info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW (IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) by Andre Jute
118 views
Skip to first unread message
Andre Jute
May 10, 2013, 8:54:54 PM5/10/13
to
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY CYCLE HELMET LAW
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
by Andre Jute
It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking free individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as much constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or Japanese collective citizen, though it is true that the American is controlled in different areas of his activity than the European or the Japanese. To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for instance the ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism rather than liberty. In this article I examine whether the lack of a mandatory bicycle helmet law in the USA is barbaric or an emanation of that rugged liberty more evident in rhetoric than reality.
Any case for intervention by the state must be made on moral and statistical grounds. Examples are driving licences, crush zones on cars, seatbelts, age restrictions on alcohol sales, and a million other interventions, all now accepted unremarked in the States as part of the regulatory landscape, but all virulently opposed in their day.
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and unexceptional general morality.
In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were injured.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto accepted by most Americans as safe enough.
Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken
By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in the US:
Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding
Source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/VTPIpuchertq.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGyEjHFrJThRTYB53Wt7vubHxju7Q
It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater per mile/per trip/per hour danger.
This gives us the overall perspective but says nothing about wearing a cycling helmet.
HELMET WEAR AT THE EXTREME END OF CYCLING RISK
What we really want to know is: what chance of the helmet saving your life? The authorities in New York made a compilation covering the years 1996 to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries (3,462) in cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of the study was an overview usable for city development planning, not helmet advocacy, so helmet usage was only noted for part of the period among the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases. Here are some conclusions:
• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal crashes
Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
This concatenation of facts suggests very strongly that not wearing a helmet may be particularly dangerous.
• It looks like wearing a helmet saved roundabout 33 cyclists or so (of the 333 seriously injured for whom helmet use is known) from dying.
• If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those in the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived.
• If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less firm to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved the cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33 noted above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a thirty buck helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political consideration difficult to overlook.
SO HOW MANY CYCLISTS CAN HELMETS SAVE ACROSS THE NATION?
New York is not the United States but we're not seeking certainly, only investigating whether a moral imperative for action appears.
First off, the 52,000 cyclists hurt cannot be directly related to the very serious injuries which were the only ones counted in the New York compilation. But a fatality is a fatality anywhere and the fraction of head injuries in the fatalities is pretty constant.
So, with a caution, we can say that of 716 cycling fatalities nationwide, helmet use could have saved at least 70 and very likely more towards a possible upper limit of around 400. Again the statistical extension must be tempered by the knowledge that some impacts are so heavy that no helmet can save the cyclist. Still, if even half the impacts resulting in fatal head trauma is too heavy for a helmet to mitigate, possibly around 235 cyclists might live rather than die on the roads for simply wearing a helmet. Every year. That's an instant reduction in cyclist road fatalities of one third. Once more we have arrived at a statistical, moral and political fact that is hard to ignore: Helmet wear could save many lives.
THE CASE AGAINST MANDATORY HELMET LAWS
• Compulsion is anti-Constitutional, an assault on the freedom of the citizen to choose his own manner of living and dying
• Many other actitivities cause fatal head injuries. So why not insist they should all be put in helmets?
• 37% of bicycle fatalities involve alcohol, and 23% were legally drunk, and you'll never get these drunks in helmets anyway
• We should leave the drunks to their fate; they're not real cyclists anyway
• Helmets are not perfect anyway
• Helmets cause cyclists to stop cycling, which is a cost to society in health losses
• Many more motorists die on the roads than cyclists. Why not insist that motorists wear helmets inside their cars?
• Helmets don't save lives -- that's a myth put forward by commercial helmet makers
• Helmets are too heavily promoted
• Helmet makers overstate the benefits of helmets
• A helmet makes me look like a dork
• Too few cyclists will be saved to make the cost worthwhile
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY HELMET LAW IN THE STATES
• 235 or more additional cyclists' lives saved
• 716 deaths of cyclists on the road when a third or more of those deaths can easily be avoided is a national disgrace
• Education has clearly failed
• Anti-helmet zealots in the face of the evidence from New York are still advising cyclists not to wear helmets
• An example to the next generation of cyclists
• A visible sign of a commitment to cycling safety, which may attract more people to cycling
© Copyright Andre Jute 2010, 2013. Free for reproduction in non-profit journals and sites as long as the entire article is reproduced in full including this copyright and permission notice.
(IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
by Andre Jute
It is a risible myth that your average American is a tall-walking free individual untrammeled by government: he is in fact just as much constricted as a European soft-socialist consumerist or Japanese collective citizen, though it is true that the American is controlled in different areas of his activity than the European or the Japanese. To some the uncontrolled areas of American life, for instance the ability to own and use firearms, smacks of barbarism rather than liberty. In this article I examine whether the lack of a mandatory bicycle helmet law in the USA is barbaric or an emanation of that rugged liberty more evident in rhetoric than reality.
Any case for intervention by the state must be made on moral and statistical grounds. Examples are driving licences, crush zones on cars, seatbelts, age restrictions on alcohol sales, and a million other interventions, all now accepted unremarked in the States as part of the regulatory landscape, but all virulently opposed in their day.
HOW DANGEROUS IS CYCLING?
Surprisingly, cycling can be argued to be "safe enough", given only that one is willing to count the intangible benefits of health through exercise, generally acknowledged as substantial. Here I shall make no effort to quantify those health benefits because the argument I'm putting forward is conclusively made by harder statistics and unexceptional general morality.
In the representative year of 2008, the last for which comprehesive data is available, 716 cyclists died on US roads, and 52,000 were injured.
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
The most convenient way to grasp the meaning of these statistics is to compare cycling with motoring, the latter ipso facto accepted by most Americans as safe enough.
Compared to a motorist a cyclist is:
11 times MORE likely to die PER MILE travelled
2.9 times MORE likely to die PER TRIP taken
By adding information about the relative frequency/length/duration of journeys of cyclists and motorists, we can further conclude that in the US:
Compared to a motorist, a cyclist is:
3 to 4 times MORE likely to die PER HOUR riding
3 to 4 times LESS likely to die IN A YEAR's riding
Source: http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/VTPIpuchertq.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGyEjHFrJThRTYB53Wt7vubHxju7Q
It is the last number, that the average cyclist is 3 to 4 times less likely to die in a year's riding than a motorist, and enjoys all the benefits of healthy exercise, that permits us to ignore the greater per mile/per trip/per hour danger.
This gives us the overall perspective but says nothing about wearing a cycling helmet.
HELMET WEAR AT THE EXTREME END OF CYCLING RISK
What we really want to know is: what chance of the helmet saving your life? The authorities in New York made a compilation covering the years 1996 to 2003 of all the deaths (225) and serious injuries (3,462) in cycling accidents in all New York City. The purpose of the study was an overview usable for city development planning, not helmet advocacy, so helmet usage was only noted for part of the period among the seriously injured, amounting to 333 cases. Here are some conclusions:
• Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
• Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
• Helmet use was only 3% in fatal crashes, but 13% in non-fatal crashes
Source:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
This concatenation of facts suggests very strongly that not wearing a helmet may be particularly dangerous.
• It looks like wearing a helmet saved roundabout 33 cyclists or so (of the 333 seriously injured for whom helmet use is known) from dying.
• If those who died wore helmets at the same rate of 13% as those in the study who survived, a further 22 or so could have lived.
• If all the fatalities had been wearing a helmet (100%), somewhere between 10% and 57% of them would have lived. This number is less firm to allow for impacts so heavy that no helmet would have saved the cyclist. Still, between 22 and 128 *additional* (to the 33 noted above) New Yorkers alive rather than dead for wearing a thirty buck helmet is a serious statistical, moral and political consideration difficult to overlook.
SO HOW MANY CYCLISTS CAN HELMETS SAVE ACROSS THE NATION?
New York is not the United States but we're not seeking certainly, only investigating whether a moral imperative for action appears.
First off, the 52,000 cyclists hurt cannot be directly related to the very serious injuries which were the only ones counted in the New York compilation. But a fatality is a fatality anywhere and the fraction of head injuries in the fatalities is pretty constant.
So, with a caution, we can say that of 716 cycling fatalities nationwide, helmet use could have saved at least 70 and very likely more towards a possible upper limit of around 400. Again the statistical extension must be tempered by the knowledge that some impacts are so heavy that no helmet can save the cyclist. Still, if even half the impacts resulting in fatal head trauma is too heavy for a helmet to mitigate, possibly around 235 cyclists might live rather than die on the roads for simply wearing a helmet. Every year. That's an instant reduction in cyclist road fatalities of one third. Once more we have arrived at a statistical, moral and political fact that is hard to ignore: Helmet wear could save many lives.
THE CASE AGAINST MANDATORY HELMET LAWS
• Compulsion is anti-Constitutional, an assault on the freedom of the citizen to choose his own manner of living and dying
• Many other actitivities cause fatal head injuries. So why not insist they should all be put in helmets?
• 37% of bicycle fatalities involve alcohol, and 23% were legally drunk, and you'll never get these drunks in helmets anyway
• We should leave the drunks to their fate; they're not real cyclists anyway
• Helmets are not perfect anyway
• Helmets cause cyclists to stop cycling, which is a cost to society in health losses
• Many more motorists die on the roads than cyclists. Why not insist that motorists wear helmets inside their cars?
• Helmets don't save lives -- that's a myth put forward by commercial helmet makers
• Helmets are too heavily promoted
• Helmet makers overstate the benefits of helmets
• A helmet makes me look like a dork
• Too few cyclists will be saved to make the cost worthwhile
THE CASE FOR A MANDATORY HELMET LAW IN THE STATES
• 235 or more additional cyclists' lives saved
• 716 deaths of cyclists on the road when a third or more of those deaths can easily be avoided is a national disgrace
• Education has clearly failed
• Anti-helmet zealots in the face of the evidence from New York are still advising cyclists not to wear helmets
• An example to the next generation of cyclists
• A visible sign of a commitment to cycling safety, which may attract more people to cycling
© Copyright Andre Jute 2010, 2013. Free for reproduction in non-profit journals and sites as long as the entire article is reproduced in full including this copyright and permission notice.
datakoll
May 10, 2013, 11:04:07 PM5/10/13
to
On Friday
ahhhh Senor uno momento por favor...
please tell us your US riding history for the last 5 years.
ahhhh Senor uno momento por favor...
please tell us your US riding history for the last 5 years.
datakoll
May 11, 2013, 7:29:51 AM5/11/13
to
can't remember ?
datakoll
May 11, 2013, 7:33:58 AM5/11/13
to
Andre Jute
May 11, 2013, 8:50:02 AM5/11/13
to
Dan O
May 11, 2013, 2:05:48 PM5/11/13
to
On May 10, 5:54 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
He didn't bite (though it did seem to trigger him to swim over and try
to spawn in another thread).
<snip>
He didn't bite (though it did seem to trigger him to swim over and try
to spawn in another thread).
<snip>
Andre Jute
May 11, 2013, 6:37:26 PM5/11/13
to
Andre Jute
datakoll
May 11, 2013, 7:28:12 PM5/11/13
to
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 6:37:26 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 7:05:48 PM UTC+1, Dan O wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 5:54 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
.......
> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 7:05:48 PM UTC+1, Dan O wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 5:54 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
we look to examine your arguement with your experience in our conditions
Andre Jute
May 12, 2013, 10:01:11 AM5/12/13
to
Interesting that, except for one uneducated redneck, who with stupifying ignorance demands (with menaces, what a moron!) that statistical analysis conform to his mindless xenophobia, the self-styled "bicycle advocates" on RBT are grimly ignoring this article, which presents overwhelming evidence that around a third of cycling fatalities on American roads can be avoided.
Killing 230 or so of your fellow-cyclists, every year, for ideological intransigence is a bit much to swallow. It is also a perfectly good reason to treat Krygowski and the rest of the RBT anti-helmet zealots with contempt.
This entire New York study has been met with deathly silence from the anti-helmet zealots because they know in their bones that there is no answer to it.
Andre Jute
Killing 230 or so of your fellow-cyclists, every year, for ideological intransigence is a bit much to swallow. It is also a perfectly good reason to treat Krygowski and the rest of the RBT anti-helmet zealots with contempt.
This entire New York study has been met with deathly silence from the anti-helmet zealots because they know in their bones that there is no answer to it.
Andre Jute
Dan O
May 12, 2013, 1:38:20 PM5/12/13
to
On May 12, 7:01 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Interesting that, except for one uneducated redneck, who with stupifying ignorance demands (with menaces, what a moron!) that statistical analysis conform to his mindless xenophobia, the self-styled "bicycle advocates" on RBT are grimly ignoring this article, which presents overwhelming evidence that...
>
... they're too savvy (and helmet-thread hardened) to be so obviously
trolled (?)
> Interesting that, except for one uneducated redneck, who with stupifying ignorance demands (with menaces, what a moron!) that statistical analysis conform to his mindless xenophobia, the self-styled "bicycle advocates" on RBT are grimly ignoring this article, which presents overwhelming evidence that...
>
... they're too savvy (and helmet-thread hardened) to be so obviously
trolled (?)
Andre Jute
May 12, 2013, 3:02:29 PM5/12/13
to
Andre Jute
Vindicated!
frkr...@gmail.com
May 12, 2013, 9:05:36 PM5/12/13
to
On Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:02:29 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> O
> O
> Of course it wouldn't be smart for the anti-helmet zealots to engage with these New York numbers, because they make an overwhelming case to anyone with the barest grasp of statistics.
Oh, bullshit. We've "engaged" with them in the past. We're not "engaging" now because we're not responding to a dedicated troll.
- Frank Krygowski
Andre Jute
May 12, 2013, 10:04:41 PM5/12/13
to
The rest of us take your inability to counter these statistics from New York as a plea of guilty as charged, you know that, don't you?
It is shameful that, with clear evidence that the lives of many cyclists can be saved, you people prefer ideology to clearly proven remedies, however imperfect.
Andre Jute
mcole...@googlemail.com
May 13, 2013, 2:49:38 PM5/13/13
to
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 1:54:54 AM UTC+1, Andre Jute wrote:
A refutation of the basic premise.
1. Mandatory - moral issue
Usually (although not always) legislation exists to prevent others being impacted by the consequences of your actions; not you from the consequences of your own. Most of the examples you cite of state restriction arise because of the potential for others to be hurt rather than the participant.
You are free to over-eat to the point of obesity and no law prevents your so doing. You are free to do no exercise whatsoever and thereby expire from heart failure relatively young.
If you concede that society may legislate purely to prevent an individual from potentially accepting more risk than is deemed prudent then where does it end ? American Football is extremely risky, motorcycling is risky, extreme downhill skiing is risky. I could go on, of course, but I think the point is made; risk reduction does not create a sufficient rationale to MANDATE that an individual either eschews or takes prescribed risk mitigation actions. It is NOT the role of society, nor government, to mandate the level of risk which an individual may assume to his/her own health or life.
To summarise and simplify; it is not for the government to tell me what risks I may accept nor to specify an 'acceptable' level of risk.
2. Statistics
Your analysis looks roughly correct - so let's accept that the raw figures are correct - but you fail to consider two additional impacts.
a. Risk Compensation (Peltzman effect)
This is an observed effect whereby people tend to adjust their behaviour in response to the perceived level of risk. Thus, many interventions in road safety have had MUCH lower levels of effectiveness than originally postulated due to this effect.
As it pertains to cycling, two behaviours have been observed; firstly, cyclists themselves take greater risks and, secondly, motorists tend to drive closer to cyclists who are helmeted.
It is hard to argue the level of the effect that would pertain and, certainly, it is likely that there would overall still be a net reduction in fatalities ... but it would almost certainly be significantly lower than predicted from a simple model ignoring the Risk Compensation effect.
b. Impact on activity takeup
Of far more impact is the effect that mandatory helmet use might have on cycling takeup. Ischaemic Heart Disease is the No. 1 killer in the developed world with approx 15.6% of all deaths in any year being attributed.
Cycling (along with other aerobic exercise) is one of the most effective means to reduce the incidence of heart disease. It is particularly effective since cycling, if included as part of the transport network rather than simply for recreation, can easily become a daily exercise that doesn't require additional time to be found.
Studies in Holland strongly suggested that mandatory helmet use would significantly deter the casual cyclist from riding by two mechanisms; it would prevent the casual user from using cycle schemes (such as London's Bicycle Hire Scheme) and it would also portray cycling as dangerous thereby discouraging the activity.
Roughly 400,000 people die, every year, in the USA from Ischaemic heart disease (source WHO). The number dying from cycling accidents is much lower, as you state. So, even if only a very small percentage of the population were deterred from cycling by means of a mandatory helmet law the impact would likely be that overall premature deaths from heart disease would rise.
To summarise; not being active is more dangerous, overall, than being active despite the risks ... and the overall impact may be to cause deaths by other mechanisms.
Summary
So, overall, the likely benefit is considerably lower than postulated and the behaviour modification it might engender could be sufficient to more than offset any gains overall. More study required.
On the moral issue, that has to be to some degree a matter of conscience. However, I would contend that it is not for the state to regulate the degree of risk that an individual may accept UNLESS that risk is to others. Since cyclists pose very little risk to others and that risk is not in any way moderated by wearing a helmet anyway, there is no moral case to require cyclists to mitigate risk to themselves by wearing helmets.
Andre Jute
May 13, 2013, 6:07:18 PM5/13/13
to
> OK, let's see ...
>
>
>
> A refutation of the basic premise.
>
>
>
> 1. Mandatory - moral issue
>
>
>
> Usually (although not always) legislation exists to prevent others being impacted by the consequences of your actions; not you from the consequences of your own. Most of the examples you cite of state restriction arise because of the potential for others to be hurt rather than the participant.
>
>
>
> You are free to over-eat to the point of obesity and no law prevents your so doing. You are free to do no exercise whatsoever and thereby expire from heart failure relatively young.
> If you concede that society may legislate purely to prevent an individual from potentially accepting more risk than is deemed prudent then where does it end ? American Football is extremely risky, motorcycling is risky, extreme downhill skiing is risky. I could go on, of course, but I think the point is made; risk reduction does not create a sufficient rationale to MANDATE that an individual either eschews or takes prescribed risk mitigation actions. It is NOT the role of society, nor government, to mandate the level of risk which an individual may assume to his/her own health or life.
>
> To summarise and simplify; it is not for the government to tell me what risks I may accept nor to specify an 'acceptable' level of risk.
> 2. Statistics
>
>
>
> Your analysis looks roughly correct - so let's accept that the raw figures are correct - but you fail to consider two additional impacts.
>
>
>
> a. Risk Compensation (Peltzman effect)
>
>
>
> This is an observed effect whereby people tend to adjust their behaviour in response to the perceived level of risk. Thus, many interventions in road safety have had MUCH lower levels of effectiveness than originally postulated due to this effect.
>
>
>
> As it pertains to cycling, two behaviours have been observed; firstly, cyclists themselves take greater risks and, secondly, motorists tend to drive closer to cyclists who are helmeted.
> It is hard to argue the level of the effect that would pertain and, certainly, it is likely that there would overall still be a net reduction in fatalities ... but it would almost certainly be significantly lower than predicted from a simple model ignoring the Risk Compensation effect.
>
>
> b. Impact on activity takeup
>
>
>
> Of far more impact is the effect that mandatory helmet use might have on cycling takeup. Ischaemic Heart Disease is the No. 1 killer in the developed world with approx 15.6% of all deaths in any year being attributed.
>
>
>
> Cycling (along with other aerobic exercise) is one of the most effective means to reduce the incidence of heart disease. It is particularly effective since cycling, if included as part of the transport network rather than simply for recreation, can easily become a daily exercise that doesn't require additional time to be found.
> Studies in Holland strongly suggested that mandatory helmet use would significantly deter the casual cyclist from riding by two mechanisms; it would prevent the casual user from using cycle schemes (such as London's Bicycle Hire Scheme) and it would also portray cycling as dangerous thereby discouraging the activity.
However: My numbers are extremely conservatively calculated. At the top of my calculation there could be as many as 400 extra lives saved. Even with both the reducing effects you mention, if they were to prove a factor, I think the far lower numbers I cite would hold firm.
> Roughly 400,000 people die, every year, in the USA from Ischaemic heart disease (source WHO). The number dying from cycling accidents is much lower, as you state. So, even if only a very small percentage of the population were deterred from cycling by means of a mandatory helmet law the impact would likely be that overall premature deaths from heart disease would rise.
> To summarise; not being active is more dangerous, overall, than being active despite the risks ... and the overall impact may be to cause deaths by other mechanisms.
>
>
>
> Summary
>
>
>
> So, overall, the likely benefit is considerably lower than postulated and the behaviour modification it might engender could be sufficient to more than offset any gains overall. More study required.
> On the moral issue, that has to be to some degree a matter of conscience. However, I would contend that it is not for the state to regulate the degree of risk that an individual may accept UNLESS that risk is to others. Since cyclists pose very little risk to others and that risk is not in any way moderated by wearing a helmet anyway, there is no moral case to require cyclists to mitigate risk to themselves by wearing helmets.
I look forward to the proofs of your contentions, preferably with numbers I can use to finetune the expectations expressed in my original article.
mcole...@googlemail.com
May 15, 2013, 10:01:42 AM5/15/13
to
>Welcome, M. This is a well-reasoned and well-presented piece.
Thanks, I do enjoy a well-reasoned discussion. Not quite sure why my moniker is only M though … my name is Matt.
>Did you know that in certain socialist jurisdictions, like the British National Health service, >there are initiatives to deny the standard free medical services to the obese, on the Krygowskian ground that they did it to themselves?
>What about minors, say the under-18s?
As such, I would have no issue with mandatory helmet laws for minors.
>Would you care to cite evidence for the "two behaviors, with references to papers available on the net? Put your best foot forward because I don't want to do more analysis than is strictly necessary.
Motorists response to helmeted cyclists … http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html
Both these are principled academics so they don’t provide unverified (and, indeed, unverifiable figures). I would certainly concede that the effect here is likely to very much within the broad range of outcomes you’ve already postulated.
>> Cycling (along with other aerobic exercise) is one of the most effective means to reduce the incidence of heart disease. It is particularly effective since cycling, if included as part of the transport network rather than simply for recreation, can easily become a daily exercise that doesn't require additional time to be found.
>No, I think we want to stick to current conditions, holding "all other things" equal. In the paragraph above you're sashaying away from reality into the dreamland of turning the US into The Netherlands. We're not interested in what could be, if only the legislators were smart, we're interested only in what can be proven with accepted statistics describing the pre-existing condition. If I attempted to do what you just did, with "if included as part of the transport network rather than simply for recreation", the resident AHZ would screech to high heaven that I was cheating.
>> Studies in Holland strongly suggested that mandatory helmet use would significantly deter the casual cyclist from riding by two mechanisms; it would prevent the casual user from using cycle schemes (such as London's Bicycle Hire Scheme) and it would also portray cycling as dangerous thereby discouraging the activity.
>Give us a URL to the best of them and I'll see if it can be factored in.
However, what is relatively clear is that there has been a significant reduction in journeys undertaken by bike since the helmet law introduction. There has also been a significant increase in obesity and heart disease too … although that is, of course, not sufficient to show causation.
>If indeed you can prove that mandatory helmet laws deter cycling.
>> So, overall, the likely benefit is considerably lower than postulated and the behaviour modification it might engender could be sufficient to more than offset any gains overall. More study required.
>No. The present numbers prove beyond peradventure that nationally in the USA, making >cycling helmets compulsory would save between 70 and 400 plus avoidable deaths every >year. "More study is required" is a weaselling, shameful excuse to do nothing.
If we look at death rates by type then the annual figure for Ischaemic Heart Disease is 1.26 per thousand (15% of 8.39/thousand). The death rate for cycling is 0.0024/thousand. It is therefore reasonable to assume that were, say, 20% of the cycling population to cease doing so that this would impact their health. Their risk rate would, for a while, still be lower than 1.26 but it would certainly rise. Say it went up by just one tenth … that would still be 629 additional deaths per annum from heart disease.
So, it’s reasonable to say I think that the statistics are not clear cut and that a 0.008% improvement in the death rate is not a massive incentive to make a potentially liberty curtailing measure.
>I'm a libertarian, and that's a very attractive argument, to be weighed against the fact that my constituency is cyclists, not obese bungee-jumpers.
Andre Jute
May 15, 2013, 1:15:55 PM5/15/13
to
Thanks, Matt. Give me a chance to look at those studies again and I'll get back to you. First I have to go cook stuffed pitta breads, which my family is demanding, and format a book which is grossly overdue -- curse Apple and the EPUB standards committee. -- Andre Jute
Andre Jute
May 17, 2013, 4:12:09 AM5/17/13
to
Matt >
Andre >>
>I would have no issue with mandatory helmet laws for minors.
Okay, we'll leave that aside then, just noting that helmets for both adults and children could be improved.
> >Would you care to cite evidence for the "two behaviors, with references to papers available on the net? Put your best foot forward because I don't want to do more analysis than is strictly necessary.
>
> Risk compensation in cyclists … with other references cited … http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/2/89.full
I've seen this Adams and Hillman report many times before. It's one long waffle. There are no numbers in it. Essentially Adams and Hillman want us to take the word of another academic, Hedlund, that four rules he has established have primacy. It's crap. I see absolutely no reason why Hedlund, Adams and Hillman cannot put probabilities on "rules" like "If I don't know it's there I won't compensate for a safety measure" -- except that they *intend* to waffle because the number doesn't support their case, or, worse, is unknown because the "rule" was not researched but pulled from thin air. This crap isn't very far removed from "scientists" telling governments or pressure groups what they want to hear on, for instance, global warming.
> Motorists response to helmeted cyclists … http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html
Now you're cooking with gas, Matt. This is far more solid stuff, though technically it can probably be attacked on grounds of relevance ("confidence levels") as some of those "closer shaves" are really small changes. But I won't be making that case, as I think this study is already large enough to give use the sort of general trend I was talking about in the original post. It also accords well with common everyday experience, of which I cite only the striking example of the bastardy of White Man Van, which is quantified in this study.
The problem with this study is actually the other way, that it is too good, and it's results too. What it actually proves is that most passes are legal, in that the average (it is possible or even likely that Dr Walker said "median" and was reported as "average" -- it is not the same thing, statistically, whatever it may be in the vernacular) automobile and even van and truck pass is *measured* as giving the cyclist the legal (in some places) one meter, plus 10%. In short, this study tends to prove that with or without a helmet, cycling is safer than most people assume, a case I've been making for years.
But we are still left with a problem, which you've already identified:
> I would certainly concede that the effect here is likely to very much within the broad range of outcomes you’ve already postulated.
We can't even discuss the Adams/Hillman/Hedlund "contribution" because it is currently worthless. If those guys want us to consider their point of view, they must put verifiable numbers on their "rules", like Dr Walker does. Until they have repeatable numbers, it is nothing but a theory. We have too many unverified theories presented to cyclists as "facts" already, and too many ignoramuses like Krygowski and Lee presenting whatever theory fits their political outlook as a "fact".
I could probably stretch to putting a guestimate on the Walker study, but it would, as you suspect, make no change to my ultra-conservative analysis in the original post, which relates only to the United States.
We are thus no forrarder, unless we want to give Adams and Hillman a weight they don't deserve.
> >> Cycling (along with other aerobic exercise) is one of the most effective means to reduce the incidence of heart disease. It is particularly effective since cycling, if included as part of the transport network rather than simply for recreation, can easily become a daily exercise that doesn't require additional time to be found.
> .... that’s why I think the point is valid; it is precisely the casual, travel user who is more likely to be deterred by a helmet law than the committed cyclist. To use me as a case (not statistically valid I’m well aware) … I ALWAYS wear a helmet when I ride my mountain bike for recreation … and, by time spent, this is the vast majority of my time on a bike. However, I also use the Barclays Bike Rental facilities in London to travel around the city. I never wear a helmet to do this because it’s not convenient to carry one around simply on the off-chance that I might take a bike. The vast majority of bike renters I observe behave in the same manner; very very few wear helmets.
> >> Studies in Holland strongly suggested that mandatory helmet use would significantly deter the casual cyclist from riding by two mechanisms; it would prevent the casual user from using cycle schemes (such as London's Bicycle Hire Scheme) and it would also portray cycling as dangerous thereby discouraging the activity.
MHL could exempt those riding the bikes of recognized community bikes.
> I think, if I may, I will instead refer you to Australia. The problem is that the Dutch study was a literature review used to defeat a proposal whereas the Australian one, which is cited, is more pertinent since they DID introduce a ban and saw a concomitant reduction in cycling in their cities. There are many references to this but I would suggest, at the risk of opprobrium, the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia since it fairly shows both sides of the argument and presents a good, balanced view.
I have forced Wikipedia to remove all reference to me under threat of action against their Board. That demonstrates the contempt in which I hold Wikipedia. However, I did read that article. I'm familiar with most of those papers, and lived in Australia through part of the relevant period. All of those numbers are bedevilled by the general downward trend of cycling through the entire latter half of the last century.
> However, what is relatively clear is that there has been a significant reduction in journeys undertaken by bike since the helmet law introduction. There has also been a significant increase in obesity and heart disease too … although that is, of course, not sufficient to show causation.
No, this really won't do. You're giving us the same sort of generalities that Adams and Hillman do, when we need hard facts. For instance, how much of the obesity and heart disease would have been avoided if cycling had not, as you claim, been depressed by MHL. I agree, theres a link between lack of exercise and respiratory diseases, but it would be foolish to assume that 100% of overweight parties would have taken up cycling, or even 10% of them.
> >If indeed you can prove that mandatory helmet laws deter cycling.
> Indeed, and of course you can’t. The best predictor however would be to consider where such a move has been made elsewhere. Whilst all factors are not equal it is still likely to be illuminating. If we consider the case in Australia, where helmets were made mandatory, the overall reduction in cycling (for transport rather than recreation) was between 25% - 40% (depending on the removal of certain sites where anomalies year on year pertained) in the years following the application of the rule.
Even the 25% number is open to serious doubt from any experienced statistician. There's a problem which nobody mentions, which is that cycling was in a transitional state between poverty transport and a claim on discretionary incomes over much or even all of that period. There is absolutely no proof that cycling was growing, and serious suspicion that cycling was in decline anyway. It is the sort of consideration that any commercial researcher would first eliminate, but the academics seem unable to understand that usages are dynamic.
> >> So, overall, the likely benefit is considerably lower than postulated and the behaviour modification it might engender could be sufficient to more than offset any gains overall. More study required.
The number of lives saved in the US, even if the depressing effect of risk compensation is 5/6 of the potential, say 85%, would still be my lowest figure of 70. That is enough to make a moral case for action.
> >...[my] present numbers prove beyond peradventure that nationally in the USA, making >cycling helmets compulsory would save between 70 and 400 plus avoidable deaths every >year.
> ... Each year, approximately 2.5 million people die in the USA from all causes (source World Health Organisation) … a death rate of 8.39/thousand. So, the 200 lives you are discussing have to be put in that overall context … it’s a very large population. Essentially, what you are saying is that you could improve the death rate by 0.008%. It’s reasonable, I would suggest, to question whether there might not be other factors which should be considered for what is, overall, a very marginal improvement.
Really? I'm talking about cutting the cycling death rate in the States in half, say, and you say that's not enough. Bit hard on the 357 cyclists you've just condemned to death because there aren't enough of them dying to make saving any worthwhile -- that is your argument, isn't it? It's the same argument for which I treat Krygowski like barbarian.
> If we look at death rates by type then the annual figure for Ischaemic Heart Disease is 1.26 per thousand (15% of 8.39/thousand). The death rate for cycling is 0.0024/thousand. It is therefore reasonable to assume that were, say, 20% of the cycling population to cease doing so that this would impact their health. Their risk rate would, for a while, still be lower than 1.26 but it would certainly rise. Say it went up by just one tenth … that would still be 629 additional deaths per annum from heart disease.
What makes you think cyclists, who voluntarily take exercise, would stop exercising when they stop riding? Perhaps they use a rowing machine, perhaps they take up running or swimming. Certainly, the people I know who've given up cycling because they think it is too dangerous have not put on weight.
> So, it’s reasonable to say I think that the statistics are not clear cut and that a 0.008% improvement in the death rate is not a massive incentive to make a potentially liberty curtailing measure.
Anything is "reasonable" if you're willing to let 400-odd cyclists die preventable deaths, every year.
If seat belts were a good law, then bicycle helmets wlll be a good law too. Improved bicycle helmets would be even more welcome.
Andre Jute
Andre >>
>I would have no issue with mandatory helmet laws for minors.
> >Would you care to cite evidence for the "two behaviors, with references to papers available on the net? Put your best foot forward because I don't want to do more analysis than is strictly necessary.
>
> Risk compensation in cyclists … with other references cited … http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/2/89.full
> Motorists response to helmeted cyclists … http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html
The problem with this study is actually the other way, that it is too good, and it's results too. What it actually proves is that most passes are legal, in that the average (it is possible or even likely that Dr Walker said "median" and was reported as "average" -- it is not the same thing, statistically, whatever it may be in the vernacular) automobile and even van and truck pass is *measured* as giving the cyclist the legal (in some places) one meter, plus 10%. In short, this study tends to prove that with or without a helmet, cycling is safer than most people assume, a case I've been making for years.
But we are still left with a problem, which you've already identified:
> I would certainly concede that the effect here is likely to very much within the broad range of outcomes you’ve already postulated.
I could probably stretch to putting a guestimate on the Walker study, but it would, as you suspect, make no change to my ultra-conservative analysis in the original post, which relates only to the United States.
We are thus no forrarder, unless we want to give Adams and Hillman a weight they don't deserve.
> >> Cycling (along with other aerobic exercise) is one of the most effective means to reduce the incidence of heart disease. It is particularly effective since cycling, if included as part of the transport network rather than simply for recreation, can easily become a daily exercise that doesn't require additional time to be found.
> >> Studies in Holland strongly suggested that mandatory helmet use would significantly deter the casual cyclist from riding by two mechanisms; it would prevent the casual user from using cycle schemes (such as London's Bicycle Hire Scheme) and it would also portray cycling as dangerous thereby discouraging the activity.
> I think, if I may, I will instead refer you to Australia. The problem is that the Dutch study was a literature review used to defeat a proposal whereas the Australian one, which is cited, is more pertinent since they DID introduce a ban and saw a concomitant reduction in cycling in their cities. There are many references to this but I would suggest, at the risk of opprobrium, the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia since it fairly shows both sides of the argument and presents a good, balanced view.
> However, what is relatively clear is that there has been a significant reduction in journeys undertaken by bike since the helmet law introduction. There has also been a significant increase in obesity and heart disease too … although that is, of course, not sufficient to show causation.
> >If indeed you can prove that mandatory helmet laws deter cycling.
> Indeed, and of course you can’t. The best predictor however would be to consider where such a move has been made elsewhere. Whilst all factors are not equal it is still likely to be illuminating. If we consider the case in Australia, where helmets were made mandatory, the overall reduction in cycling (for transport rather than recreation) was between 25% - 40% (depending on the removal of certain sites where anomalies year on year pertained) in the years following the application of the rule.
> >> So, overall, the likely benefit is considerably lower than postulated and the behaviour modification it might engender could be sufficient to more than offset any gains overall. More study required.
> >...[my] present numbers prove beyond peradventure that nationally in the USA, making >cycling helmets compulsory would save between 70 and 400 plus avoidable deaths every >year.
> ... Each year, approximately 2.5 million people die in the USA from all causes (source World Health Organisation) … a death rate of 8.39/thousand. So, the 200 lives you are discussing have to be put in that overall context … it’s a very large population. Essentially, what you are saying is that you could improve the death rate by 0.008%. It’s reasonable, I would suggest, to question whether there might not be other factors which should be considered for what is, overall, a very marginal improvement.
Really? I'm talking about cutting the cycling death rate in the States in half, say, and you say that's not enough. Bit hard on the 357 cyclists you've just condemned to death because there aren't enough of them dying to make saving any worthwhile -- that is your argument, isn't it? It's the same argument for which I treat Krygowski like barbarian.
> If we look at death rates by type then the annual figure for Ischaemic Heart Disease is 1.26 per thousand (15% of 8.39/thousand). The death rate for cycling is 0.0024/thousand. It is therefore reasonable to assume that were, say, 20% of the cycling population to cease doing so that this would impact their health. Their risk rate would, for a while, still be lower than 1.26 but it would certainly rise. Say it went up by just one tenth … that would still be 629 additional deaths per annum from heart disease.
> So, it’s reasonable to say I think that the statistics are not clear cut and that a 0.008% improvement in the death rate is not a massive incentive to make a potentially liberty curtailing measure.
If seat belts were a good law, then bicycle helmets wlll be a good law too. Improved bicycle helmets would be even more welcome.
Andre Jute
mcole...@googlemail.com
May 17, 2013, 7:06:47 AM5/17/13
to
> I've seen this Adams and Hillman report many times before. It's one long waffle. There are no numbers in it. Essentially Adams and Hillman want us to take the word of another academic, Hedlund, that four rules he has established have primacy. It's crap. I see absolutely no reason why Hedlund, Adams and Hillman cannot put probabilities on "rules" like "If I don't know it's there I won't compensate for a safety measure" -- except that they *intend* to waffle because the number doesn't support their case, or, worse, is unknown because the "rule" was not researched but pulled from thin air. This crap isn't very far removed from "scientists" telling governments or pressure groups what they want to hear on, for instance, global warming.
In general I agree with you ... which is why I said that I thought the numbers were unverifiable. That there is some effect, I would contend, is highly likely ... it occurs in many disparate areas. However, it is probably below the level that would materially affect your figures.
> Now you're cooking with gas, Matt. This is far more solid stuff, though technically it can probably be attacked on grounds of relevance ("confidence levels") as some of those "closer shaves" are really small changes. But I won't be making that case, as I think this study is already large enough to give use the sort of general trend I was talking about in the original post. It also accords well with common everyday experience, of which I cite only the striking example of the bastardy of White Man Van, which is quantified in this study.
>
> The problem with this study is actually the other way, that it is too good, and it's results too. What it actually proves is that most passes are legal, in that the average (it is possible or even likely that Dr Walker said "median" and was reported as "average" -- it is not the same thing, statistically, whatever it may be in the vernacular) automobile and even van and truck pass is *measured* as giving the cyclist the legal (in some places) one meter, plus 10%. In short, this study tends to prove that with or without a helmet, cycling is safer than most people assume, a case I've been making for years.
> MHL could exempt those riding the bikes of recognized community bikes.
> No, this really won't do. You're giving us the same sort of generalities that Adams and Hillman do, when we need hard facts. For instance, how much of the obesity and heart disease would have been avoided if cycling had not, as you claim, been depressed by MHL. I agree, theres a link between lack of exercise and respiratory diseases, but it would be foolish to assume that 100% of overweight parties would have taken up cycling, or even 10% of them.
But, I haven't assumed that any NEW people take up cycling to derive the figure. Simply that 10% of those who would be discouraged would not take up suitable alternative cardiovascular exercise. I have assumed that 20% would be deterred from cycling by the MHL. Since this is below the lowest figure cited for the Australian study I thought that reasonably conservative. To summarise, it suggests that 2% of those now cycling would be impacted and that they would be subject to the same risk as the average population. That seems reasonable don't you think ... as a hypothetical exercise ... which is what this all is.
> The number of lives saved in the US, even if the depressing effect of risk compensation is 5/6 of the potential, say 85%, would still be my lowest figure of 70. That is enough to make a moral case for action.
Is it moral to force someone to take an action that the state perceives is good for them or to eschew one that is bad ?
I have to say that, for me, the answer is no. It would be an immoral action, albeit done for the best of reasons.
> Really? I'm talking about cutting the cycling death rate in the States in half, say, and you say that's not enough. Bit hard on the 357 cyclists you've just condemned to death because there aren't enough of them dying to make saving any worthwhile -- that is your argument, isn't it? It's the same argument for which I treat Krygowski like barbarian.
If simply the number of deaths were to create, ipso facto, a moral case for action then the state should be mandating 2 hours of physical exercise per week for all citizens and dismantling the Coca Cola company. That would save an order of magnitude more lives ... yet I doubt that anyone would accept such an imposition.
It is a matter of free will. By all means encourage but do not mandate ... it is not for the state to take such action. It would be an infringement.
> Anything is "reasonable" if you're willing to let 400-odd cyclists die preventable deaths, every year.
Freedom includes the freedom to engage in risky or even downright foolhardy behaviour without sanction from the state.
> If seat belts were a good law, then bicycle helmets wlll be a good law too. Improved bicycle helmets would be even more welcome.
As to improved helmets, yes, absolutely ... agree completely.
I'm not anti-helmet at all ... I wear one to ride my motorbike, mountainbike and to ski ... I'm simply against compulsion because I don't think that it is moral for the state to force me to do so where there is no impact on third parties.
And, that argument holds irrespective of the numbers. However, what I was pointing out was that the overall impact would be so tiny, against the overall population, that even if one were to concede that there was a moral imperative for the state to intervene it should intervene according to numbers perishing ... and very few perish cycling.
Andre Jute
May 17, 2013, 8:04:32 AM5/17/13
to
On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:06:47 PM UTC+1, mcole...@googlemail.com wrote:
> But, I haven't assumed that any NEW people take up cycling to derive the figure. Simply that 10% of those who would be discouraged would not take up suitable alternative cardiovascular exercise. I have assumed that 20% would be deterred from cycling by the MHL. Since this is below the lowest figure cited for the Australian study I thought that reasonably conservative. To summarise, it suggests that 2% of those now cycling would be impacted and that they would be subject to the same risk as the average population. That seems reasonable don't you think ... as a hypothetical exercise ... which is what this all is.
Could be reasonable if those Australian numbers are reliable. (It may also be that in the States, where the myths of rugged individualism are alive and well and causing a lot of stupid damage, the disenchanting effect of risk compensation could be higher than in Australia, which has a large socialist, conformist subculture.) The stumbling block is that, while the basic numbers in my original piece are pretty solid because I bent over so far to make them ultra-conservative, every time you add a new set of numbers and have to adjust them to get a little bit of sense out of them, you of course multiply the possibilities of error together rather than just adding them up.
> But, I haven't assumed that any NEW people take up cycling to derive the figure. Simply that 10% of those who would be discouraged would not take up suitable alternative cardiovascular exercise. I have assumed that 20% would be deterred from cycling by the MHL. Since this is below the lowest figure cited for the Australian study I thought that reasonably conservative. To summarise, it suggests that 2% of those now cycling would be impacted and that they would be subject to the same risk as the average population. That seems reasonable don't you think ... as a hypothetical exercise ... which is what this all is.
And there I think we can leave it temporarily, until we get some reliable new numbers to plug in.
Can't help observing though that Dr Walker deserves a prize not only for his courage in putting himself on the line but also for the clever, cheap research method he has devised. http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html
Nice talking to you, Matt.
Andre Jute
mcole...@googlemail.com
May 17, 2013, 10:52:28 AM5/17/13
to
> Nice talking to you, Matt.
>
>
>
> Andre Jute
Thanks.
Message has been deleted
Andre Jute
May 17, 2013, 6:06:50 PM5/17/13
to
> >The number of lives saved in the US, even if the depressing effect of risk compensation is 5/6 of the potential, say 85%, would still be my lowest figure of 70. That is enough to make a moral case for action.
>
> 85%?
>
>
> That has been utterly discredited, to the extent that even the
>
> majority of the authors have disowned it, and it's use in advertising
>
> in some countries is actually illegal.
I really don't know what you're talking about, Phil. You have some other cat by its tail, with your thumb up its arse.
Pay attention, Phil. What I'm saying is NOT that there would be a 16% risk compensation. What I'm saying is that, even in the event of a ludicrous 85% risk compensation, my numbers of positive effects are so conservative, they will be hardly affected in the low and the middle ranges. (A point Matt himself volunteered before I reinforced it.) I'm not speculating that either the 85% or the 1/6 is correct, I'm merely using hyperbole to show that, regardless of what anyone's guesstimate for counterfactors like risk compensation may be, my solid number for lives saved by wearing helmets, calculated from really hard numbers (see my original post in this thread), stands with monumental firmness. Matt agreed instantly, and so will any statistician and psychologist with experience in field work. (My hard numbers apply only to the States, eh? Extension to even other anglophone countries will be bedevilled by all the usual objections to extending the Australian results, even if they were reliable, to the rest of the world.)
Andre Jute
Here's Phil's entire post for context. Nothing more from me below this point.
On Friday, May 17, 2013 8:27:07 PM UTC+1, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> considered Fri, 17 May 2013 01:12:09
>
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
> >Matt >
>
> >Andre >>
>
> >
>
> >>I would have no issue with mandatory helmet laws for minors.
>
> >
>
> >Okay, we'll leave that aside then, just noting that helmets for both adults and children could be improved.
>
> >
>
> >> >Would you care to cite evidence for the "two behaviors, with references to papers available on the net? Put your best foot forward because I don't want to do more analysis than is strictly necessary.
>
> >>
>
> >> Risk compensation in cyclists … with other references cited … http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/2/89.full
>
> >
>
> >I've seen this Adams and Hillman report many times before. It's one long waffle. There are no numbers in it. Essentially Adams and Hillman want us to take the word of another academic, Hedlund, that four rules he has established have primacy. It's crap. I see absolutely no reason why Hedlund, Adams and Hillman cannot put
>
> probabilities on "rules" like "If I don't know it's there I won't compensate for a safety measure" -- except that they *intend* to waffle because the number doesn't support their case, or, worse, is unknown because the "rule" was not researched but pulled from thin air. This crap isn't very far removed from "scientists" telling
>
> governments or pressure groups what they want to hear on, for instance, global warming.
>
> >
>
> >> Motorists response to helmeted cyclists … http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html
>
> >
>
> >Now you're cooking with gas, Matt. This is far more solid stuff, though technically it can probably be attacked on grounds of relevance ("confidence levels") as some of those "closer shaves" are really small changes. But I won't be making that case, as I think this study is already large enough to give use the sort of general
>
> trend I was talking about in the original post. It also accords well with common everyday experience, of which I cite only the striking example of the bastardy of White Man Van, which is quantified in this study.
>
>
>
> I think the biggest problem with the helmet portion of that research
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
> >Matt >
>
> >Andre >>
>
> >
>
> >>I would have no issue with mandatory helmet laws for minors.
>
> >
>
> >Okay, we'll leave that aside then, just noting that helmets for both adults and children could be improved.
>
> >
>
> >> >Would you care to cite evidence for the "two behaviors, with references to papers available on the net? Put your best foot forward because I don't want to do more analysis than is strictly necessary.
>
> >>
>
> >> Risk compensation in cyclists … with other references cited … http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/2/89.full
>
> >
>
> >I've seen this Adams and Hillman report many times before. It's one long waffle. There are no numbers in it. Essentially Adams and Hillman want us to take the word of another academic, Hedlund, that four rules he has established have primacy. It's crap. I see absolutely no reason why Hedlund, Adams and Hillman cannot put
>
> probabilities on "rules" like "If I don't know it's there I won't compensate for a safety measure" -- except that they *intend* to waffle because the number doesn't support their case, or, worse, is unknown because the "rule" was not researched but pulled from thin air. This crap isn't very far removed from "scientists" telling
>
> governments or pressure groups what they want to hear on, for instance, global warming.
>
> >
>
> >> Motorists response to helmeted cyclists … http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html
>
> >
>
> >Now you're cooking with gas, Matt. This is far more solid stuff, though technically it can probably be attacked on grounds of relevance ("confidence levels") as some of those "closer shaves" are really small changes. But I won't be making that case, as I think this study is already large enough to give use the sort of general
>
> trend I was talking about in the original post. It also accords well with common everyday experience, of which I cite only the striking example of the bastardy of White Man Van, which is quantified in this study.
>
>
>
>
> is that (speaking for myself, but I can't imagine many people arguing
>
> differently) I'm not in the least bit interested in the /average/
>
> passing distance.
>
> What I want to know about is what it does to the /minimum/ passing
>
> distance.
>
>
>
> So if the people who were passing slow and wide already do so to a
>
> lightly lesser extent, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.
>
> The exact same reduction is passing distance from those who are
>
> already uncomfortably close will turn those passes into scary (and
>
> likely dangerous) close passes, yet both have exactly the same effect
>
> on the average passing distance, assuming roughly equal numbers of
>
> each. If people who were passing slow and wide outnumber those who
>
> were passing uncomfortably close, the slightly closer passes by the
>
> slow and wide contingent will change the average /more/ than turning
>
> some of the close passes into impacts.
>
> >
>
> >The problem with this study is actually the other way, that it is too good, and it's results too. What it actually proves is that most passes are legal, in that the average (it is possible or even likely that Dr Walker said "median" and was reported as "average" -- it is not the same thing, statistically, whatever it may be in the
>
> vernacular) automobile and even van and truck pass is *measured* as giving the cyclist the legal (in some places) one meter, plus 10%. In short, this study tends to prove that with or without a helmet, cycling is safer than most people assume, a case I've been making for years.
>
> >
>
> >But we are still left with a problem, which you've already identified:
>
> >
>
> >> I would certainly concede that the effect here is likely to very much within the broad range of outcomes you’ve already postulated.
>
> >
>
> >We can't even discuss the Adams/Hillman/Hedlund "contribution" because it is currently worthless. If those guys want us to consider their point of view, they must put verifiable numbers on their "rules", like Dr Walker does. Until they have repeatable numbers, it is nothing but a theory. We have too many unverified theories
>
> presented to cyclists as "facts" already, and too many ignoramuses like Krygowski and Lee presenting whatever theory fits their political outlook as a "fact".
>
> >
>
> >I could probably stretch to putting a guestimate on the Walker study, but it would, as you suspect, make no change to my ultra-conservative analysis in the original post, which relates only to the United States.
>
> >
>
> >We are thus no forrarder, unless we want to give Adams and Hillman a weight they don't deserve.
>
> >
>
> >> >> Cycling (along with other aerobic exercise) is one of the most effective means to reduce the incidence of heart disease. It is particularly effective since cycling, if included as part of the transport network rather than simply for recreation, can easily become a daily exercise that doesn't require additional time to be
>
> found.
>
> >
>
> >> .... that’s why I think the point is valid; it is precisely the casual, travel user who is more likely to be deterred by a helmet law than the committed cyclist. To use me as a case (not statistically valid I’m well aware) … I ALWAYS wear a helmet when I ride my mountain bike for recreation … and, by time spent, this is the
>
> vast majority of my time on a bike. However, I also use the Barclays Bike Rental facilities in London to travel around the city. I never wear a helmet to do this because it’s not convenient to carry one around simply on the off-chance that I might take a bike. The vast majority of bike renters I observe behave in the same
>
> manner; very very few wear helmets.
>
> >
>
> >> >> Studies in Holland strongly suggested that mandatory helmet use would significantly deter the casual cyclist from riding by two mechanisms; it would prevent the casual user from using cycle schemes (such as London's Bicycle Hire Scheme) and it would also portray cycling as dangerous thereby discouraging the activity.
>
> >
>
> >MHL could exempt those riding the bikes of recognized community bikes.
>
> >
>
> >> I think, if I may, I will instead refer you to Australia. The problem is that the Dutch study was a literature review used to defeat a proposal whereas the Australian one, which is cited, is more pertinent since they DID introduce a ban and saw a concomitant reduction in cycling in their cities. There are many references to
>
> this but I would suggest, at the risk of opprobrium, the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia since it fairly shows both sides of the argument and presents a good, balanced view.
>
> >
>
> >I have forced Wikipedia to remove all reference to me under threat of action against their Board. That demonstrates the contempt in which I hold Wikipedia. However, I did read that article. I'm familiar with most of those papers, and lived in Australia through part of the relevant period. All of those numbers are bedevilled by the
>
> general downward trend of cycling through the entire latter half of the last century.
>
> >
>
> >> However, what is relatively clear is that there has been a significant reduction in journeys undertaken by bike since the helmet law introduction. There has also been a significant increase in obesity and heart disease too … although that is, of course, not sufficient to show causation.
>
> >
>
> >No, this really won't do. You're giving us the same sort of generalities that Adams and Hillman do, when we need hard facts. For instance, how much of the obesity and heart disease would have been avoided if cycling had not, as you claim, been depressed by MHL. I agree, theres a link between lack of exercise and respiratory
>
> diseases, but it would be foolish to assume that 100% of overweight parties would have taken up cycling, or even 10% of them.
>
>
>
> You don't need to show that /any/ of the overweight population took up
> >
>
> >The problem with this study is actually the other way, that it is too good, and it's results too. What it actually proves is that most passes are legal, in that the average (it is possible or even likely that Dr Walker said "median" and was reported as "average" -- it is not the same thing, statistically, whatever it may be in the
>
> vernacular) automobile and even van and truck pass is *measured* as giving the cyclist the legal (in some places) one meter, plus 10%. In short, this study tends to prove that with or without a helmet, cycling is safer than most people assume, a case I've been making for years.
>
> >
>
> >But we are still left with a problem, which you've already identified:
>
> >
>
> >> I would certainly concede that the effect here is likely to very much within the broad range of outcomes you’ve already postulated.
>
> >
>
> >We can't even discuss the Adams/Hillman/Hedlund "contribution" because it is currently worthless. If those guys want us to consider their point of view, they must put verifiable numbers on their "rules", like Dr Walker does. Until they have repeatable numbers, it is nothing but a theory. We have too many unverified theories
>
> presented to cyclists as "facts" already, and too many ignoramuses like Krygowski and Lee presenting whatever theory fits their political outlook as a "fact".
>
> >
>
> >I could probably stretch to putting a guestimate on the Walker study, but it would, as you suspect, make no change to my ultra-conservative analysis in the original post, which relates only to the United States.
>
> >
>
> >We are thus no forrarder, unless we want to give Adams and Hillman a weight they don't deserve.
>
> >
>
> >> >> Cycling (along with other aerobic exercise) is one of the most effective means to reduce the incidence of heart disease. It is particularly effective since cycling, if included as part of the transport network rather than simply for recreation, can easily become a daily exercise that doesn't require additional time to be
>
> found.
>
> >
>
> >> .... that’s why I think the point is valid; it is precisely the casual, travel user who is more likely to be deterred by a helmet law than the committed cyclist. To use me as a case (not statistically valid I’m well aware) … I ALWAYS wear a helmet when I ride my mountain bike for recreation … and, by time spent, this is the
>
> vast majority of my time on a bike. However, I also use the Barclays Bike Rental facilities in London to travel around the city. I never wear a helmet to do this because it’s not convenient to carry one around simply on the off-chance that I might take a bike. The vast majority of bike renters I observe behave in the same
>
> manner; very very few wear helmets.
>
> >
>
> >> >> Studies in Holland strongly suggested that mandatory helmet use would significantly deter the casual cyclist from riding by two mechanisms; it would prevent the casual user from using cycle schemes (such as London's Bicycle Hire Scheme) and it would also portray cycling as dangerous thereby discouraging the activity.
>
> >
>
> >MHL could exempt those riding the bikes of recognized community bikes.
>
> >
>
> >> I think, if I may, I will instead refer you to Australia. The problem is that the Dutch study was a literature review used to defeat a proposal whereas the Australian one, which is cited, is more pertinent since they DID introduce a ban and saw a concomitant reduction in cycling in their cities. There are many references to
>
> this but I would suggest, at the risk of opprobrium, the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia since it fairly shows both sides of the argument and presents a good, balanced view.
>
> >
>
> >I have forced Wikipedia to remove all reference to me under threat of action against their Board. That demonstrates the contempt in which I hold Wikipedia. However, I did read that article. I'm familiar with most of those papers, and lived in Australia through part of the relevant period. All of those numbers are bedevilled by the
>
> general downward trend of cycling through the entire latter half of the last century.
>
> >
>
> >> However, what is relatively clear is that there has been a significant reduction in journeys undertaken by bike since the helmet law introduction. There has also been a significant increase in obesity and heart disease too … although that is, of course, not sufficient to show causation.
>
> >
>
> >No, this really won't do. You're giving us the same sort of generalities that Adams and Hillman do, when we need hard facts. For instance, how much of the obesity and heart disease would have been avoided if cycling had not, as you claim, been depressed by MHL. I agree, theres a link between lack of exercise and respiratory
>
> diseases, but it would be foolish to assume that 100% of overweight parties would have taken up cycling, or even 10% of them.
>
>
>
>
> cycling, only that a certain percentage stopped cycling, and if you
>
> want to gild the Lilly, that they did not replace it with another
>
> aerobic activity (which seems rather likely - those put off are the
>
> transport cyclists, who mostly aren't cycling for exercise in the
>
> first place, it just happens to be a fringe benefit of their choice of
>
> transport).
>
> >
>
> >> >If indeed you can prove that mandatory helmet laws deter cycling.
>
> >
>
> >> Indeed, and of course you can’t. The best predictor however would be to consider where such a move has been made elsewhere. Whilst all factors are not equal it is still likely to be illuminating. If we consider the case in Australia, where helmets were made mandatory, the overall reduction in cycling (for transport rather
>
> than recreation) was between 25% - 40% (depending on the removal of certain sites where anomalies year on year pertained) in the years following the application of the rule.
>
> >
>
> >Even the 25% number is open to serious doubt from any experienced statistician. There's a problem which nobody mentions, which is that cycling was in a transitional state between poverty transport and a claim on discretionary incomes over much or even all of that period. There is absolutely no proof that cycling was growing, and
>
> serious suspicion that cycling was in decline anyway. It is the sort of consideration that any commercial researcher would first eliminate, but the academics seem unable to understand that usages are dynamic.
>
> >
>
> >> >> So, overall, the likely benefit is considerably lower than postulated and the behaviour modification it might engender could be sufficient to more than offset any gains overall. More study required.
>
> >
>
> >The number of lives saved in the US, even if the depressing effect of risk compensation is 5/6 of the potential, say 85%, would still be my lowest figure of 70. That is enough to make a moral case for action.
>
>
>
> 85%?
> >
>
> >> >If indeed you can prove that mandatory helmet laws deter cycling.
>
> >
>
> >> Indeed, and of course you can’t. The best predictor however would be to consider where such a move has been made elsewhere. Whilst all factors are not equal it is still likely to be illuminating. If we consider the case in Australia, where helmets were made mandatory, the overall reduction in cycling (for transport rather
>
> than recreation) was between 25% - 40% (depending on the removal of certain sites where anomalies year on year pertained) in the years following the application of the rule.
>
> >
>
> >Even the 25% number is open to serious doubt from any experienced statistician. There's a problem which nobody mentions, which is that cycling was in a transitional state between poverty transport and a claim on discretionary incomes over much or even all of that period. There is absolutely no proof that cycling was growing, and
>
> serious suspicion that cycling was in decline anyway. It is the sort of consideration that any commercial researcher would first eliminate, but the academics seem unable to understand that usages are dynamic.
>
> >
>
> >> >> So, overall, the likely benefit is considerably lower than postulated and the behaviour modification it might engender could be sufficient to more than offset any gains overall. More study required.
>
> >
>
> >The number of lives saved in the US, even if the depressing effect of risk compensation is 5/6 of the potential, say 85%, would still be my lowest figure of 70. That is enough to make a moral case for action.
>
>
>
>
> That has been utterly discredited, to the extent that even the
>
> majority of the authors have disowned it, and it's use in advertising
>
> in some countries is actually illegal.
>
> If there is any effect overall, it's too small to measure at all, so
>
> what would be the effect of 1/6th of bugger all?
>
> >
>
> >> >...[my] present numbers prove beyond peradventure that nationally in the USA, making >cycling helmets compulsory would save between 70 and 400 plus avoidable deaths every >year.
>
> >
>
> >> ... Each year, approximately 2.5 million people die in the USA from all causes (source World Health Organisation) … a death rate of 8.39/thousand. So, the 200 lives you are discussing have to be put in that overall context … it’s a very large population. Essentially, what you are saying is that you could improve the death
>
> rate by 0.008%. It’s reasonable, I would suggest, to question whether there might not be other factors which should be considered for what is, overall, a very marginal improvement.
>
> >
>
> >Really? I'm talking about cutting the cycling death rate in the States in half, say, and you say that's not enough. Bit hard on the 357 cyclists you've just condemned to death because there aren't enough of them dying to make saving any worthwhile -- that is your argument, isn't it? It's the same argument for which I treat
>
> Krygowski like barbarian.
>
>
>
> You haven't saved any - see the 1/6th of bugger all, above.
> >
>
> >> >...[my] present numbers prove beyond peradventure that nationally in the USA, making >cycling helmets compulsory would save between 70 and 400 plus avoidable deaths every >year.
>
> >
>
> >> ... Each year, approximately 2.5 million people die in the USA from all causes (source World Health Organisation) … a death rate of 8.39/thousand. So, the 200 lives you are discussing have to be put in that overall context … it’s a very large population. Essentially, what you are saying is that you could improve the death
>
> rate by 0.008%. It’s reasonable, I would suggest, to question whether there might not be other factors which should be considered for what is, overall, a very marginal improvement.
>
> >
>
> >Really? I'm talking about cutting the cycling death rate in the States in half, say, and you say that's not enough. Bit hard on the 357 cyclists you've just condemned to death because there aren't enough of them dying to make saving any worthwhile -- that is your argument, isn't it? It's the same argument for which I treat
>
> Krygowski like barbarian.
>
>
>
>
> But you've condemned a lot to death from heart disease, diabetes,
>
> stroke. etc.
>
> >
>
> >> If we look at death rates by type then the annual figure for Ischaemic Heart Disease is 1.26 per thousand (15% of 8.39/thousand). The death rate for cycling is 0.0024/thousand. It is therefore reasonable to assume that were, say, 20% of the cycling population to cease doing so that this would impact their health. Their risk
>
> rate would, for a while, still be lower than 1.26 but it would certainly rise. Say it went up by just one tenth … that would still be 629 additional deaths per annum from heart disease.
>
> >
>
> >What makes you think cyclists, who voluntarily take exercise, would stop exercising when they stop riding? Perhaps they use a rowing machine, perhaps they take up running or swimming. Certainly, the people I know who've given up cycling because they think it is too dangerous have not put on weight.
>
>
>
> I know a lot who have.
> >
>
> >> If we look at death rates by type then the annual figure for Ischaemic Heart Disease is 1.26 per thousand (15% of 8.39/thousand). The death rate for cycling is 0.0024/thousand. It is therefore reasonable to assume that were, say, 20% of the cycling population to cease doing so that this would impact their health. Their risk
>
> rate would, for a while, still be lower than 1.26 but it would certainly rise. Say it went up by just one tenth … that would still be 629 additional deaths per annum from heart disease.
>
> >
>
> >What makes you think cyclists, who voluntarily take exercise, would stop exercising when they stop riding? Perhaps they use a rowing machine, perhaps they take up running or swimming. Certainly, the people I know who've given up cycling because they think it is too dangerous have not put on weight.
>
>
>
>
> The most affected group are those who rode not /for/ exercise, but for
>
> transport, and for whom any exercise gained was a fringe benefit.
>
> In other words the group most likely to be put off my a MHL are
>
> exactly the same group as those least likely to take up an alternative
>
> form of exercise - mostly because they just don't have the time (and
>
> having given up cycling in favour of sitting in traffic queues, they
>
> now have even less of it, plus having to work all the overtime they
>
> can get to pay for running a car).
>
> >
>
> >> So, it’s reasonable to say I think that the statistics are not clear cut and that a 0.008% improvement in the death rate is not a massive incentive to make a potentially liberty curtailing measure.
>
> >
>
> >Anything is "reasonable" if you're willing to let 400-odd cyclists die preventable deaths, every year.
>
>
>
> So you should be mandating cycling?
> >
>
> >> So, it’s reasonable to say I think that the statistics are not clear cut and that a 0.008% improvement in the death rate is not a massive incentive to make a potentially liberty curtailing measure.
>
> >
>
> >Anything is "reasonable" if you're willing to let 400-odd cyclists die preventable deaths, every year.
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >If seat belts were a good law, then bicycle helmets wlll be a good law too. Improved bicycle helmets would be even more welcome.
>
> >
>
> >Andre Jute
>
>
>
> Seat belts largely moved death and injury from inside the car to
> >
>
> >If seat belts were a good law, then bicycle helmets wlll be a good law too. Improved bicycle helmets would be even more welcome.
>
> >
>
> >Andre Jute
>
>
>
>
> outside it.
>
> Maybe a good start would be to ban them for drivers, but still require
>
> them for any passengers?
>
> It's a more restrained (badoom, tishhh) way of working /with/ risk
>
> compensation (instead of constantly fighting against it) than the
>
> frequently cited 8" spike on the steering wheel boss.
Sir Ridesalot
May 17, 2013, 9:10:45 PM5/17/13
to
Congratulations.
Message has been deleted
James
May 17, 2013, 11:15:07 PM5/17/13
to
On 17/05/13 22:04, Andre Jute wrote:
> Can't help observing though that Dr Walker deserves a prize not only
> for his courage in putting himself on the line but also for the
> clever, cheap research method he has devised.
> http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html
Nice find. It is a shame there was not a distance from the edge of the
> Can't help observing though that Dr Walker deserves a prize not only
> for his courage in putting himself on the line but also for the
> clever, cheap research method he has devised.
> http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html
road given for the two times he was hit.
--
JS
Dan O
May 17, 2013, 11:30:27 PM5/17/13
to
On May 17, 6:20 pm, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
> You mean apart from carefully screwing up the attributions, or did you
> do some other devious editing?
> Of course, it's not helped by the fact that you use unlimited line
> lengths, with all your paragraphs having exactly one line.
> Didn't you get past that in primary school English?
>
> Either it was deliberate, or you need to take remedial lessons in
> driving a text editor.
> And if you re going to pretend to be tech savvy, you need to learn to
> use something better than gurgle gropes.
>
Let me take this opportunity to illuminate a couple examples of
quoting. First, here is a recent post:
(oh, wait a sec' - let me repost it to make sure it get's archived and
my link doesn't point into the void... )
... okay, there:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b5f7028c2fca4693
Note the incredibly unnecessary retention of copious quoted context
irrelevant to the added discussion. Here is how I might have done it
if I were Phil:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/71706b6957a6c649
Contrast this with Frank's SOP, which he insists is proper usenet
convention (ostensibly to save bandwidth, I suppose - in the age of
multimegabit per second internet service and typical personal
computers with multigigabyte primary and terabyte secondary storage):
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/5bd54d83bec10fd0
Note how there is no clue whatsoever what they're even talking about.
<snip>
>
> You mean apart from carefully screwing up the attributions, or did you
> do some other devious editing?
> Of course, it's not helped by the fact that you use unlimited line
> lengths, with all your paragraphs having exactly one line.
> Didn't you get past that in primary school English?
>
> Either it was deliberate, or you need to take remedial lessons in
> driving a text editor.
> And if you re going to pretend to be tech savvy, you need to learn to
> use something better than gurgle gropes.
>
Let me take this opportunity to illuminate a couple examples of
quoting. First, here is a recent post:
(oh, wait a sec' - let me repost it to make sure it get's archived and
my link doesn't point into the void... )
... okay, there:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b5f7028c2fca4693
Note the incredibly unnecessary retention of copious quoted context
irrelevant to the added discussion. Here is how I might have done it
if I were Phil:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/71706b6957a6c649
Contrast this with Frank's SOP, which he insists is proper usenet
convention (ostensibly to save bandwidth, I suppose - in the age of
multimegabit per second internet service and typical personal
computers with multigigabyte primary and terabyte secondary storage):
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/5bd54d83bec10fd0
Note how there is no clue whatsoever what they're even talking about.
Frank Krygowski
May 18, 2013, 12:25:11 AM5/18/13
to
On May 17, 11:30 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Let me take this opportunity to illuminate a couple examples of
> quoting. First, here is a recent post:
>
> (oh, wait a sec' - let me repost it to make sure it get's archived and
> my link doesn't point into the void... )
>
> ... okay, there:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b5f7028c2fca4693
>
> Note the incredibly unnecessary retention of copious quoted context
> irrelevant to the added discussion. Here is how I might have done it
> if I were Phil:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/71706b6957a6c649
>
> Contrast this with Frank's SOP, which he insists is proper usenet
> convention (ostensibly to save bandwidth, I suppose - in the age of
> multimegabit per second internet service and typical personal
> computers with multigigabyte primary and terabyte secondary storage):
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/5bd54d83bec10fd0
>
> Note how there is no clue whatsoever what they're even talking about.
Dan, first try finding any "how to" documentation claiming that it's
>
> Let me take this opportunity to illuminate a couple examples of
> quoting. First, here is a recent post:
>
> (oh, wait a sec' - let me repost it to make sure it get's archived and
> my link doesn't point into the void... )
>
> ... okay, there:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b5f7028c2fca4693
>
> Note the incredibly unnecessary retention of copious quoted context
> irrelevant to the added discussion. Here is how I might have done it
> if I were Phil:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/71706b6957a6c649
>
> Contrast this with Frank's SOP, which he insists is proper usenet
> convention (ostensibly to save bandwidth, I suppose - in the age of
> multimegabit per second internet service and typical personal
> computers with multigigabyte primary and terabyte secondary storage):
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/5bd54d83bec10fd0
>
> Note how there is no clue whatsoever what they're even talking about.
wrong to trim unessential parts of a post. As usual, I've previously
given links that corroborate what I've been saying and doing. As
usual, you've not.
Second, find some documentation about your computer's mouse, touchpad
or other pointing device. Learn how to scroll upward. That's where
the "what they're even talking about" is always available on Usenet,
for those who may forget the previous post.
(You have kids, right? They can probably show you how to do this.)
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
May 18, 2013, 1:14:57 AM5/18/13
to
stepped in it this time :-)
Where to even begin... Did you even *look* at my example of your
contextless post? "Unessential"?
And "mouse, touchpad, or other pointing device"? Those are *solely*
for Graphical User Interfaces. This is usenet.
Dipwad.
(And yes, I do have kids; and I learn all kinds of cool things from
them. I love to show them - using our gateway computer - what you
might call a "router", but not even really know what that means - that
not only do you not need a "pointing device" to operate a computer,
you don't even need a display device is foyu know what you're doing.)
Dan O
May 18, 2013, 2:03:28 AM5/18/13
to
On May 17, 9:25 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 11:30 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Let me take this opportunity to illuminate a couple examples of
> > quoting. First, here is a recent post:
>
> > (oh, wait a sec' - let me repost it to make sure it get's archived and
> > my link doesn't point into the void... )
>
> > ... okay, there:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b5f7028c2fca4693
>
> > Note the incredibly unnecessary retention of copious quoted context
> > irrelevant to the added discussion. Here is how I might have done it
> > if I were Phil:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/71706b6957a6c649
>
> > Contrast this with Frank's SOP, which he insists is proper usenet
> > convention (ostensibly to save bandwidth, I suppose - in the age of
> > multimegabit per second internet service and typical personal
> > computers with multigigabyte primary and terabyte secondary storage):
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/5bd54d83bec10fd0
>
> > Note how there is no clue whatsoever what they're even talking about.
>
> Dan, first try finding any "how to" documentation claiming that it's
> wrong to trim unessential parts of a post. As usual, I've previously
> given links that corroborate what I've been saying and doing. As
> usual, you've not.
>
And you know what? This is *exactly* the way he apporaches discussion
>
>
>
>
>
> > Let me take this opportunity to illuminate a couple examples of
> > quoting. First, here is a recent post:
>
> > (oh, wait a sec' - let me repost it to make sure it get's archived and
> > my link doesn't point into the void... )
>
> > ... okay, there:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/b5f7028c2fca4693
>
> > Note the incredibly unnecessary retention of copious quoted context
> > irrelevant to the added discussion. Here is how I might have done it
> > if I were Phil:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/71706b6957a6c649
>
> > Contrast this with Frank's SOP, which he insists is proper usenet
> > convention (ostensibly to save bandwidth, I suppose - in the age of
> > multimegabit per second internet service and typical personal
> > computers with multigigabyte primary and terabyte secondary storage):
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/5bd54d83bec10fd0
>
> > Note how there is no clue whatsoever what they're even talking about.
>
> Dan, first try finding any "how to" documentation claiming that it's
> wrong to trim unessential parts of a post. As usual, I've previously
> given links that corroborate what I've been saying and doing. As
> usual, you've not.
>
of *bicycling* subjects. First, he contrives a position _of his own
making_ and ascribes it - completely erroneously - to me. Second, he
gives links (?) that corroborate - _in his *own* (liddle) mind_ - what
he's been saying and doing.
<snip>
Andre Jute
May 18, 2013, 6:46:40 AM5/18/13
to
Andre Jute
Andre Jute
May 18, 2013, 7:07:26 AM5/18/13
to
I reprint Phil Lee's meretricious, stupid letter below so it cannot disappear from the Usenet after a week, as he wishes.
I've already explained to poor Phil that I didn't say there would be 85% risk compensation, nor that there would be 16% risk compensation. I see no research which would allow anyone to put a hard number on it. There is a long, long discussion in this thread about the absence of any such numbers; I described the academic discussion as "waffle". I was merely ridiculing by five-bob-each-way hyperbole any claims of risk compensation (a little of it or a lot of it -- I repeat, there is no hard evidence either way). It is not my problem if a jumped-up techie like Phil fails to grasp what I send to a sophisticated correspondent.
Entertainingly, poor Phil has misunderstood what I wrote so comprehensively that he is arguing against his own anti-helmet zealot case, which would be well suited by a provable 85% risk compensation for helmet wear.
Let me give you a tip, Phil. See, I'm not on anybody's side. I'm on the side of truth. If risk compensation turns out to be 85%, which will suit the anti-helmet zealots, I will say so. It is a therefore a mistake that has already several time embarrassed you, and will again embarrass you, to make kneejerk objections to *everything* I say. It just makes you sound like a roadie who's taken too many faceplants. Before you object to what I say simply because you hate me for not supporting your case 100%, make sure you understand what I have actually said, because at least half the time I say stuff useful to your side of the argument.
Andre Jute
RBT gets more hilarious by the day
On Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:20:14 AM UTC+1, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> considered Fri, 17 May 2013 15:06:50
>
> That figure is misleading (hence it's illegality in advertising)
>
> bullshit, and has been completely discredited.
>
>
>
> The only actual value it has is as a signal that the person citing it
>
> is invariably spouting large quantities of el torro poopoo.
>
> >> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> alleged he did:
>
> >>
I've already explained to poor Phil that I didn't say there would be 85% risk compensation, nor that there would be 16% risk compensation. I see no research which would allow anyone to put a hard number on it. There is a long, long discussion in this thread about the absence of any such numbers; I described the academic discussion as "waffle". I was merely ridiculing by five-bob-each-way hyperbole any claims of risk compensation (a little of it or a lot of it -- I repeat, there is no hard evidence either way). It is not my problem if a jumped-up techie like Phil fails to grasp what I send to a sophisticated correspondent.
Entertainingly, poor Phil has misunderstood what I wrote so comprehensively that he is arguing against his own anti-helmet zealot case, which would be well suited by a provable 85% risk compensation for helmet wear.
Let me give you a tip, Phil. See, I'm not on anybody's side. I'm on the side of truth. If risk compensation turns out to be 85%, which will suit the anti-helmet zealots, I will say so. It is a therefore a mistake that has already several time embarrassed you, and will again embarrass you, to make kneejerk objections to *everything* I say. It just makes you sound like a roadie who's taken too many faceplants. Before you object to what I say simply because you hate me for not supporting your case 100%, make sure you understand what I have actually said, because at least half the time I say stuff useful to your side of the argument.
Andre Jute
RBT gets more hilarious by the day
On Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:20:14 AM UTC+1, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> considered Fri, 17 May 2013 15:06:50
>
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
> >> >The number of lives saved in the US, even if the depressing effect of risk compensation is 5/6 of the potential, say 85%, would still be my lowest figure of 70. That is enough to make a moral case for action.
>
> >>
>
> >> 85%?
>
> >>
>
> >> That has been utterly discredited, to the extent that even the
>
> >>
>
> >> majority of the authors have disowned it, and it's use in advertising
>
> >>
>
> >> in some countries is actually illegal.
>
> >
>
> >I really don't know what you're talking about, Phil. You have some other cat by its tail, with your thumb up its arse.
>
> >
>
> You said that the potential saving was 85%.
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
> >> >The number of lives saved in the US, even if the depressing effect of risk compensation is 5/6 of the potential, say 85%, would still be my lowest figure of 70. That is enough to make a moral case for action.
>
> >>
>
> >> 85%?
>
> >>
>
> >> That has been utterly discredited, to the extent that even the
>
> >>
>
> >> majority of the authors have disowned it, and it's use in advertising
>
> >>
>
> >> in some countries is actually illegal.
>
> >
>
> >I really don't know what you're talking about, Phil. You have some other cat by its tail, with your thumb up its arse.
>
> >
>
>
> That figure is misleading (hence it's illegality in advertising)
>
> bullshit, and has been completely discredited.
>
>
>
> The only actual value it has is as a signal that the person citing it
>
> is invariably spouting large quantities of el torro poopoo.
>
>
>
> >Pay attention, Phil. What I'm saying is NOT that there would be a 16% risk compensation. What I'm saying is that, even in the event of a ludicrous 85% risk compensation, my numbers of positive effects are so conservative, they will be hardly affected in the low and the middle ranges. (A point Matt himself volunteered before I reinforced it.) I'm not speculating that either the 85% or the 1/6 is correct, I'm merely using hyperbole to show that, regardless of what anyone's guesstimate for counterfactors like risk compensation may be, my solid number for lives saved by wearing helmets, calculated from really hard numbers (see my original post in this thread), stands with monumental firmness. Matt agreed instantly, and so will any statistician and psychologist with experience in field work. (My hard numbers apply only to the States, eh? Extension to even other anglophone countries will be bedevilled by all the usual objections to extending the Australian results, even if they were
>
> >reliable, to the rest of the world.)
>
> >
>
> >Andre Jute
>
> >
>
> >Here's Phil's entire post for context. Nothing more from me below this point.
>
>
>
>
>
> >Pay attention, Phil. What I'm saying is NOT that there would be a 16% risk compensation. What I'm saying is that, even in the event of a ludicrous 85% risk compensation, my numbers of positive effects are so conservative, they will be hardly affected in the low and the middle ranges. (A point Matt himself volunteered before I reinforced it.) I'm not speculating that either the 85% or the 1/6 is correct, I'm merely using hyperbole to show that, regardless of what anyone's guesstimate for counterfactors like risk compensation may be, my solid number for lives saved by wearing helmets, calculated from really hard numbers (see my original post in this thread), stands with monumental firmness. Matt agreed instantly, and so will any statistician and psychologist with experience in field work. (My hard numbers apply only to the States, eh? Extension to even other anglophone countries will be bedevilled by all the usual objections to extending the Australian results, even if they were
>
> >reliable, to the rest of the world.)
>
> >
>
> >Andre Jute
>
> >
>
> >Here's Phil's entire post for context. Nothing more from me below this point.
>
>
>
> You mean apart from carefully screwing up the attributions, or did you
>
> do some other devious editing?
>
> Of course, it's not helped by the fact that you use unlimited line
>
> lengths, with all your paragraphs having exactly one line.
>
> Didn't you get past that in primary school English?
>
>
>
> Either it was deliberate, or you need to take remedial lessons in
>
> driving a text editor.
>
> And if you re going to pretend to be tech savvy, you need to learn to
>
> use something better than gurgle gropes.
>
> >
>
> >On Friday, May 17, 2013 8:27:07 PM UTC+1, Phil W Lee did not write what
>
> do some other devious editing?
>
> Of course, it's not helped by the fact that you use unlimited line
>
> lengths, with all your paragraphs having exactly one line.
>
> Didn't you get past that in primary school English?
>
>
>
> Either it was deliberate, or you need to take remedial lessons in
>
> driving a text editor.
>
> And if you re going to pretend to be tech savvy, you need to learn to
>
> use something better than gurgle gropes.
>
> >
>
>
> >> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> alleged he did:
>
> >>
Frank Krygowski
May 18, 2013, 10:27:32 AM5/18/13
to
"To prevent hideously long posts with a minimal account of new text,
it is good Usenet practice to REMOVE THE NON-RELEVANT PARTS and
optionally summarize the relevant parts of the original post, with
regard to one's reply. "
From http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc-sci/netiquette.html :
"--- When you are following up someone's article, please summarize the
parts of the article to which you are responding. This allows readers
to appreciate your comments rather than trying to remember what the
original article said. Summarizing on usenet is generally done by
quoting EXCERPTS of the original post. Quoted material is usually
indicated by > marks at the beginnings of lines. "
... and so on. There are dozens of these out there.
- Frank Krygowski
Andre Jute
May 18, 2013, 11:59:29 AM5/18/13
to
Poor Phil doesn't know when to stop. Here he tries to blow smoke over his dumb error by accusing me of editing his post. I have news for the little man: I spent my afternoon cycling. He isn't important enough for me to give up two minutes of good cycling time. His complete post is below for the archive, and for students of petty paranoia. Nothing more from me in this post.
Ah, except for this. Here this poor thick fuck Phil Lee tries to patonize me: The dumb techie Phil Lee wrote:
> Didn't you get past that in primary school English?
D'you see, dear Phil, when you do it, whatever it is, it is an illiterate atrocity, when I do it, the OED declares it high art.
Andre Jute
Slow learners are everywhere
On Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:20:14 AM UTC+1, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> considered Fri, 17 May 2013 15:06:50
Ah, except for this. Here this poor thick fuck Phil Lee tries to patonize me: The dumb techie Phil Lee wrote:
> Didn't you get past that in primary school English?
Andre Jute
Slow learners are everywhere
On Saturday, May 18, 2013 2:20:14 AM UTC+1, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> considered Fri, 17 May 2013 15:06:50
>
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
> >> >The number of lives saved in the US, even if the depressing effect of risk compensation is 5/6 of the potential, say 85%, would still be my lowest figure of 70. That is enough to make a moral case for action.
>
> >>
>
> >> 85%?
>
> >>
>
> >> That has been utterly discredited, to the extent that even the
>
> >>
>
> >> majority of the authors have disowned it, and it's use in advertising
>
> >>
>
> >> in some countries is actually illegal.
>
> >
>
> >I really don't know what you're talking about, Phil. You have some other cat by its tail, with your thumb up its arse.
>
> >
>
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>
>
> >> >The number of lives saved in the US, even if the depressing effect of risk compensation is 5/6 of the potential, say 85%, would still be my lowest figure of 70. That is enough to make a moral case for action.
>
> >>
>
> >> 85%?
>
> >>
>
> >> That has been utterly discredited, to the extent that even the
>
> >>
>
> >> majority of the authors have disowned it, and it's use in advertising
>
> >>
>
> >> in some countries is actually illegal.
>
> >
>
> >I really don't know what you're talking about, Phil. You have some other cat by its tail, with your thumb up its arse.
>
> >
>
> You said that the potential saving was 85%.
>
> That figure is misleading (hence it's illegality in advertising)
>
> bullshit, and has been completely discredited.
>
>
>
> The only actual value it has is as a signal that the person citing it
>
> is invariably spouting large quantities of el torro poopoo.
>
>
>
>
> That figure is misleading (hence it's illegality in advertising)
>
> bullshit, and has been completely discredited.
>
>
>
> The only actual value it has is as a signal that the person citing it
>
> is invariably spouting large quantities of el torro poopoo.
>
>
>
> >Pay attention, Phil. What I'm saying is NOT that there would be a 16% risk compensation. What I'm saying is that, even in the event of a ludicrous 85% risk compensation, my numbers of positive effects are so conservative, they will be hardly affected in the low and the middle ranges. (A point Matt himself volunteered before I reinforced it.) I'm not speculating that either the 85% or the 1/6 is correct, I'm merely using hyperbole to show that, regardless of what anyone's guesstimate for counterfactors like risk compensation may be, my solid number for lives saved by wearing helmets, calculated from really hard numbers (see my original post in this thread), stands with monumental firmness. Matt agreed instantly, and so will any statistician and psychologist with experience in field work. (My hard numbers apply only to the States, eh? Extension to even other anglophone countries will be bedevilled by all the usual objections to extending the Australian results, even if they were
>
> >reliable, to the rest of the world.)
>
> >
>
> >Andre Jute
>
> >
>
> >Here's Phil's entire post for context. Nothing more from me below this point.
>
>
>
>
> >reliable, to the rest of the world.)
>
> >
>
> >Andre Jute
>
> >
>
> >Here's Phil's entire post for context. Nothing more from me below this point.
>
>
>
Dan O
May 18, 2013, 12:01:09 PM5/18/13
to
> "To prevent hideously long posts with a minimal account of new text,
> it is good Usenet practice to REMOVE THE NON-RELEVANT PARTS and
> optionally summarize the relevant parts of the original post, with
> regard to one's reply. "
>
Frank, note my examples. In the first, it is hideously long with a
> it is good Usenet practice to REMOVE THE NON-RELEVANT PARTS and
> optionally summarize the relevant parts of the original post, with
> regard to one's reply. "
>
minimal amount of new text, and the new text is only relevant to a
minimal aspect of the quoted discussion. So in my second example I
demonstrate how I might have snipped the non-relevant parts,
indicating where I have removed text (in case anyone wants to go look
for it elesewhere and out of respect for the fact that I am not the
final arbiter of what's relevant or meaningful), producing an
elegantly concise article in which the new text makes perfect and
complete sense.
In the final axample - your post - it's like editing a movie down
[pick one from each of the following]:
# Why I oughta..."
# "You imbecile!"
# "You knucklehead!"
# "Oh, a wise guy, eh?"
# "I'll murder ya!"
# "Why you..."
# "You nitwit!"
# "Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk!"
# "Oh, a wise guy, eh?"
# "Nyaaaaaahhhhhhh!"
# "La-la-la, la-la-la..." (Humming)
# "HRRRRRRMPH!" (Frusturation)
# "Rrrowf! Rrrowf!" (when angry or defiant)
# "I'm a victim of soicumstance" (circumstance)
# "Woo-woo-woo-woo!" (When frightened) (He sometimes runs around or
away when saying this)
* (or "Whoop-whoop-whoop-whoop!")
* (or "Woop-oop-oop-oop-oop-oop!")
> Fromhttp://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc-sci/netiquette.html:
> "--- When you are following up someone's article, please summarize the
> parts of the article to which you are responding. This allows readers
> to appreciate your comments rather than trying to remember what the
> original article said. Summarizing on usenet is generally done by
> quoting EXCERPTS of the original post. Quoted material is usually
> indicated by > marks at the beginnings of lines. "
>
Oh for Christ's sake! "This allows readers to appreciate your
> parts of the article to which you are responding. This allows readers
> to appreciate your comments rather than trying to remember what the
> original article said. Summarizing on usenet is generally done by
> quoting EXCERPTS of the original post. Quoted material is usually
> indicated by > marks at the beginnings of lines. "
>
comments rather than trying to remember what the original article
said."
Look again at the my three examples: Hideously long such that it is
said."
difficult to evne *find* the minimal new text; concise and
understandable with quoted relevant exceprts; and "Why I oughta..." -
"Woo-woo-woo-woo!".
> ... and so on. There are dozens of these out there.
>
sms
May 18, 2013, 4:24:33 PM5/18/13
to
On 5/17/2013 8:30 PM, Dan O wrote:
<snip>
> Contrast this with Frank's SOP, which he insists is proper usenet
> convention (ostensibly to save bandwidth, I suppose - in the age of
> multimegabit per second internet service and typical personal
> computers with multigigabyte primary and terabyte secondary storage):
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/5bd54d83bec10fd0
>
> Note how there is no clue whatsoever what they're even talking about.
Teaching a non-technical person to use Usenet properly is a challenge.
Proper trimming requires leaving enough context so the reader knows what
the post is referring to, but some posters trim _everything_ other than
their own response which is annoying. This is especially an issue in a
group like this where there are so many, ahem, "problem people" who many
of us have filtered out so if a regular person responds and trims
everything we really have no idea what he or she was responding to, and
no way to go back and look at the post they were responding to.
Of course keeping attributions intact when snipping is critical as well.
Using CR/LF after each sentence isn't necessary and is actually rather
annoying if you're reading posts in a Usenet reader like Thunderbird (or
just about any other Usenet reader). Back in the 1990's I was using a
newsreader where it was better to use a CR/LF after every sentence but I
doubt anyone uses such a thing anymore.
I bottom post because it's accepted convention, though in reality top
posting makes much more sense if the poster isn't trimming the earlier
posts because the reader doesn't have to scroll down to see the new
material.
<snip>
> Contrast this with Frank's SOP, which he insists is proper usenet
> convention (ostensibly to save bandwidth, I suppose - in the age of
> multimegabit per second internet service and typical personal
> computers with multigigabyte primary and terabyte secondary storage):
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/5bd54d83bec10fd0
>
> Note how there is no clue whatsoever what they're even talking about.
Proper trimming requires leaving enough context so the reader knows what
the post is referring to, but some posters trim _everything_ other than
their own response which is annoying. This is especially an issue in a
group like this where there are so many, ahem, "problem people" who many
of us have filtered out so if a regular person responds and trims
everything we really have no idea what he or she was responding to, and
no way to go back and look at the post they were responding to.
Of course keeping attributions intact when snipping is critical as well.
Using CR/LF after each sentence isn't necessary and is actually rather
annoying if you're reading posts in a Usenet reader like Thunderbird (or
just about any other Usenet reader). Back in the 1990's I was using a
newsreader where it was better to use a CR/LF after every sentence but I
doubt anyone uses such a thing anymore.
I bottom post because it's accepted convention, though in reality top
posting makes much more sense if the poster isn't trimming the earlier
posts because the reader doesn't have to scroll down to see the new
material.
Andre Jute
May 18, 2013, 5:23:05 PM5/18/13
to
As for trimming, I normally do, except when creepy dissimulators like Bilious Phil and Kreepy Krygo are trying to mislead people, in which case I quote them in full at the bottom of my post to create a permanent record. Bilious Phil is particularly deceitful. He arranges for his posts to be removed, and then claims they said something else than what he actually said. I always quote Bilious Phil in full, for the record. So should everyone else.
Andre Jute
Phil W Lee
May 18, 2013, 7:42:10 PM5/18/13
to
Arsehole Andre <fiul...@yahoo.com> considered Sat, 18 May 2013
then complain that it is other people that don't follow standards.
Hilarious.
Presumably you also use pliers on bolts, and a knife as a screwdriver,
then complain at the damage you cause to the tools and the work.
Just a hint.
http is not the same thing as nntp.
Try looking them up, and finding the appropriate tool for the job.
Even the best spanner is not designed to be used on a nut or bolt of a
different size, and certainly not as a hammer or screwdriver.
I merely state (as a default setting) that I am withholding consent to
archive my posts on websites.
They will be on usenet for easily long enough for anyone who bothers
to take an interest in them to read and reply.
14:23:05 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>You guys must be hard up for intellectual stimulation if you're discussing Bilious Phil's smoke, blown to cover up his grossly erroneous (and damaging to his own case) misreading of my post, and his kneejerk reaction. I use Apple's Safari, one of the most widely distributed of all browsers, and reply inside Google Groups, with Google's standard format. If Bilious Phil's, or anyone else's, non-standard reader can't handle that, that's not my problem.
So you try to use a (badly broken) website to make usenet posts, and
>You guys must be hard up for intellectual stimulation if you're discussing Bilious Phil's smoke, blown to cover up his grossly erroneous (and damaging to his own case) misreading of my post, and his kneejerk reaction. I use Apple's Safari, one of the most widely distributed of all browsers, and reply inside Google Groups, with Google's standard format. If Bilious Phil's, or anyone else's, non-standard reader can't handle that, that's not my problem.
then complain that it is other people that don't follow standards.
Hilarious.
Presumably you also use pliers on bolts, and a knife as a screwdriver,
then complain at the damage you cause to the tools and the work.
Just a hint.
http is not the same thing as nntp.
Try looking them up, and finding the appropriate tool for the job.
Even the best spanner is not designed to be used on a nut or bolt of a
different size, and certainly not as a hammer or screwdriver.
>
>As for trimming, I normally do, except when creepy dissimulators like Bilious Phil and Kreepy Krygo are trying to mislead people, in which case I quote them in full at the bottom of my post to create a permanent record. Bilious Phil is particularly deceitful. He arranges for his posts to be removed, and then claims they said something else than what he actually said. I always quote Bilious Phil in full, for the record. So should everyone else.
>
I don't "arrange" anything, as you well know.
>As for trimming, I normally do, except when creepy dissimulators like Bilious Phil and Kreepy Krygo are trying to mislead people, in which case I quote them in full at the bottom of my post to create a permanent record. Bilious Phil is particularly deceitful. He arranges for his posts to be removed, and then claims they said something else than what he actually said. I always quote Bilious Phil in full, for the record. So should everyone else.
>
I merely state (as a default setting) that I am withholding consent to
archive my posts on websites.
They will be on usenet for easily long enough for anyone who bothers
to take an interest in them to read and reply.
Andre Jute
May 18, 2013, 9:49:10 PM5/18/13
to
Hey, Phil Lee, where's your apology for being stupid enough to claim I said helmets would reduce cyclist fatalities by -- what was that ludicrous figure again? -- 85 per cent. We're all agreed I didn't say it. No smoke in the world will hide the fact that you lied about what I said. You should at least have the manners to apologize for your foolish error, not abuse me further, as below. Nothing more from me below, just Bilious Phil's copycat abuse and smoke, numbingly dull.
Andre Jute
Zero patience for malicious mouth-foamers
Andre Jute
Zero patience for malicious mouth-foamers
sms
May 18, 2013, 11:18:00 PM5/18/13
to
On 5/18/2013 2:23 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
<snip>
> Phil is particularly deceitful. He arranges for his posts to be removed, and then claims they said something else than what he actually said. I always quote Bilious Phil in full, for the record. So should everyone else.
LOL, does he set the X-No-Archive field? That whole thing started when
DejaNews (now Google Groups) began since suddenly Usenet posts were
being preserved for eternity which is something some posters definitely
did not want to occur. However not all news servers look at that field
so a post may be archived anyway.
<snip>
> Phil is particularly deceitful. He arranges for his posts to be removed, and then claims they said something else than what he actually said. I always quote Bilious Phil in full, for the record. So should everyone else.
DejaNews (now Google Groups) began since suddenly Usenet posts were
being preserved for eternity which is something some posters definitely
did not want to occur. However not all news servers look at that field
so a post may be archived anyway.
Dan O
May 19, 2013, 1:23:45 AM5/19/13
to
On May 18, 1:24 pm, sms <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 8:30 PM, Dan O wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Contrast this with Frank's SOP, which he insists is proper usenet
> > convention (ostensibly to save bandwidth, I suppose - in the age of
> > multimegabit per second internet service and typical personal
> > computers with multigigabyte primary and terabyte secondary storage):
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/5bd54d83bec10fd0
>
> > Note how there is no clue whatsoever what they're even talking about.
>
> Teaching a non-technical person to use Usenet properly is a challenge.
>
Probably, but I'm not about "teaching" anyone to do things "properly".
> On 5/17/2013 8:30 PM, Dan O wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Contrast this with Frank's SOP, which he insists is proper usenet
> > convention (ostensibly to save bandwidth, I suppose - in the age of
> > multimegabit per second internet service and typical personal
> > computers with multigigabyte primary and terabyte secondary storage):
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/5bd54d83bec10fd0
>
> > Note how there is no clue whatsoever what they're even talking about.
>
> Teaching a non-technical person to use Usenet properly is a challenge.
>
I got a laugh out of the bit about the "pointing device", though :-)
<snip>
sms
May 19, 2013, 9:11:37 AM5/19/13
to
On 5/18/2013 6:49 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
> Hey, Phil Lee, where's your apology for being stupid enough to claim I said helmets would reduce cyclist fatalities by -- what was that ludicrous figure again? -- 85 per cent. We're all agreed I didn't say it. No smoke in the world will hide the fact that you lied about what I said. You should at least have the manners to apologize for your foolish error, not abuse me further, as below. Nothing more from me below, just Bilious Phil's copycat abuse and smoke, numbingly dull.
It's interesting that a primary argument against the usage of helmets
> Hey, Phil Lee, where's your apology for being stupid enough to claim I said helmets would reduce cyclist fatalities by -- what was that ludicrous figure again? -- 85 per cent. We're all agreed I didn't say it. No smoke in the world will hide the fact that you lied about what I said. You should at least have the manners to apologize for your foolish error, not abuse me further, as below. Nothing more from me below, just Bilious Phil's copycat abuse and smoke, numbingly dull.
hinges on intentional misinterpretation of the 85% figure.
The oft-misquoted Thompson & Rivara study never claimed that helmet
usage reduces head injury rates 88% or 85%. The study looked only at a
population of cyclists that experienced a crash _and_ that received
medical attention for their injuries--a population that is an extremely
small subset of bicyclists. For the subset of cyclists that experienced
a crash requiring medical attention, and that was wearing a helmet, they
found a 63-88% reduction in the risk of head and brain injuries.
Thompson & Rivara used only well-conducted, case-controlled studies in
their analysis, something those against helmets are furious about. No
junk science or junk statistics.
The problem with the Thompson & Rivara study is that the results are
often used out of context by those lobbying for mandatory helmet laws.
Put into context, if 1 in 100 cyclists experiences a crash during their
lifetime that requires medical attention, then the reduction in the risk
of head and brain injuries that comes from everyone wearing a helmet is
from 0.63-0.88%. The bottom line is that in the extremely unlikely event
that you're ever involved in a bicycle crash serious enough to require
medical attention, you're much better off with a helmet than without one.
Ironically, the Thompson & Rivara study reports only on crashes where
the victim sought medical attention. They have no way of knowing how
many crashes there were where the presence of a helmet mitigated the
injuries to the point where medical attention was not necessary. Hence,
the 63-88% range given by Rivara and Thompson is almost certainly quite
conservative.
Paradoxically, whole population studies in countries that have adopted
an all-ages helmet law show a greater reduction in head injuries than
the Thompson & Rivara study would indicate, while at the same time
finding no change in cycling levels as a result of the legislation
(cycling levels change all the time, for various reasons, so it would be
unfair to claim that the increases in cycling following mandatory helmet
legislation were related to the law).
What is true, is that the "85%" figure is trotted out way too often by
well-meaning, but clueless officials, who sometimes use it out of
context. But contrary to what the anti-helmet websites claim, the 85%
figure was arrived at by statistically and scientifically sound case
controlled research, which is a lot more than you can say for any of the
"studies" they are fond of quoting.
Frank Krygowski
May 19, 2013, 10:44:36 AM5/19/13
to
Maybe it's time to move up to a GUI, Dan.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
May 19, 2013, 11:22:57 AM5/19/13
to
usual load of lies. For example:
"The oft-misquoted Thompson & Rivara study never claimed that helmet
"riders with helmets had an 85% reduction in their risk of head
injury."
"For the subset of cyclists that experienced a crash requiring medical
attention, and that was wearing a helmet, they found a 63-88%
63% reduction was not from the same study. It was from a subsequent
Thompson & Rivara study using the same faulty methodology, but a
larger sample. Note that it found significantly less benefit despite
its biased method. Indeed, _every_ study subsequent to Thompson &
Rivara's 1989 paper has found significantly less benefit than their
earliest "85%" claim, including even negative benefit - i.e. increased
risk. Yet helmet proponents always quote only the highest value, just
as in commercial advertising. ("Lose up to 15 pounds per week!")
"Thompson & Rivara used only well-conducted, case-controlled studies
in their analysis, something those against helmets are furious about.
of the shortcomings and distortions of T&R's methodology:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html
(Warning: The link's explanation contains the use of mathematics.)
"Ironically, the Thompson & Rivara study reports only on crashes where
the victim sought medical attention. They have no way of knowing how
many crashes there were where the presence of a helmet mitigated the
injuries to the point where medical attention was not necessary."
proponents. It was addressed early on by Paul Scuffham and his
research team, who were charged with gathering data to promote the
upcoming all-ages MHL for New Zealand. They examined about twelve
years of data for _every_ cyclist hospitalized in NZ, using data
techniques that would detect those cyclists who had been "saved" i.e.
prevented from entering the hospital. Despite examining all the
available hospital data for NZ using several sophisticated
mathematical tools and attempts, they were forced to conclude that
there was no detectable benefit. Surging helmet use under heavy,
heavy promotion had kept nobody out of the hospital. See Scuffham,
et. al., Trends in Cycling Injuries in New Zealand Under Voluntary
Helmet Use, 1997, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 29, No 1.
"... the 63-88% range given by Rivara and Thompson is almost certainly
quite conservative." But if 88% were conservative, there would be
almost zero head injuries of any type to occur in helmeted cyclists.
Yet, as mentioned in the June 2013 issue of _Bicycling_ magazine, "As
more people buckled on helmets, brain injuries also increased.
Between 1997 and 2011 the number of bike-related concussions suffered
annually by American riders increased by 67 percent..." And the
article goes on to make clear that this was far greater than the
increase in people riding.
" Paradoxically, whole population studies in countries that have
adopted an all-ages helmet law show a greater reduction in head
simply a lie. For example, in Australia (as in the U.S.) per-cyclist
head injuries have actually risen since helmets have become popular
and/or mandated.
Among serious researchers (as opposed to helmet promoters) there is
much effort being expended to understand why. The June 2013 article
in _Bicycling_ magazine discusses this in some detail. It's
recommended reading for those interested in this issue. The online
version is at
http://www.bicycling.com/node/4740/32152
but it's worth getting the print issue, since the printed article is
much, much more thorough.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
May 19, 2013, 12:59:16 PM5/19/13
to
Dan O
May 19, 2013, 1:09:30 PM5/19/13
to
text?" (Not sure why I changed it to "with" :-)
AMuzi
May 19, 2013, 1:47:45 PM5/19/13
to
not require s WIMP (Windows Icons Mouse Pointer) interface.
The macro keys in most readers are faster and sufficently
effective for many users.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Phil W Lee
May 19, 2013, 2:30:58 PM5/19/13
to
Annie Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> considered Sat, 18 May 2013 18:49:10
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to blather:
>Hey, Phil Lee, where's your apology for being stupid enough to claim I said helmets would reduce cyclist fatalities by -- what was that ludicrous figure again? -- 85 per cent.
You said quite clearly (and quite wrongly, as you now admit) that the
potential saving was 85%.
If that is not what you meant (as you now assert) you should just
admit to your misleading phraseology and apologise for your poor
writing standards.
>We're all agreed I didn't say it.
The royal we?
You have ideas well above your station.
>No smoke in the world will hide the fact that you lied about what I said. You should at least have the manners to apologize for your foolish error, not abuse me further, as below. Nothing more from me below, just Bilious Phil's copycat abuse and smoke, numbingly dull.
It's not my fault if you can't even understand what you wrote.
It's still there - go back and read it, with help from a primary
school teacher if necessary (as apparently it is).
Zero patience with illiterates.
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to blather:
>Hey, Phil Lee, where's your apology for being stupid enough to claim I said helmets would reduce cyclist fatalities by -- what was that ludicrous figure again? -- 85 per cent.
potential saving was 85%.
If that is not what you meant (as you now assert) you should just
admit to your misleading phraseology and apologise for your poor
writing standards.
>We're all agreed I didn't say it.
You have ideas well above your station.
>No smoke in the world will hide the fact that you lied about what I said. You should at least have the manners to apologize for your foolish error, not abuse me further, as below. Nothing more from me below, just Bilious Phil's copycat abuse and smoke, numbingly dull.
It's still there - go back and read it, with help from a primary
school teacher if necessary (as apparently it is).
>
>Andre Jute
>Zero patience for malicious mouth-foamers
Phil Lee
>Andre Jute
>Zero patience for malicious mouth-foamers
Zero patience with illiterates.
Dan O
May 19, 2013, 2:41:21 PM5/19/13
to
On May 19, 10:47 am, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> On 5/19/2013 9:44 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 1:23 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 18, 1:24 pm, sms <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 5/17/2013 8:30 PM, Dan O wrote:
>
> >>> <snip>
>
> >>>> Contrast this with Frank's SOP, which he insists is proper usenet
> >>>> convention (ostensibly to save bandwidth, I suppose - in the age of
> >>>> multimegabit per second internet service and typical personal
> >>>> computers with multigigabyte primary and terabyte secondary storage):
>
> >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/5bd54d83bec10fd0
>
> >>>> Note how there is no clue whatsoever what they're even talking about.
>
> >>> Teaching a non-technical person to use Usenet properly is a challenge.
>
> >> Probably, but I'm not about "teaching" anyone to do things "properly".
>
> >> I got a laugh out of the bit about the "pointing device", though :-)
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_device
>
> > Maybe it's time to move up to a GUI, Dan.
>
>
> On 5/19/2013 9:44 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 19, 1:23 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 18, 1:24 pm, sms <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 5/17/2013 8:30 PM, Dan O wrote:
>
> >>> <snip>
>
> >>>> Contrast this with Frank's SOP, which he insists is proper usenet
> >>>> convention (ostensibly to save bandwidth, I suppose - in the age of
> >>>> multimegabit per second internet service and typical personal
> >>>> computers with multigigabyte primary and terabyte secondary storage):
>
> >>>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/5bd54d83bec10fd0
>
> >>>> Note how there is no clue whatsoever what they're even talking about.
>
> >>> Teaching a non-technical person to use Usenet properly is a challenge.
>
> >> Probably, but I'm not about "teaching" anyone to do things "properly".
>
> >> I got a laugh out of the bit about the "pointing device", though :-)
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_device
>
> > Maybe it's time to move up to a GUI, Dan.
>
>
> He may well if he doesn't use such already,
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19)
Gecko/20081202 Iceweasel/2.0.0.19 (Debian-2.0.0.19-0etch1),gzip(gfe)
Mostly X11 and GNOME (and Windows Explorer) these days, but I might
list hands on experience with a dozen others without reaching too
hard.
> ... but usenet does
> not require s WIMP (Windows Icons Mouse Pointer) interface.
>
> The macro keys in most readers are faster and sufficently
> effective for many users.
>
Emacs isn't just a computer program, it's a way of life.
>
> The macro keys in most readers are faster and sufficently
> effective for many users.
>
davethedave
May 19, 2013, 5:52:07 PM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 11:41:21 -0700, Dan O wrote:
>> The macro keys in most readers are faster and sufficently effective for
>> many users.
>>
>>
> Emacs isn't just a computer program, it's a way of life.
<Urge to reply over comes. Press F>
>> The macro keys in most readers are faster and sufficently effective for
>> many users.
>>
>>
> Emacs isn't just a computer program, it's a way of life.
<type>
Vim's my fave but it's just a very good editor and not a way of life. The
learning curve for both is steep though. Such that todays mouse coddled
click monkeys are lost completely when faced with how to even save a
file. Which, it has to be said, is far from intuitive. :wq
<CTRL Enter>
--
davethedave
James
May 19, 2013, 6:22:25 PM5/19/13
to
--
JS
James
May 19, 2013, 6:24:17 PM5/19/13
to
On 20/05/13 04:41, Dan O wrote:
> Emacs isn't just a computer program, it's a way of life.
With a doctor included free of charge!
> Emacs isn't just a computer program, it's a way of life.
--
JS
James
May 19, 2013, 6:29:26 PM5/19/13
to
--
JS
Duane Hébert
May 19, 2013, 7:02:53 PM5/19/13
to
changes exist.
Dan O
May 19, 2013, 7:13:22 PM5/19/13
to
:-)
Dan O
May 19, 2013, 7:14:09 PM5/19/13
to
Andre Jute
May 19, 2013, 8:27:14 PM5/19/13
to
Hell, in this case Bilious Phil Lee trotted out the Thomson & Rivara 88% reduction in *head injuries", and hotly contested it, when I was talking about *risk compensation*, which has the *opposite effect*!
Here is the exchange again:
The Ever-Righteous Andre Jute:
> > even if the depressing effect of risk compensation is 5/6 of the potential, say 85%, would still be... etc
That is clearly about *risk compensation* (which the Thomsons and Rivara reject), and it is clearly *a conditional case", starting with "even if", and with a hypothetical, "say".
But Bilious Philous goes off the deep end:
The Illiterate, Bilious Phil Lee:
And, after it has been explained to Bilious Phil several times already, the poor illiterate clown is still trying to claim I said what I clearly didn't say. (I can't mention what I didn't say, because the AHZ scum will quote it and claim I meant it.)
Laughing my head off. It reminds me of the time I decided to finish off a worthless little technician called Arny Krueger who hung around the hi-fi fora, who had the same kneejerk reaction to everything I said as Kreepy Krygo and Bilious. So I got my grad students to cook up and finetune an article about absolutely nothing and nobody, but larded with Krueger hot buttons, like gobbets of fat in a Toulouse sausage, which I published under my name. Krueger went intergalactic, foaming at the mouth that the musicians I wrote about were well known to be deaf. But I hadn't named the musicians or even described the music they were supposed to play. Krueger made such a moronic sideshow, casting around in ever wider circles for whoever it was I was writing about -- which of course was nobody -- and declaring them all deaf, he lost all his supporters.
Hey, Bilious Philious, do you want to add deafness to your charges against the Thomsons and Rivara, whom I wasn't even discussing?
What a jerkoff. Perhaps I should play the Krueger Trick on Krygo and Bilious. It would be a good study for a motivational psych workbook I've been asked to write. You two clowns want to be famous?
Andre Jute
Here is the exchange again:
The Ever-Righteous Andre Jute:
> > even if the depressing effect of risk compensation is 5/6 of the potential, say 85%, would still be... etc
That is clearly about *risk compensation* (which the Thomsons and Rivara reject), and it is clearly *a conditional case", starting with "even if", and with a hypothetical, "say".
But Bilious Philous goes off the deep end:
The Illiterate, Bilious Phil Lee:
> 85%?
>
> That has been utterly discredited, to the extent that even the
>
> majority of the authors have disowned it, and it's use in advertising
>
> in some countries is actually illegal.
So, I didn't fix on a number -- I just made one up, and said so, to show how ridiculous risk compensation is -- but Bilious Phil just sees eighty-percent and goes into an ecstatic spasm of kneejerk rejection on an entirely different subject.
>
> That has been utterly discredited, to the extent that even the
>
> majority of the authors have disowned it, and it's use in advertising
>
> in some countries is actually illegal.
And, after it has been explained to Bilious Phil several times already, the poor illiterate clown is still trying to claim I said what I clearly didn't say. (I can't mention what I didn't say, because the AHZ scum will quote it and claim I meant it.)
Laughing my head off. It reminds me of the time I decided to finish off a worthless little technician called Arny Krueger who hung around the hi-fi fora, who had the same kneejerk reaction to everything I said as Kreepy Krygo and Bilious. So I got my grad students to cook up and finetune an article about absolutely nothing and nobody, but larded with Krueger hot buttons, like gobbets of fat in a Toulouse sausage, which I published under my name. Krueger went intergalactic, foaming at the mouth that the musicians I wrote about were well known to be deaf. But I hadn't named the musicians or even described the music they were supposed to play. Krueger made such a moronic sideshow, casting around in ever wider circles for whoever it was I was writing about -- which of course was nobody -- and declaring them all deaf, he lost all his supporters.
Hey, Bilious Philious, do you want to add deafness to your charges against the Thomsons and Rivara, whom I wasn't even discussing?
What a jerkoff. Perhaps I should play the Krueger Trick on Krygo and Bilious. It would be a good study for a motivational psych workbook I've been asked to write. You two clowns want to be famous?
Andre Jute
Andre Jute
May 19, 2013, 9:04:53 PM5/19/13
to
On Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:30:58 PM UTC+1, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Annie Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> considered Sat, 18 May 2013 18:49:10
>
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to blather:
>
> >Hey, Phil Lee, where's your apology for being stupid enough to claim I said helmets would reduce cyclist fatalities by -- what was that ludicrous figure again? -- 85 per cent.
>
>
>
> You said quite clearly (and quite wrongly, as you now admit) that the
>
> potential saving was 85%.
Crap. You, Bilious Phil Lee, trotted out the Thomson & Rivara 88% reduction in *head injuries" from helmet wear, and hotly contested it, when I was talking about *risk compensation*, which has the *opposite effect*!
> Annie Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> considered Sat, 18 May 2013 18:49:10
>
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to blather:
>
> >Hey, Phil Lee, where's your apology for being stupid enough to claim I said helmets would reduce cyclist fatalities by -- what was that ludicrous figure again? -- 85 per cent.
>
>
>
> You said quite clearly (and quite wrongly, as you now admit) that the
>
> potential saving was 85%.
Here is the exchange again:
The Ever-Righteous Andre Jute:
> > even if the depressing effect of risk compensation is 5/6 of the potential, say 85%, would still be... etc
That is clearly about *risk compensation* (which the Thomsons and Rivara reject), and it is clearly *a conditional case", starting with "even if", and with a hypothetical, "say".
But Bilious Philous goes off the deep end:
> 85%?
>
> That has been utterly discredited, to the extent that even the
>
> majority of the authors have disowned it, and it's use in advertising
>
> in some countries is actually illegal.
So, I didn't fix on a number -- I was using hyperbole to show how ridiculous *risk compensation* is -- but you, Bilious Phil Lee, saw eighty-percent and went into an ecstatic spasm of kneejerk rejection on an entirely different subject.
>
> That has been utterly discredited, to the extent that even the
>
> majority of the authors have disowned it, and it's use in advertising
>
> in some countries is actually illegal.
And, after it has been explained to you several times already, you are still trying to claim I said what I clearly didn't say.
> If that is not what you meant (as you now assert)
>you should just
>
> admit to your misleading phraseology and apologise for your poor
>
> writing standards.
[snipped, more of the same boring kneejerk abuse by Bilious Phil}
Andre Jute
"Just about every automobile manufacturer short of Porsche could learn something useful from Jute's book. We always knew suspensions were important, but he infuses them with excitement and art." — CAR
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" —John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" — Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
Sir Ridesalot
May 19, 2013, 9:59:48 PM5/19/13
to
Frank Krygowski
May 19, 2013, 10:58:33 PM5/19/13
to
"pointing device." It's not just a Windows thing. Heck, I use one
with my Linux machines.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
May 19, 2013, 11:47:15 PM5/19/13
to
computer pointing device was? I said pointing devices are *solely*
for GUI's. Wouldn't I have to have some idea what it was to make such
a statement?
Then I followed up with a comment that this is exactly how you argue
about bicycling; and it is; and it's not too bright.
Dude, you're sounding a little like the computing equivalent of the
Fred who reads "Buycycling" magazine and then walks into the bike shop
insisting he needs a carbon fiber low spoke no fenders eleven-speed...
James
May 20, 2013, 12:20:46 AM5/20/13
to
On 20/05/13 13:47, Dan O wrote:
>
> I said pointing devices are *solely*
> for GUI's.
I don't call an ncurses interface a GUI, do you?
>
> I said pointing devices are *solely*
> for GUI's.
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/NCURSES-Programming-HOWTO/mouse.html
--
JS
Dan O
May 20, 2013, 12:29:04 AM5/20/13
to
spatial operation, right? So...
James
May 20, 2013, 12:41:04 AM5/20/13
to
Dan O
May 20, 2013, 1:07:22 AM5/20/13
to
"... within... " - not part of.
(I saw a book at the book sale yesterday - "How to argue and win every
time". It was only fifty cents. I passed. )
But okay, okay - yes, it was excessively absolute of me to say
"solely" (with emphasis).
The point about coherent written communication remains; and a
functional pointing device is only an optional convenience (and may in
fact be a distraction). A message that responds to quoted words taken
completely out of the relevant context essential to their meaning is
not the sign of a coherent, competent writer.
Dan O
May 20, 2013, 1:10:29 AM5/20/13
to
On May 19, 11:30 am, Phil W Lee <p...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> Annie Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> considered Sat, 18 May 2013 18:49:10
said it here it should be easy to produce.
(Oh, I see waffle words like "potential" being taken as "would".
Never mind.)
<snip>
> Annie Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> considered Sat, 18 May 2013 18:49:10
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to blather:
>
> >Hey, Phil Lee, where's your apology for being stupid enough to claim I said helmets would reduce cyclist fatalities by -- what was that ludicrous figure again? -- 85 per cent.
>
> You said quite clearly (and quite wrongly, as you now admit) that the
> potential saving was 85%.
I didn't want to step in this here (bottomless) cow pie, but if he
>
> >Hey, Phil Lee, where's your apology for being stupid enough to claim I said helmets would reduce cyclist fatalities by -- what was that ludicrous figure again? -- 85 per cent.
>
> You said quite clearly (and quite wrongly, as you now admit) that the
> potential saving was 85%.
said it here it should be easy to produce.
(Oh, I see waffle words like "potential" being taken as "would".
Never mind.)
<snip>
Andre Jute
May 20, 2013, 1:28:53 AM5/20/13
to
Dan O
May 20, 2013, 1:31:44 AM5/20/13
to
but make no pretense of coherence with them.
Andre Jute
May 20, 2013, 1:41:38 AM5/20/13
to
If Phil had apologized -- instead of counting on his post disappearing so that he could tell any lie about what he said, which I kyboshed by quoting his post in full -- the whole business would have died down with a chuckle. But it's part of the AHZ psychopathology that they never admit they're wrong, indeed, they never even admit the possibility that they could make a mistake, never mind such a humbling, bumbling mistake as Bilious Phil made in this instance. This will run and run like Les Miserables, and bring these clowns as much cheer.
Andre Jute
Dan O
May 20, 2013, 2:16:10 AM5/20/13
to
Windows and the like are the bugaboo of my profession in computer
security. Functionality = risk. What are your requirements?
(Rhetorical question) You need to communicate in written language?
Well, of course you'll need a 32-million color 3-D Flash video Media
Player script-enabled HTML rendering...
(Granted the videos can be illustrative, and I do manage to eventually
view most of those referenced here, and my principles re; Adobe Flash
may seem extreme and even unfathomable to most people, but it's a
proprietary closed source native execution environment, for Christ's
sake! ... And it's just my personal computer - completely untainted
by such [except for those ~harmless DVD codecs])
Dan O
May 20, 2013, 2:20:31 AM5/20/13
to
On May 19, 11:16 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> proprietary closed source native execution environment, for Christ's
> sake! ... And it's just my personal computer - completely untainted
> by such [except for those ~harmless DVD codecs])
We were taking a multi-days long trip in the back of a motor home, and
rather than count VW Beetles or play Canasta or something similarly
inane to pass the time, I compromised on the DVD codecs.
<snip>
> proprietary closed source native execution environment, for Christ's
> sake! ... And it's just my personal computer - completely untainted
> by such [except for those ~harmless DVD codecs])
rather than count VW Beetles or play Canasta or something similarly
inane to pass the time, I compromised on the DVD codecs.
Andre Jute
May 20, 2013, 2:30:53 AM5/20/13
to
Andre Jute
Sir Ridesalot
May 20, 2013, 2:41:10 AM5/20/13
to
Don't tell me to go for a long ride when you know nothing about my riding schedule.
Cheerio
davethedave
May 20, 2013, 1:26:12 PM5/20/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:13:22 -0700, Dan O wrote:
>> >> The macro keys in most readers are faster and sufficently effective
>> >> for many users.
>>
>> > Emacs isn't just a computer program, it's a way of life.
>>
>> <Urge to reply over comes. Press F>
>>
>> <type>
>>
>> Vim's my fave but it's just a very good editor and not a way of life.
>> The learning curve for both is steep though. Such that todays mouse
>> coddled click monkeys are lost completely when faced with how to even
>> save a file. Which, it has to be said, is far from intuitive. :wq
>>
>> <CTRL Enter>
>>
>>
> :q!
>
> :-)
s/:q!/:q while the goings good/
>> >> The macro keys in most readers are faster and sufficently effective
>> >> for many users.
>>
>> > Emacs isn't just a computer program, it's a way of life.
>>
>> <Urge to reply over comes. Press F>
>>
>> <type>
>>
>> Vim's my fave but it's just a very good editor and not a way of life.
>> The learning curve for both is steep though. Such that todays mouse
>> coddled click monkeys are lost completely when faced with how to even
>> save a file. Which, it has to be said, is far from intuitive. :wq
>>
>> <CTRL Enter>
>>
>>
> :q!
>
> :-)
:)
--
davethedave
sms
May 20, 2013, 2:37:43 PM5/20/13
to
On 5/19/2013 11:30 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
<snip>
> Apple seems to agree with you. Flash didn't come on my latest desktop Mac (though in earlier years I seem to remember Apple being an early adopter of Flash...), my iPad or my iPhone, though you can install it on the desktop Mac, at least. But the thing is, besides being a writer, I'm a designer. And, though I'm not currently accepting such work, I used to make MTV videos, where something like Flash is just about essential.
It's not just MTV videos, there's a great many instructional videos done
in Flash as well. A few months ago I was at a rental property I own
where the tenants wanted me to tear out the carpet and put in fake wood
flooring. They said they'd help me with the labor and the guy (who works
at Apple) tried to bring up a video on his iPad that showed how easy it
was. Alas, he couldn't show it because it used Flash. I pulled out my
Google Nexus 7 which runs Flash to watch the video (Flash support is
something I added by installing the Adobe Flash .apk).
The reason for no Flash on iOS has a few reasons. It's partially because
Adobe, long ago, did something with Microsoft that Apple was furious
about, but it's also because Apple wants to distribute and sell content,
it doesn't want users getting content from other sources, something that
Flash enables. Another minor reason is that Flash is very CPU intensive
which affects battery life.
The lack of Flash is major PITA to iOS users, and there's no way around
it, even with a jail-broken tablet. OTOH, it's rather simple to run
Flash on Android devices.
<snip>
> Apple seems to agree with you. Flash didn't come on my latest desktop Mac (though in earlier years I seem to remember Apple being an early adopter of Flash...), my iPad or my iPhone, though you can install it on the desktop Mac, at least. But the thing is, besides being a writer, I'm a designer. And, though I'm not currently accepting such work, I used to make MTV videos, where something like Flash is just about essential.
in Flash as well. A few months ago I was at a rental property I own
where the tenants wanted me to tear out the carpet and put in fake wood
flooring. They said they'd help me with the labor and the guy (who works
at Apple) tried to bring up a video on his iPad that showed how easy it
was. Alas, he couldn't show it because it used Flash. I pulled out my
Google Nexus 7 which runs Flash to watch the video (Flash support is
something I added by installing the Adobe Flash .apk).
The reason for no Flash on iOS has a few reasons. It's partially because
Adobe, long ago, did something with Microsoft that Apple was furious
about, but it's also because Apple wants to distribute and sell content,
it doesn't want users getting content from other sources, something that
Flash enables. Another minor reason is that Flash is very CPU intensive
which affects battery life.
The lack of Flash is major PITA to iOS users, and there's no way around
it, even with a jail-broken tablet. OTOH, it's rather simple to run
Flash on Android devices.
AMuzi
May 20, 2013, 5:35:51 PM5/20/13
to
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Andre Jute
May 20, 2013, 10:35:29 PM5/20/13
to
I have an Android phone too, a Samsung Galaxy I carry on my bike an emergency phone. I stopped using it as my main phone because it is so painfully slow.
Andre Jute
0 new messages