Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
As far as I can ascertain there have not been any reports of a blockage in the mine, only a power failure, an explosion, and poisonous gases.
That was the upsetting thing about reading the account of the two survivors in today’s Herald. It made the strong implication that only by coming out when they did you could survive.
-
I found it quite hard to read the Herald report on the two guys who got out earlier today.
[The thread appears twice in System for some reason.]
-
This sounds a lot like the “don’t blame the flies for being attracted to the meat” argument.
Or the Lisa ad from ALAC.
-
I think that we’d just end up with the same footpaths we currently have, with the same design issues, but with a small bicyle painted on them at 100m intervals.
Are you sure you weren't a Milanese urban designer in a previous life?
-
I can’t quite see where he gets the ratio of death to serious injury from but
2600 don’t look so bad compared to the others on the injuring/killing fields.Kitt asked how many pedestrians are killed or injured by cyclists, and there’s your answer: three deaths a year in the UK. He strongly seemed to imply that it never happens.
-
Mmmhhh… except it was every ten years. So, roughly 260 a year, with 50 serious injuries and 3 deaths. To answer your question.
-
Hard News: I'm not a "f***ing cyclist".…, in reply to Kitt McGregor,
Tell me… just exactly how many pedestrians have been injured/killed by bikes?
You mean worldwide? It’s rare but it happens. Actually in terms of injurying it’s not all that rare. (I don’t consider 2,600 injury-causing accidents in a year in the UK alone, a fifth of which involving serious injury, to be negligible.)
-
If you use the road in NZ, you have an obligation to know the road code.
You have the same theoretical obligation in Italy too, but yeah, it's never tested if you cause an accident you're never at fault. But if the 75/25 culpability split is accurate (it was bandied around this past week, not just on PAS) then it would seem that it's obviously a case of educating primarily but not solely the drivers. So let's do that. And keep lobbying for safer roads.
-
Not more than truck drivers, no. But the analogy between the shooter and the shooting victim suggests exactly the opposite - that there is no point in educating cyclists at all. And that's pretty much just as dumb.
I used to cycle in the last city where I lived in Italy, a small town a smidgen smaller than Wellington. But I've never driven a car, and have a very sketchy knowledge of the road code or indeed of road etiquette - it was simply not a prerequisite of my sharing the road with motorised vehicles, and I'm not sure that that's a good thing.
-
To draw out your analogy more. Suppose truck/car serious accidents were 75% the fault of the truck driver and 25% the fault of the car driver. Bryan would be drawing the conclusion that car drivers need more education.
Which would obviously be correct, unless somehow educating car drivers meant you couldn't also educate truck drivers.