London Assembly Transport Committee's review of cycle schemes

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

I might ask - given that you have now asserted, or reasserted, your opinion of my words three times - whether you are now speaking for me.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Are other people interpreting Ozzage? It seems to me that they are discussing your interpretation with you.

In what possible way can they disagree with my interpretation of his words without having one of their own?

Sincere question - are you trolling?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

They can disagree with that which you are saying using your interpretation of Ozzage's words

Yes, and I can disagree with what they are saying, using their intepretation of Ozzage's words.

Do you see how this works? It's called a discussion. it requires two differing interpretations. It's a little difficult with just one.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

So why not leave aside the interpretation stuff and just post your own opinions?

Is this advice only directed at me, or does it include the people who were discussing their interpretation with me?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Is that because I am the only one currently here, or because you are being illogical?

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Because you write, apparently on Ozzage's behalf, and other people reply to you. Nothing illogical there.

No. Other people present an interpretation of Ozzage's words. I disagree with that intepretation, and present my own.

For some unfathomable reason, you have a problem with this.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Here is an example - Ravenbait's interpretation of the quote in question.

... it is a tad hyperbolic. What is the relationship of "virtually" to zero? I would expect "virtually" to be the equivalent of "statistically insignificant"

I freely admit that my interpretation may be wrong. I find it a little odd, however, that I am the only one who is precluded from discussing what Ozzage meant.

Anyway, I expect the final wicket to fall soon. Better things to be doing...

 

[dellzeqq]

when I see bicycles outnumber private cars, and by a considerable margin, on main routes in to London then I'm tempted to put Ozzage's hyperbole in the box marked 'flat earthers'

 

[Ravenbait]

What a strangely one-eyed view of this discussion you seem to have.

What, Adrian is relying on parallax to determine distances rather than stereo images? I quite like that. It means he's adjusting position slightly to get a better look instead of deciding that his brain's interpretation is correct.

Sam

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

when I see bicycles outnumber private cars, and by a considerable margin,

on main routes in to London then I'm tempted to put Ozzage's hyperbole in the box marked 'flat earthers'

How about on Route 211 from Waterloo to Hammersmith, where in this clip, I count ~25 cyclists, and getting on for a thousand private motor vehicles (excluding vans, buses and black cabs)?

Or - from suburban London - Route 230 from Walthamstow to Wood Green, where in this clip, I counted ~400 private motor vehicles (excluding buses, vans, and so on), and only 4 cyclists?

I think it's a little harsh to pull out the "flat earther" label on the basis of some routes in London, when other routes in London tend, at the very least, towards the described pattern of cycling in the UK.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

What, Adrian is relying on parallax to determine distances rather than stereo images? I quite like that. It means he's adjusting position slightly to get a better look instead of deciding that his brain's interpretation is correct.

Sam

Well, yes, parallax relies on a change of position, but I'm not sure it relies on the exclusive use of one eye. Indeed, from a stationary position, two eyes are rather recommended.

 

[dellzeqq]

The A3/A24 corridor, Kennington Road, and Blackfriars Bridge sees more cyclists than private cars in rush hour. I've seen 35 cyclists waiting at one red light on the Clapham Road, and 33 on Kennington Road. So I'm not being harsh when I describe the disastrous 'virtually nobody cycles' Ozzage as a flat-earther - particularly when he declines to show us the drawing....

 

[Ravenbait]

Well, yes, parallax relies on a change of position, but I'm not sure it relies on the exclusive use of one eye. Indeed, from a stationary position, two eyes are rather recommended.

It doesn't rely on the exclusive use of one eye, but is rendered necessary by having only one eye.

I should know.

You seemed to be suggesting that a one-eyed view of the world restricts adequate function. I can assure you that this is not the case unless one wishes to play fast-moving ball games or join the armed services.

Sam

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

It doesn't rely on the exclusive use of one eye, but is rendered necessary by having only one eye.

I should know.

Nope. Parallax is used to determine the distance to stars, planets, and so on. Having one eye is not necessary to do this. Quite obviously.

You seemed to be suggesting that a one-eyed view of the world restricts adequate function.

No, I wasn't doing that at all.

 

[theclaud]

Nope. Parallax is used to determine the distance to stars, planets, and so on. Having one eye is not necessary to do this. Quite obviously.

I think you're misreading Ravenbait's post - she means that if you only have one eye it is certainly necessary, not that it is requires having only one eye.