helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Roland Perry on 15 Apr 2010 14:21 In message <82masfFbdqU1(a)mid.individual.net>, at 18:04:15 on Wed, 14 Apr 2010, john wright <john(a)pegasus.f2s.com> 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"? > >I think JMS is using the standard abbreviation for a "published piece >of peer reviewed research". Yes, I appreciate that. But people publish "papers" that contradict each other, so why the assumption that anything in a "paper" has to be true, and conversely that anything not in a paper is likely to be untrue (on the feeble grounds that anyone wanting to prove their opinion is true should be forced to go to the bother of encapsulating it in a paper)? -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 15 Apr 2010 14:25 In message <1d1cs5tmtuoj2jpi6cjnk44cuj3bupic5s(a)4ax.com>, at 19:15:38 on Wed, 14 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>Why is that the only evidence you'll accept (and what makes you think >>the book hasn't been peer-reviewed)? > >Eeeer : I could write a book which was totally at odds with the >statements in *your* book. Would that make *my* book more acceptable >than yours - or less? It wouldn't. >So are you now suggesting that the book has been "peer reviewed"? No (although it's been supported a very many people). But "peer reviewing" simply means going to the bother of finding a group of people who agree with you. >Perhaps I am not so naive as you; just because something appears in a >book does not make it true, And nor does appearing in a peer reviewed paper. -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 15 Apr 2010 14:27 In message <hq4rmt$gf1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, at 17:49:25 on Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> remarked: >>>> I'm not claiming a conscious complete lack of caution/respect; >>>>rather that a more vulnerable-looking cyclist is likely to be given >>>>slightly more caution/respect. The corollary of which is that the >>>>less-vulnerable-looking will be given relatively less caution/respect. >>>> Or are you claiming that motorists won't give more >>>>vulnerable-looking cyclists more caution/respect? >>> >>> In general, competent looking, considerate road users will get more >>>respect. I'm sure that motorcyclists overtake me in circumstances >>>where they would not pass more dozy looking road users. >> You are using "respect" with a different meaning. I am implying >>"caution", you are implying "trusting". > > I am implying appreciation / regard / esteem, the normal meaning of >'giving respect to someone'. Whereas I mean "giving them more consideration, showing more care". > Road users will tend follow dozy looking road users more closely Another highly ambiguous word. Perhaps you mean "diligently" rather than "at a much sorter distance"? >than they will competent looking ones, but I don't know how that fits >into your interpretation of 'caution'. "Diligently" would indeed fit my idea of caution. -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 15 Apr 2010 14:30 In message <1jgyhh6.zdp8q81p4s0dxN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, at 22:41:39 on Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked: >> >> I'm not claiming a conscious complete lack of caution/respect; rather >> >> that a more vulnerable-looking cyclist is likely to be given slightly >> >> more caution/respect. The corollary of which is that the >> >> less-vulnerable-looking will be given relatively less caution/respect. >> >> >> >> Or are you claiming that motorists won't give more vulnerable-looking >> >> cyclists more caution/respect? >> > >> >I'm pointing out that motorists tend to treat cyclists with caution and >> >respect. >> >> Please answer the question. > >I have, clearly and in English. q: "are you claiming that motorists won't give more vulnerable-looking cyclists more caution/respect?" a: "I'm pointing out that motorists tend to treat cyclists with caution and respect." Which doesn't answer the question about a possible sliding scale, and the "more" in my question. >>What I said was that (probably subconsciously) they >> will give them slightly less respect. > ><shrug> You make an incorrect statement, you have nothing to back it up. Only common sense. Sorry, I don't have a peer reviewed paper defining "common sense". -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 15 Apr 2010 14:32
In message <82melrF4bpU1(a)mid.individual.net>, at 19:08:58 on Wed, 14 Apr 2010, john wright <john(a)pegasus.f2s.com> remarked: >On a related topic one is lead to wonder whether the higher rate of >death amongst female cyclists in London is a statistical blip (it could >be...) or a real effect. Some have suggested that it could be caused by lower spatial awareness, and therefore unwittingly getting into potentially dangerous situations. -- Roland Perry |