesy for me and highlight my mistakes. I can learn by them.

When you said "It is all pointless because your arguments are based on false assumptions" was that in addition to the quote above or instead of? Make up your mind why you think it's pointless. And then show us why - not just your opinion and guesses but lift a statement out and tear it to shreds. Should be easy if they are 'ridiculous'.

Steve