helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 14 Apr 2010 10:14 On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:18:09 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <umb9s51npffqagugg6loi9irq9ln0dcl92(a)4ax.com>, at 18:56:07 on >Tue, 13 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:01:21 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> >>wrote: >> >><snip> > >>>OK, I don't mind you moving the goalposts away from discussing *serious* >>>head injuries... >> >>Not really - you didn't seem to able contribute anything. > >On the contrary, you don't seem to be able to accept contributions. > >>>>Do you think that the wearing of a cycle helmet - by the average >>>>cyclist - will most likely reduce or increase the level of injury if >>>>they are involved in an accident? >>> >>>Depends on the nature of the accident. For example, it'll mitigate a few >>>very low level bruises and scrapes, at the risk of triggering a neck >>>injury. >> >>Forget about the nature of *the* accident - I am talking about "on >>average" - do you understand what that means in this context? >> >>You may have another go at answering the question - will it reduce or >>increase the level of injury? > >There's no one answer to the question because it depends on the >circumstances. Absolute bollocks. It is a simple question - not circumstance specific at all - "on average" The fact that you refuse to answer is sufficient.
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 14 Apr 2010 10:18 On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:53:57 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <d7d9s5df97120ik3um3m8mo4m4kc61pgep(a)4ax.com>, at 19:20:11 on >Tue, 13 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>Why don't you just point out the single most credible paper that >>supports your view. > >Why this obsession with "papers"? You aren't an academic, who thinks >nothing else counts, are you? Not at all. But I have been on the receiving end of a number of arguments of what I have said needing proof - so it applies to other people as well. It is actually quite reasonable; otherwise people would say all sorts of shite and try and get away with it. Such as: "FACT that the Office of Nation Statistics gives the number of pedestrain deaths from trips & slips for 2007 (over 3,000) as being higher than the number killed in all incidents involving vehicles." Obviously bollocks - which the poster cannot prove - but he still believes that it is correct So - why do you not point out a single credible paper which supports your view? Per hasp because there just isn't one?
From: john wright on 14 Apr 2010 10:45 On 13/04/2010 18:03, john wright wrote: > On 13/04/2010 17:28, Nick Finnigan wrote: >> Roland Perry wrote: >>> In message <3q87s5laid5djm3ci5dtttuv7du22rqt02(a)4ax.com>, at 23:51:04 >>> on Mon, 12 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>>> And you can ride with a helmet and risk motorists paying you less >>>>>>> attention because you are "protected". >>>>>> >>>>>> Why would I, as a motorist think such a thing? >>>>> >>>>> It's called Risk Compensation. Read John Adams' book. >>>> >>>> And there is some proof that Risk Compensation is applicable to >>>> cyclists wearing helmets somewhere is there? >>> >>> It applies to all situations where a risk is assessed. >> >> Road users don't assess risks. > > Few people do in a formal sense. Part of the problem is that people's > general perception of risk is highly skewed compared to the real risk > involved in something. > > Ask people what they think the risk of, say, travelling in an aeroplane > would be, and they might well estimate it as very much higher than the > real risk. > > Ask people what they think the risk of, say, travelling in a car would > be, and they might well estimate it as very much lower than the real risk. As a postscript to that, and if it interests anyone, then one should read "Irrationality" by Stuart Sutherland. He died in 1992 but this book is still regarded as a classic. (They do say one of the things no one can publish onm for fear of libel law tourism is "lie detectors". Amongst other thing he blows some of the gaffe on these but libel laws can't touch a dead person...) -- John Wright Use your imagination Marvin! Life's bad enough as it is - why invent any more of it.
From: Roland Perry on 14 Apr 2010 12:07 In message <5ejbs5hn6ftv6scl6sl8r0814dns6nm08n(a)4ax.com>, at 15:18:35 on Wed, 14 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >why do you not point out a single credible paper which supports >your view? Why the obsession that everything in life has to be proved in a "paper"? -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 14 Apr 2010 12:08
In message <bajbs5docb3urp1vk6rdk6edr0fv213bmr(a)4ax.com>, at 15:14:27 on Wed, 14 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >It is a simple question - not circumstance specific at all - "on >average" > >The fact that you refuse to answer is sufficient. It's a stupid question, you are asking to average completely different things. -- Roland Perry |