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 29 Mar 2010 01:10 In message <a85vq5558df9fbe1qf80murpogsub21hlu(a)4ax.com>, at 18:47:04 on Sun, 28 Mar 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >"wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being >involved in an accident." Because motorists pass closer if the cyclist appears to be better protected? -- Roland Perry
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 29 Mar 2010 05:03 On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 06:10:01 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <a85vq5558df9fbe1qf80murpogsub21hlu(a)4ax.com>, at 18:47:04 on >Sun, 28 Mar 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>"wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being >>involved in an accident." > >Because motorists pass closer if the cyclist appears to be better >protected? Ah yes - that excellent research which was carried out by Dr Ian Walker. No doubt you will be aware of the criticisms of that paper. Have you read about the "biased" presentation, including the fact that Dr Walker chose to present his results graphically with a non-zero origin for his axis showing Main Overtaking Proximity which gives a false representation of the results. Any way it was not all bad news, he also showed: "Drivers passed closer to the rider the further out into the road he was." "The closer a driver is to the cyclist, the greater chance of a collision." Ie The further out in to the centre of the road is the cyclist, then the greater chance of collision. Excellent advice. Many thanks for reminding us of it - appreciated. -- 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: Roland Perry on 29 Mar 2010 05:37 In message <l6r0r5hjbriqeicsecrg4qmtprc7ga0qhu(a)4ax.com>, at 10:03:51 on Mon, 29 Mar 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>>"wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being >>>involved in an accident." >> >>Because motorists pass closer if the cyclist appears to be better >>protected? > >Ah yes - that excellent research which was carried out by Dr Ian >Walker. > >No doubt you will be aware of the criticisms of that paper. It's always possible to criticise even the most obvious of conclusions. -- Roland Perry
From: Albert T Cone on 31 Mar 2010 05:18 JMS wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 06:10:01 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> > wrote: > >> In message <a85vq5558df9fbe1qf80murpogsub21hlu(a)4ax.com>, at 18:47:04 on >> Sun, 28 Mar 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>> "wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being >>> involved in an accident." >> Because motorists pass closer if the cyclist appears to be better >> protected? > > > Ah yes - that excellent research which was carried out by Dr Ian > Walker. > > No doubt you will be aware of the criticisms of that paper. > > Have you read about the "biased" presentation, including the fact > that Dr Walker chose to present his results graphically with a > non-zero origin for his axis showing Main Overtaking Proximity which > gives a false representation of the results. That is a perfectly proper way to resent data with a bias - it maximises the resolution with which the data can be read. It only gives a false impression of the data if the reader doesn't pay attention to the axes; that is not the fault of the author.
From: boltar2003 on 31 Mar 2010 05:42
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:18:03 +0100 Albert T Cone <a.k.kirby(a)durham.ac.uk> wrote: >> Have you read about the "biased" presentation, including the fact >> that Dr Walker chose to present his results graphically with a >> non-zero origin for his axis showing Main Overtaking Proximity which >> gives a false representation of the results. > >That is a perfectly proper way to resent data with a bias - it maximises >the resolution with which the data can be read. It only gives a false >impression of the data if the reader doesn't pay attention to the axes; >that is not the fault of the author. On the contrary , a lot of authors do it deliberately in the hope that many people WONT look at the axes and even if they do the psychological effect of the graph can still bias them towards what the author wants them to belief. You can see these dodgy graphs everywhere from sales charts to government statistics to arguments for and against climate change. B2003 |