Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Roland Perry on 19 Apr 2010 15:27 In message <pihks5th673qr7adsl46ahdm5edot30u59(a)4ax.com>, at 00:38:19 on Sun, 18 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >Feel free to list those cases where it was found that a helmet made >things worse in a real accident - rather than in an insurance man's >imagination. > >A list of one will be a good start. Bigger head, more twisting leverage. -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 19 Apr 2010 15:20 In message <sigks59n1dligt9g2qvfkomvpmv9pbmn9t(a)4ax.com>, at 00:23:30 on Sun, 18 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >I suspect Roland that anyone reading your fatuous post above : "Do you >have a peer reviewed study that confirms that point of view?" would >conclude that you had indeed lost the plot - So peer reviews are not, after all, the be all and end all. Thanks for the u-turn, unexpected though it is. >or were, as some people would say : "a knob". That is putting things >mildly. Don't be a sore loser. -- Roland Perry
From: Derek C on 19 Apr 2010 16:22 On 19 Apr, 19:54, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > Derek C wrote: > > So why are there about 2500 reported killed and seriously injured > > cyclists in the UK every year? Only about 2% of journeys are made by > > bicycle, but cyclists make up 9% of the total KSI (killed and > > seriously injured) in UK road accidents. This figure has fallen from > > about 6500 in the mid1980s, a period during which helmet wearing has > > become much more commonplace! Figures from the DfT. > > Let's be clear... You /are/ the same person criticising BHRF for > hilariously inept use of statistics, yes? > > Pete. > -- So are you claiming that the DfT (not my) statistics are incorrect then? Derek C
From: Derek C on 19 Apr 2010 16:26 On 19 Apr, 20:24, Roland Perry <rol...(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > In message > <be3a3aaa-61f3-4bb3-8f4a-3bef92de6...(a)b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, at > 11:03:19 on Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> > remarked: > > >So why are there about 2500 reported killed and seriously injured > >cyclists in the UK every year? Only about 2% of journeys are made by > >bicycle, but cyclists make up 9% of the total KSI (killed and > >seriously injured) in UK road accidents. > > Maybe it's because of they way they flagrantly disobey traffic law? > -- Probably doesn't help! About 5% of the cyclists killed in London had jumped a red light prior to their fatal accidents. OK the the other 95% probably get away with it, but that's not really the point. Derek C
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 19 Apr 2010 17:42
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:17:40 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <d7gks55jrllho1lc464s2nch2buunmj6jf(a)4ax.com>, at 00:17:16 on >Sun, 18 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: > >>>Peer review of a statistical paper (which this sort of risk analysis is) >>>is useless if none of the peers are suitably qualified. > >>>Although they don't all have to work for insurance companies, obviously; >>>some can work in academia. >> >>So a "peer" with a statistical background but not calling himself an >>actuary would not be acceptable to review such a paper. > >Oh, you are making things up now. Remember: I said "an actuarial >background", not "someone calling themselves an actuary". as a matter of interest - what do you think is the difference between having an actuarial background and being an actuary. Are you in either class? >>(Have you found a suitable paper yet?) > >It was the papers that you are so fond of which would need this >different kind of review. But seeing as you ask, please list some >papers that support your view (and if possible the credentials of the >reviewers). Ah yes - the good old prove the negative. Sorry sunshine the ball remains in your court. -- Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371 All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631 |