Smidgaf - video - would you report this

[Thomk]

No it extends beyond quantum physics.

Studies rarely set out to disprove themself, no researcher is going to constantly prove they are not worth the pay cheque, they will nearly always find in their own favour.

As time goes on and cameras, GPS, IRF and collison detection becomes more and more common in almost anything with wheels we will start seeing the raw data related to collisions and not just from the cyclists view point.

When this happens a lot of people are going to have to take a long hard look at the victim status of cyclists that is being put forward in a lot of the cycling media, this is not to say that there are not bad drivers out there but it certainly is not as dangerous as many claim it to be and in many circumstances cyclists contribute to there own demise through the way they use the road and how they dress and equip themself while doing so.

The snooty way of ignoring this is by claiming that some people are not "real cyclists" or that they are "persons on a bike", it's a weak argument and one that needs to be ignored.

I'm not clear what you are trying to contradict here by saying "No it goes beyong quantum physics".

You said "You change something the moment you try to observe it, always remember that."

I simply pointed out that this statement is fairly meaningless and of no use in this context. To put is (too) simply, the cumulative effect of uncertainty at the quantum level tends to average out in the macro world making it fairly meaningless to translate quantum laws to the macro world.

 

[Cheradenine]

I'm not clear what you are trying to contradict here by saying "No it goes beyong quantum physics".

You said "You change something the moment you try to observe it, always remember that."

I simply pointed out that this statement is fairly meaningless and of no use in this context. To put is (too) simply, the cumulative effect of uncertainty at the quantum level tends to average out in the macro world making it fairly meaningless to translate quantum laws to the macro world.

You deliberately ignore the fact that studies are rarely impartial despite claims to the contrary.

Observation and recording an event from a certain view point can skew others perception of it, it's a very hard thing to remove from the process as there is too much vested interest in getting the "right" result.

 

[Thomk]

You deliberately ignore the fact that studies are rarely impartial despite claims to the contrary.

Observation and recording an event from a certain view point can skew others perception of it, it's a very hard thing to remove from the process as there is too much vested interest in getting the "right" result.

I'm afraid I won't be able to discuss anything meaningful with you as I find your replies fairly nonsensical. I will indeed "deliberately ignore" your future dogmatic assertions.

 

[Cheradenine]

I'm afraid I won't be able to discuss anything meaningful with you as I find your replies fairly nonsensical. I will indeed "deliberately ignore" your future dogmatic assertions.

Then why bother posting in the thread at all then if all you do is show contempt for others?

 

[Origamist]

So...lets get this straight.

On a cycling forum some one states the common sense point of view that there is always more than one set of data out there and you get in a tiz because some one doesn't have the team of researchers and grant money at hand to dash out a conflicting study to the existing ones in a single after noon?

And this makes you right how exactly?

Are you keen on creationist theory as well by any chance?

STATS 19 forms are usually the basis for research conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory when analysing cyclist casualties and causal factors. These subjective police reports determine the primary contributory factor: cyclist, motorist, or both. Where adult cyclist casualties are concerned, the primary contributory factor is more often ascribed to the driver, rather than the cyclist, in collisions involving a motorised vehicle.

This finding flies in the face of much "common sense" which usually associates cyclists with risk taking behaviour due to the fact that they don't have to have training, hold a licence, or pay "road tax" etc. However, I'm sure it just because the police are institutionally anti-motorist and love yogurt knitting cyclists when they apportion responsibility for collisions.

 

[col]

I really don't see anyone making any kind of argument suggesting this in any way.

If people are misinterpreting people's statements and drawing such sentiment from them, this might explain some of the attitudes seen on this thread and others like it.

I know 3 other people who have got cameras for capturing their journeys - 2 of them are not cyclists and use them in their cars, the purpose being to capture the same kind of bad driving that threatens cyclists. One of them got one after being caught out by a textbook forced-collision scam by a couple of minicab drivers.

There is no war between cyclists and drivers agenda here. I'm sure most of the camera users here also drive.

Its an observation, of what seems to go on quite a lot here. If you cant see that, your more polarised than you realise

 

[dawesome]

Its an observation, of what seems to go on quite a lot here. If you cant see that, your more polarised than you realise

Hang on, I asked if you had evidence of this attitude and you ducked the answer!

And it's "you're", that mistake makes me killy.

 

[col]

Hang on, I asked if you had evidence of this attitude and you ducked the answer!

And it's "you're", that mistake makes me killy.

O for gawds saik, its a puppeeeeeeeet. and wots killy mean?

 

[lukesdad]

Most child cycling injuries don't involve other vehicles,it's in the risky cycling link upthread:

The 64-page analysis found that police attributed responsibility for collisions more or less evenly between drivers and cyclists overall, but this was skewed by the fact that when child riders were involved their behaviour was named as a primary factor more than three-quarters of the time.
With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.
The cyclists' lobby group CTC said the report showed that the government needed to focus more on driver behaviour rather than on issues such as cyclists wearing helmets.

This seems a bit loose about 60% -75% and 17% -25%, Can t they be sure ? Not exactly concrete is it ?

 

[dawesome]

O for gawds saik, its a puppeeeeeeeet. and wots killy mean?

Right, so we must be "polarised" if we don't acknowledge the opinions of people you refuse to name?

As a get-out, it's a doozie.

 

[dawesome]

This seems a bit loose about 60% -75% and 17% -25%, Can t they be sure ? Not exactly concrete is it ?

It's a scale of responses. A range.

 

[col]

Right, so we must be "polarised" if we don't acknowledge the opinions of people you refuse to name?

As a get-out, it's a doozie.

YOR being very persistant, I like that, But YOUR not going to get me to name and shame, as yu shud be able to find these things very easily for YOUR self
I havnt seen YOUR answer about killy either?

 

[col]

It's a scale of responses. A range.

Ah so it doesnt matter what the 25% of cyclists attitudes are, only if they dont wear helmets?

 

[lukesdad]

It's a scale of responses. A range.

not exactly difinitive then or even accurate ?

 

[dawesome]

Divinitive, maybe.

Illiterate trolls make you comfortable in the way that sitting on a public transport seat warm and wet with fresh urine makes you comfortable. Festive, even.