Shocking moment dangerous driver hits cyclists at speed after drifting onto white line; Jeremy Clarkson hates cycle lanes shocker; Trenching is the new Everesting: 91 ascents of Box Hill in 450km epic ride; Sagan in space? + more on the live blog

Philh68 wrote:

The cyclist in that crash was interviewed on local radio: https://www.abc.net.au/radio/newcastle/programs/breakfast/cycling-safety...

Incredibly, the interviewer asks if there was anything the cyclists could have done to avoid the collision, but not if there was anything the driver could have done.  Are Aussie radio jocks trained to ignore the utterly bleedin' obvious?

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any way of responding on line to the radio station to call them the imbeciles they are.

That's to be expected. There's no point asking the rider what the driver could have done differently because it's a) obvious and b) speculative. An interviewer can only ask about the things within the subject's control. The driver wasn't interviewed.

The question of what else the riders could have done is inane, but that is what you get when you have a national broadcaster that is used for more political free kicks than any other govt service and is constantly pressured to present a "balanced" viewpoint (even though we know balanced just means don't upset the status quo). In any case, it's the sort of question that would be asked in a courtroom by legal counsel trying to establish (or refute) contributory negligence. And it's a radio program and there's no guarantee that listeners have seen or are able to see the video. So as silly a question as it was, it may be better that it was asked and answered.

I was stuck behind a long queue of motor traffic - for several minutes, I tells ya! - waiting to cross Clifton Suspension Bridge this morning.

Someone was sitting in their car at one of the toll gates, on their phone and with their hazard warning lights flashing.

I don't know whether they'd broken down, or if they'd suddenly realised that they couldn't pay the toll, but they were causing tremendous congestion.

I was expecting it to get mentioned as the Daily Mail had picked up the story in that classic newspaper style of this other newspaper says this, and thats our story.

But yes the Telegraph was at it again this weekend, must be target to print 3 stories/opinion pieces per Sunday edition at the moment, and you missed the disabled granny with £3000 of fines for driving through a LTN road, though total non story because it was only £2860 if the fines were paid at the full rate, and actually the council had already quashed all but 1 of the fines anyway.

By that logic, rip out all pavements, crossings, hard shoulders etc. Widen all doors so you can drive into any building.

A little-known fact is that before 1885 when Benz introduced his invention, no one moved in towns at all because it's actually not possible without a car. Trained ring-tailed lemurs brought food to town dwellers, otherwise they'd have starved.

When will they understand that traffic jams are caused by traffic? If you want to get somewhere quickly in a city, don't use a four wheeled vehicle if you can avoid it.

Clarkson, cycling would be good for you even if that paunch would struggle to fit in what often passes for a bike lane to begin with. And what happened to the epiphany he's supposed to have had in Thailand, realising cycling is useful and satisfying? Has that idea been lost to the urge to be controversial?

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Didn't see this reported or countered: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/29/exclusive-cyclists-shun-road...

Apparently the Telegraph stood around pop up cycle lanes at Birmingham, Bradford, Brighton, Bristol, Gloucester, Hull, Liverpool and Southampton, counted 34,726 vehicles and only 608 people cycling.

Additionally, Shaun Bailey (Tory London mayor candidate) promising to pause temporary cycle lanes and suspend LTNs - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/11/29/shaun-bailey-will-pause-.... "The evidence is clear: LTNs have caused gridlock in London, even though there are fewer cars on our streets. By funnelling drivers on to main roads, the scheme has led to massive queues of idling engines pumping out fumes."

Everything the Telegraph prints these days can be safely ignored. Apparently it was once a respectable institution. No idea when.

And the rival mayoral candidate? I wont even say his name. He's an utter clown.

I'll just leave this here

So left leaning website says a left leaning paper is the most honest.   Also in today’s news. The pope found to be catholic 

BudgieBike wrote:

So left leaning website says a left leaning paper is the most honest.   Also in today’s news. The pope found to be catholic 

As the pope is most definitely catholic, I presume you're implying that left leaning papers are more honest.

That is a pretty laughable ranking system.

The i is comparable in quality to The Economist?

The Metro is equivalent to the FT?

The Daily Star is higher quality than The Times?

The Express is higher quality than anything at all?

It does seem a bit of a weird metric doesn't it?

Although to be fair to the author of the graph, they do say that they'd probably score The Economist higher but for a lack of inclusion in studies on 'news' - perhaps rating it as 'commentary' instead?

FT and The Economist should be easily as high as The Grauniad.

Rich_cb wrote:

That is a pretty laughable ranking system. The i is comparable in quality to The Economist? The Metro is equivalent to the FT? The Daily Star is higher quality than The Times? The Express is higher quality than anything at all?

On the page that graphic came from, it does detail that The Economist isn't formally ranked due to lack of information as it's not normally considered a newspaper in studies as it comes out weekly. It is noted that there's no criticisms of it.

The Times suffers because it includes The Sunday Times that has a large number of made up stories and it also suffered as it was the source for about 10% of misleading stories about the EU. It also has a large number of successfull PCC complaints against it.

I think the chart looks biased, but I didn't find any other direct comparison from a quick search. Can you provide a more accurate and unbiased comparison?

Rich_cb wrote:

That is a pretty laughable ranking system. The i is comparable in quality to The Economist? The Metro is equivalent to the FT? The Daily Star is higher quality than The Times? The Express is higher quality than anything at all?

If you go to the website you'll be able to understand how the ranking has taken place. Then you may criticise the methodology rather than the output. Currently you are falling for the popular fallacy, the argument from personal incredulity (AKA appeal to common sense).

You're assuming I haven't been to the website. What type of fallacy is that?

I have.

The ranking is a joke.

There are only two types of inaccurate articles that score you negative points. If a paper misleads in other areas there are barely any negative consequences.

The ranking also openly relies on subjective statements, some even anonymously attributed.

Rich_cb wrote:

You're assuming I haven't been to the website. What type of fallacy is that? I have. The ranking is a joke. There are only two types of inaccurate articles that score you negative points. If a paper misleads in other areas there are barely any negative consequences. The ranking also openly relies on subjective statements, some even anonymously attributed.

I'd be interested in seeing a more rigorous comparison of UK papers (which are generally acknowledged to be amongst the worst for western Europe). Can you find some better comparisons?

I'm not aware of any.

Most press rankings, ironically, seem to be designed to mislead the public.

Yeah, my admittedly brief search didn't find anything better and to be honest I posted that diagram in part to provoke a response.

I would agree, however that The Guardian does seem to be one of the more accurate news sources even though they are heavily left leaning (though that does align somewhat with my beliefs). Unfortunately, most of the right-wing press is either filled with un-truths or stuck behind a paywall (or both) so it's tricky to get a balance.

I think the Telegraph, Guardian and Times are about equal when it comes to honesty.

They all lie to support their editorial position.

The Guardian often misleads in quite a subtle fashion, either constantly reframing arguments until a nuanced position becomes a firm fact or deliberately omitting the key facts that undermine the argument they're making.

The Telegraph prefers the classic 'I'm a keen cyclist but...' way of presenting half truths and deception. They seem to omit less than the Guardian IMO.

There also seems far more diversity of opinion allowed in the Telegraph/Spectator/Times than there is in the Guardian.

Rich_cb wrote:

You're assuming I haven't been to the website. What type of fallacy is that? I have. The ranking is a joke. There are only two types of inaccurate articles that score you negative points. If a paper misleads in other areas there are barely any negative consequences. The ranking also openly relies on subjective statements, some even anonymously attributed.

That's more like it, you are now starting to criticise the methodology.... what would make it even better would be to make the criticism coherent. Baby steps though, well done on progress so far....

Care to point out the parts that are not coherent?

Rich_cb wrote:

Care to point out the parts that are not coherent?

It's a matter of presenting your arguments in an understandable way. You fired off a retort which starts with an assertion/accusation on my assumptions. I merely pointed you to the source. It would have been difficult to know that you had actually visited it from reading your OP, as you seemed to dislike the output at that point and made no mention of the methodology.

Then follows subjective, hyperbolic opinion ("The ranking is a joke")This doesn't look particularly rational, and suggests (maybe wrongly or unintentionally I accept) of more of an emotional response to HPs post.

The last couple of sentences were much better and gave some arguable critique to the data and its collation. That's really the diamond that you want to present, but you must make sure that the reader can get to it without being browbeaten with your opinion first. Remember that you want them to come to that opinion themselves - you're just going to present the evidence.

All in all much better argument, but let down by the intro. I think it deserves a good C+

Hope that helps.

Your original reply began with "If you".

Clearly that was an assumption on your part.

I was merely correcting your incorrect assumption.

I then joked about fallacies to poke fun at your patronising tone.

I then presented my opinion followed by the reasoning behind it.

A perfectly rational structure.

D - for your critique.

Perhaps you should stick to shouting "Troll!" at people, it seems more your level.

Rich_cb wrote:

Your original reply began with "If you". Clearly that was an assumption on your part. I was merely correcting your incorrect assumption. I then joked about fallacies to poke fun at your patronising tone. I then presented my opinion followed by the reasoning behind it. A perfectly rational structure. D - for your critique. Perhaps you should stick to shouting "Troll!" at people, it seems more your level.

You asked for my feedback, I gave it. Horse to water and all that. Have a great day 

Edit: By the way, there's only one individual on this site who I'll shout Troll at. It's not you. You're not so bad, and have some potential for better things.

You gave an unsolicited opinion and I asked you to back it up.

You couldn't.

Rich_cb wrote:

You gave an unsolicited opinion and I asked you to back it up. You couldn't.

Aawww never mind. You'll understand when you're older. Now run along there's a good chap