On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:19:26 -0700 (PDT), spindrift
 wrote:

>from Wiki.
>
>
>2007 cyclists controversy.
>
>In his article for The Times on 27 December 2007, Parris took a strong
>line against cyclists, beginning his column with
>
>
>"A festive custom we could do worse than foster would be stringing
>piano wire across country lanes to decapitate cyclists",
>
>[4] going on to denounce cyclists on a number of grounds, particularly
>their alleged propensity for littering.
>
>This came as a shock to many cyclists, including some who had
>previously been caught by similar wires. Responses in the paper have
>included letters[5] and a column in reply mentioning, among other
>things, that litter is often found along all-motor vehicle routes.
>
>On 3 January, Parris apologised,
>
>"It was meant humorously but so many cyclists have taken it seriously
>that I plainly misjudged. I am sorry."[9]
>
>
>
>
>BBC News:
>
>A Brinscall teenager has died after being thrown off his off-road
>motorbike at a dirt track near Burscough.
<snip>

>A post mortem examination is due to take place today.


Which bit were you drawing attention to?


It is understood the teenager was not wearing a crash helmet and
suffered serious head injuries. 

The boy had suffered massive head injuries and we took him to Royal
Preston Hospital.

Or perhaps the bit that he may have been trespassing on private land?

David Hansen  gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

>>>Try Bob Davis, "Death on the Streets, Cars and the mythology of road
>>>safety" and follow the references.

>>Oh yes- the book which was printed thirteen years ago - you  would have
>>thought things may have moved on since then.

> Many books were printed much more than 13 years ago. That does not mean
> that what they have to say is irrelevant.

Indeed. However, many books printed a damn sight more recently than 13 
years ago are so badly outdated now as to be useless. It's all down to 
the timeliness of the content, and whether or not the subject it deals 
with changes over time.

> I note that you have attacked the age of the book, rather than the
> arguments it makes. 

Umm, I notice that you snipped the bit where he did exactly that...

> It is the sort of diversionary tactic adopted by those with no better 
> arguments.

Well, quite.