Bicycles more dangerous than terrorism?

But surely a fundamental bike is a... fixed gear?

Duhh duh DAHHHH.

We are the terrorists of the cycling community.

Tommy would disagree. To be a "real" terrorist you need a balaclava, and to where a balaclava you need to be a cunt.

http://bristolcars.blogspot.com/2009/09/two-wheeled-terrorists-official.html

looks like Bristol is breeding them as well, damn terrorists.

This one looks very dodgy.

Tommy would disagree. To be a "real" terrorist you need a balaclava, and to where a balaclava you need to be a cunt.

Bloody fakenterrorists.

Terrorengers?

Terrorengers?

messenger terrorists? cycle-by suicide bombings?

Every time you RLJ, a Daily Mail reader dies.

“But if you asked which killed more people in the last 10 years in London, international terrorism, or bicycles, the answer would definitely be bicycles"

Bikes didn't kill people it was tits driving badly that's killed people on bikes

and fundamentalist islamic ideals

Racist.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14738551

Data from Berlin (Germany) show a significant correlation between the increase in the stork population around the city and the increase in deliveries outside city hospitals (out-of-hospital deliveries). However, there is no correlation between deliveries in hospital buildings (clinical deliveries) and the stork population. The decline in the number of pairs of storks in the German state of Lower Saxony between 1970 and 1985 correlated with the decrease of deliveries in that area. The nearly constant number of deliveries from 1985 to 1995 was associated with an unchanged stork population (no statistical significance). However, the relevance of the stork for the birth rate in that part of Germany remains unclear, because the number of out-of-hospital deliveries in this area is not well documented. A lack of statistical information on out-of-hospital deliveries in general is a severe handicap for further proof for the Theory of the Stork.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Pirates_and_global_warming

global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of pirates since the 1800s

^ I like that one.

What a massive pile of cunt.

Not sure why everyone is so critical of the article ?

The article makes no other claim than that in the aftermath of the 7/7 attack there was an uptake in cycling - and a corollary increase in fatal cycling accidents.

Why the incandescent responses ?

That more people die in cycling accidents than terrorism in the UK (and probably the world) is a demonstrable fact.

You may be right Tynan... I still call pile of wank.

Not sure why everyone is so critical of the article ?

The article makes no other claim than that in the aftermath of the 7/7 attack there was an uptake in cycling - and a corollary increase in fatal cycling accidents.

Why the incandescent responses ?

That more people die in cycling accidents than terrorism in the UK (and probably the world) is a demonstrable fact.

It's terrifically badly written.

It's terrifically badly written.

In what sense ? Can you be specific ?

I have just read the study that the article was reporting on (it's only 16 pages), it is an entirely reasoned and balanced study, meeting all normal scientific criteria with clear explanation of methodology, figures used and references.

The silly knee-jerk reactions are just that, Moving Target/Buffalo Bill's reading of the article is just silly - an entirely misguided emotional response to a pretty interesting study. That Moving Target could put two articles up - which come to little more than name calling - and then admit to not having bothered reading the study is frankly embarrassing !

The article is purposefuly obtuse and intentionaly incendiary, with the intention of generating attention to the article rather than the subject matter. The study may be sound, but the article is merely a measure of how desperate media is getting to retain readership and cling to plummeting advertising rates.

There may be a few facts in there but how relevant are they to anything?

There's a lot of this type of "journalism" around.

The Bristol Evening Post is constantly publishing articles to wind people up. They get linked to a lot and receive hundreds of comments as people argue with each other. This equals lots of hits, which equals justification of advertising rates.

I have just read the study that the article was reporting on (it's only 16 pages), it is an entirely reasoned and balanced study, meeting all normal scientific criteria with clear explanation of methodology, figures used and references.
Whilst the methodology may be all well and good, the paper also describes a significant proportion of assumptions and unexplored alternative explanations. See in particular the penultimate and ultimate paragraphs on page 11. (There is also no mention of any peer-review of the paper, which was presented at a conference.)

To frame these findings in sweeping statements such as “But if you asked which killed more people ion [sic] the last 10 years in London, international terrorism, or bicycles, the answer would definitely be bicycles," does not necessarily discredit the research and resultant paper, but it certainly shows the newspaper article to be poorly written and worthy of criticism.
In addition, it is my personal feeling that Professor Ayton would do well to be more circumspect in his pronouncements via the mass media.

In what sense ? Can you be specific ?

I have just read the study that the article was reporting on (it's only 16 pages), it is an entirely reasoned and balanced study, meeting all normal scientific criteria with clear explanation of methodology, figures used and references.

The silly knee-jerk reactions are just that, Moving Target/Buffalo Bill's reading of the article is just silly - an entirely misguided emotional response to a pretty interesting study. That Moving Target could put two articles up - which come to little more than name calling - and then admit to not having bothered reading the study is frankly embarrassing !

Ach, you know, I mean in the usual 'badly written' way. I am not particularly commenting on the underlying research, which I'm sure is sound, if you say so. But it has been undoubtedly sloppily communicated. And mummy MUST I give examples? :( I have a kitten on my lap which is impeding my typing somewhat. Would it work if I said IMO, or even, IMHO? Would that get me off having to 'prove' anything?

The article is purposefuly obtuse and intentionaly incendiary, with the intention of generating attention to the article rather than the subject matter.

Can you be specific, can you point to what specifically in the article that you consider 'incendiary' ?

There may be a few facts in there but how relevant are they to anything?

Which facts in the piece do you feel are not relevant to the article ?

To frame these findings in sweeping statements such as “But if you asked which killed more people ion [sic] the last 10 years in London, international terrorism, or bicycles, the answer would definitely be bicycles," does not necessarily discredit the research and resultant paper, but it certainly shows the newspaper article to be poorly written and worthy of criticism.

While I would agree the article is not an in depth digestion of the original paper, I would say it conveys the general theme fairly well.

The point about cycling accidents claiming more lives than terrorism is simple a fact and entirely relevant to the study.

And mummy MUST I give examples? :( I have a kitten on my lap which is impeding my typing somewhat. Would it work if I said IMO, or even, IMHO? Would that get me off having to 'prove' anything?

Yes, kittens usurp rationality.

:P

Well, I suppose you could argue that criticising it for being badly-written is subjective rather than rational. Would you call it well-written? Does it conform to your idea of good writing? What criteria are you using to define 'good', in this sense? How was the bike locked and which lock did you use?

What criteria are you using to define 'good'

Like you say it's subjective, but it conveys the theme of the study accurately and without inaccuracies, I got the meaning on initial reading (before looking at the actual study).

I think what this demonstrates is not the cycling is dangerous, but that, unless you are very, very unlucky, terrorists actually aren't. There are few things that /can/ be fatal that have killed less people than international terrorists in London. Being killed (or badly injured) by a terrorist is extremely unlikely and statistically completely insignificant (apologies to anyone unlucky enough to have been injured, or lost love one/friends).

The original articles concept is little more than a copy of the prologue of Dan Gardner's 2008 book Risk, where he demonstrates that more people were killed by the increase in road travel after the 9/11 attacks, than died in the attacks. He does this not to show that the cars are bad (mmmm'k) but to show how peoples perception of risk is skewed. I think this was Prof. Ayton's aim too, but Kate Devlin decided to make it a little more sensationalist. (Yes, I read the paper).

All this article demonstrates is what an over-blown pile of poo the War On Terror is.

(Deaths due to terrorism in last 10 years < 60, natural deaths of young healthy people for no particular reason (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome) > 6000)

The point about cycling accidents claiming more lives than terrorism is simple a fact and entirely relevant to the study.

I'm not convinced it is a simple fact.

The higher than expected number of casualties is attributed to a change in peoples' behaviour. What caused that change? Whilst it may have been a number of factors, the article and the research paper both attribute the change to terrorism. Whether the casualties are a primary or secondary effect of the initial terrorist act, we still need to consider the root cause.