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 15 Apr 2010 14:44 On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:08:41 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >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. J: Does the average motorist ever break the speed limit? Roland Perry: Don't be stupid it depends if you mean on a motorway or not. Totally different things. ffs For those who missed it - here is the really difficult question for Roland: 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? -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
From: Nick Finnigan on 15 Apr 2010 15:02 ke10(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > In article <hq58bc$te9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >> ke10(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: >>> In article <hq4rmt$gf1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >>> Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Road users will tend follow dozy looking road users more closely than >>>> they will competent looking ones, > > I suppose the two go together. But I would say I have a notion of a "normal" > distance to stay behind a cyclist at a given speed, assuming overtaking to be > impractical for the moment, and if the cyclist is > wobbly I consciously stay further behind. 'Wobbly' tends to go with 'slower speed' though.
From: Nick Finnigan on 15 Apr 2010 15:03 Roland Perry wrote: > In message <hq4rmt$gf1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, at 17:49:25 on > Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> remarked: >>>>> Or are you claiming that motorists won't give more >>>>> vulnerable-looking cyclists more caution/respect? >>>> >> >> I am implying appreciation / regard / esteem, the normal meaning of >> 'giving respect to someone'. > > Whereas I mean "giving them more consideration, showing more care". OK, that is clearer. Hmm, only if you count children as 'vulnerable looking' rather than 'untrained and unpredictable looking'. >> 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"? Again, I am using the normal sense of 'at a shorter 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. Following diligently would imply continuing to follow (at a close distance) even when there were perfectly good opportunities to pass. Which would not be considerate.
From: john wright on 15 Apr 2010 15:16 On 15/04/2010 19:21, Roland Perry wrote: > 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)? Science is about debate, or it should be. Also we know the peer review process can fail - two examples, Andrew Wakefield and Pons/Fleischmann. Of course to take part in any debate you need to know what you're talking about. -- John Wright Use your imagination Marvin! Life's bad enough as it is - why invent any more of it.
From: Steve Firth on 15 Apr 2010 18:00
Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > >> 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. Which part of the answer do you not understand? Have you stopped beating your wife? > >>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". Ah yes, "common sense", that last resort of the scoundrel. |