Parson's Green

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 4958349, member: 45"]According to wiki, one of the unexploded bombs had a mobile phone used as a timer.[/QUOTE]
The murderers at Madrid weren't founder members of the Four Lions bomb club then, more is the pity.

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

That is the line from Ealing Broadway into town. It's always crowded in the mornings.

On the Wimbledon branch, not the Ealing Broadway...
But be it Wimbledon, Ealing Broadway or Richmond they are all crowded at that time of the morning...

 

[slowmotion]

On the Wimbledon branch, not the Ealing Broadway...
But be it Wimbledon, Ealing Broadway or Richmond they are all crowded at that time of the morning...

Our daughter got off at Parsons Green every school day for six years when she was at Lady Margaret's. There would have been plenty of school kids on that train this morning. For a child just starting at "Big School", it must have been utterly terrifying.

 

[CanucksTraveller]

Perhaps the absence of any remains of an incinerated terrorist is significant ?

No, it's not. There are no incinerated victims, and hardly any damage in the carriage, so a failed suicide perpetrator could quite conceivably have evacuated with the others with burn injuries.

 

[CanucksTraveller]

[QUOTE 4958354, member: 45"]The Police are saying it was a timer.[/QUOTE]
Source please? All I've seen so far is the BBC stating that they "understand" a timer was involved.

 

[slowmotion]

Source please? All I've seen so far is the BBC stating that they "understand" a timer was involved.

I heard the Radio Four reports at 1pm today. Extremely light on facts, but absolute masterpieces of whatiffery and hopelessly wild speculation-on-speculation. Pretty pathetic really.

 

[Pro Tour Punditry]

I am involved in a "large scale scenario" <I cannot remember the exact wording> next week. I shall be sure to refer to this thread (and others on CC) if anyone asks me "what do people think?"

 

[PK99]

And you are much more likely to be killed by a car (or a bicycle) walking to or from the tube than you are to die of a terrorist attack on the actual tube.

historically, that is correct. But is it so now and in the future?

The Spanish commuter train bombs are relevant.

 

[Tin Pot]

[QUOTE 4958497, member: 9609"]I really don't see how you can make the comparison at all. How many of the cyclists were killed for a cause in a pre planned attack and then compare that figure to those killed in terrorism[/QUOTE]
What's difficult about comparing the chances of dying cycling to the chances of dying due to a terrorist attack?

The only collision point is that you aren't removing any cycling terrorist deaths, and I can't remember any of those.

So with the broad strokes these stats provide, the idea of stopping using the tube and starting cycling instead because of your fear or terrorism, is not reasonable.

If you want to spend time finding other stats to prove/disprove, go ahead.

 

[Tin Pot]

historically, that is correct. But is it so now and in the future?

Yes

 

[GrumpyGregry]

historically, that is correct. But is it so now and in the future?

The Spanish commuter train bombs are relevant.

How many Spanish cyclists and pedestrians have been killed commuting since those terrible events?

 

[jefmcg]

historically, that is correct. But is it so now and in the future?

Yes. In almost every country in the world the number of road deaths dwarfs the terrorism toll. In the USA in 2001 over 42,000 people died on the roads.

The exception is Iraq, where the number of deaths so a little under 10,000 each for vehicle and terrorism.

 

[Markymark]

[QUOTE 4958594, member: 9609"]because it is just a ridiculous comparison. Here's another, 40,000 a year are dying from air pollution so we may as well ignore the minor inconvenience of terrorism and road deaths.

Personally I think terrorism is hideous in the extreme and trying to play it down as not that big a thing is just odd.[/QUOTE]
Nobody is. It's the assumption that switching from travelling by tube to travelling by bike means you're less likely to be killed. It's an incorrect assumption. It's also sad to alter how you live from what is a very small risk to life.

 

[nickyboy]

[QUOTE 4958594, member: 9609"]because it is just a ridiculous comparison. Here's another, 40,000 a year are dying from air pollution so we may as well ignore the minor inconvenience of terrorism and road deaths.

Personally I think terrorism is hideous in the extreme and trying to play it down as not that big a thing is just odd.[/QUOTE]

It isn't playing it down. It is trying to understand the real risks involved.

The reality is that if someone wants to reduce their risk of being killed in London, they should stop cycling and start taking the tube

 

[nickyboy]

[QUOTE 4958638, member: 9609"]I no longer watch or listen to the news (other than unwillingly catching the headlines of major events) but is there really someone at an official level (may be Boris?) saying to cycle rather than use public transport? If there is then it is clearly daft as isis will start blowing up groups of cyclists or crashing into them. they are always going to target the popular

Yes I totally appreciate being a victim of terrorism is extremely low, and if we want to live a long and healthy life we firstly need to change our diet - but whatever, terrorism is just so abhorrent that it can be viewed and treated out of proportion to other risks.[/QUOTE]

I can understand this response to terrorism but this is exactly the response the terrorists want. Their agenda is to create an environment where the public, due to "concerns about terrorism", bring about a change in government policy that the terrorists want to happen

Terrorism in itself achieves nothing. It is only it's affect on public opinion that matters. Hence the need for people to keep a firm sense of perspective of the terrorism risk