Dr Ferrari's Camper Van (off-topic discussion)

The match looks a lot more interesting now.

EDIT: Oh, hang on.

Well, that's a pity.

tomasrojo wrote: »

There are plenty of threads on this subject already in existence, and I've contributed to many of them. I'm not going to say anything to any of your points, as that would just light the fuse of another Helmet Thread.

Except that the whole argument centres around the bit in bold. Anti-compulsionists aren't the ones telling other people what to do.

I've no clue what you're trying to say? My argument? Your argument?

Advocating / Promoting (a theory as fact) / Leading by Example is not telling what to do per say but it encourages

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm sorry, we really can't go through this here. I'm very tempted, but it's just too tedious.

Tedious or it's too hard to argue with common sense?

chakattack wrote: »

Tedious or it's too hard to argue with common sense?

I'm trying to think of a reponse that won't open a can of worms.

Maybe this: the problem with the Matt Cooper show is that he'd already discussed the issue. He then decided that he didn't like the way that had ended, or Headway contacted him, and they set up a "shroud-waving piece". The purpose of shroud-waving pieces is to kill debate. It certainly isn't conducive to an informed debate.

The question I'm interested in is whether the mass promotion and/or compulsory wearing leads to safer cycling or not. By and large, I think it doesn't. You think it does. So let's leave it at that.

EDIT: Also, my apologies if it sounds as if I was saying that your argument was tedious. I meant the rehashing the helmet arguments would be tedious.

tomasrojo wrote: »

I'm trying to think of a reponse that won't open a can of worms.

Maybe this: the problem with the Matt Cooper show is that he'd already discussed the issue. He then decided that he didn't like the way that had ended, or Headway contacted him, and they set up a "shroud-waving piece". The purpose of shroud-waving pieces is to kill debate. It certainly isn't conducive to an informed debate.

The question I'm interested in is whether the mass promotion and/or compulsory wearing leads to safer cycling or not. By and large, I think it doesn't. You think it does. So let's leave it at that.

EDIT: Also, my apologies if it sounds as if I was saying that your argument was tedious. I meant the rehashing the helmet arguments would be tedious.

I got you don't worry and you're right it's very tedious.

The argument I was making is should cycling campaigners go on the radio and when asked if they wear a helmet respond with "Well actually Matt studies have shown...blah blah" rather that something like "no I don't out of personal preference as I'm happy enough with my ability to stay upright and out of trouble and I'm comfortable with the low level of risk."

To me they acted irresponsibly and presented cyclists in a bad light.

Chris Hoy (Sir) does a Jimmy Carr http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jun/22/chris-hoy-received-loan-firm

Again, I hope I'm avoiding the usual Helmet Thread pitfalls.

Whatever one thinks of helmets or helmet promotion, I hope that anyone interested in promoting cycling (sport, touring or utility) can agree that it would be preferable if any attempt to promote cycling (including National Bike Week) didn't end up spending half its allotted time on one or more of the Weird Sisters: helmets, red-light jumping, hi-viz. (Maybe "road tax" in there too.)

I mean, whenever there's a surge of interest in rugby, the media doesn't constantly warn people of the high relative risk of head injury in rubgy. Much higher than cycling, from what I gather.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Whatever one thinks of helmets or helmet promotion, I hope that anyone interested in promoting cycling (sport, touring or utility) can agree that it would be preferable if any attempt to promote cycling (including National Bike Week) didn't end up spending half its allotted time on one or more of the Weird Sisters: helmets, red-light jumping, hi-viz. (Maybe "road tax" in there too.)

My wife and I, with daughter being towed in trailer by my wife, went along to the Fun Family Cycle from Marlay Park today. Helmets were compulsory and everyone was given a hi-viz vest - so far so predictable. The fixation on both helmets and hi-viz bugs me a lot, and there is something a little freaky about seeing what my wife accurately described as a hi-viz snake of cyclists (over 100 turned out it was reckoned) stretched out in front and behind, but shag it it was a fun event and it was good to see so many kids on bikes so we expressed our discontent about one of those fixations simply and quietly by not wearing the hi-viz vests (we're fookin' mad, us, we live life on the edge).

The barriers on the supposedly tailor made cycle route were harder to ignore, as some of them made getting through with a trailer a complete pain in the arse. My wife manoeuvred her bike and trailer as much as the limited space would allow and I lifted the back of the trailer to shift it sideways and eventually we got bike plus trailer through. Negotiating some of the barriers alone, with trailer, would not be possible without unhitching the trailer and wheel it through separately to the bike, and at that stage you may as well just cycle on the road. Yet another interesting idea very badly implemented and therefore rubbish for its intended purpose for those with trailers, long bike, or cargo bikes, at the very least. Boo!

On the return leg, just after we'd manhandled the trailer back through one of the poxy barriers, and were therefore a little less than filled with the complete and utter joys of life, a woman standing there and adopting a slightly stern expression looked in the side window/panel of the trailer and said "Is the baby not wearing a helmet?" in what seemed like a disapproving tone. The tone wasn't one of a question, more one of making a statement. I'll stop you there, I thought to myself, and I'll raise two important points:

* You've just referred to a 3yr old as a baby. The 3yr old in question has strong feelings on this matter, to the extent that she casually reminds us almost daily that she is "not a baby, I'm a little girl". The fact that the flap on the trailer didn't fly open and a ball of indignant rage didn't rip snotty woman a new one suggests that my daughter didn't hear the condescending remark. Lucky escape there, snotty woman.

* The trailer has a roll cage and my daughter is secured in a substantial harness - she is more secure in there, without a helmet, than in or on any other form of bicycle transport that I can think of. I said exactly that to snotty woman, and willed her to reply with yet another stupid comment but instead she simply ignored me and stared after the trailer with an expression reminiscent of the local parish priests of my childhood who'd look on an unrepentant sinner with a knowing look of "Oh yes, you're going to hell, oh yes indeed, friend of Satan!".

What annoyed me most, apart from the condescension that is, is that snotty woman looked past the glaringly obvious (roll cage, harness, low centre of gravity that makes the trailer difficult to tip over, etc.) and instead honed in on the absence of a helmet. To her, it seems, helmets are everything and anything else is just dressing, The incredibly strong "helmets are essential" views of someone like her, who is so blinkered that she can't see the bleedin' obvious, are just utter nonsense - where there is no room for reason, there is no value in her opinion or views.

Ironically, for someone that is so willing to casually and deviously (i.e. in an indirect manner) imply loudly and publicly that these two parents are somehow not sufficiently concerned about the welfare of their child to take steps to ensure their safety, she was remarkedly devoid of any form of personal protection herself. She should remember that self-righteousness is not a protective shield. Daft bint. Boo, again!

Darkglasses wrote: »

Fair play Doozerie, i think you're completely right. I would've left it at 'Shove it' though, I don't have the energy to educate people anymore.

Unless I've misunderstood, doozerie's debate happened within the confines of his own skull.

The answer to the question "Is your baby not wearing a helmet?" is "I don't know, she's with her mother in Dundalk right now. Anyway, who told you about that and why are you bringing it up with my wife standing right here?".

USE Sumo titanium seat post
July 2010-June 2012
RIP

Spotted it today while giving the bike a good going over.:(

Lumen wrote: »

Unless I've misunderstood, doozerie's debate happened within the confines of his own skull.

I did actually say to her that the trailer had a roll cage and was safer than any other form of bicycle transport, and she did indeed ignore me - an impressive feat given that I was only a couple of feet away from her so I wasn't easy to ignore.

The bit that played itself out only inside my head, unfortunately, was the scene of my daughter doing her Tasmanian Devil impression on yer wan, which was a shame. I even had a line prepared for the moment when my daughter would have had yer wan in a full nelson - "Where's *your* helmet god now, be-aitch!". Sadly, the opportunity didn't arise

Holyboy wrote: »

Should I get my self a road bike and start cycling?

All views appreciated

No, cycling's gay.

Tonyandthewhale wrote: »

No, cycling's gay.

That's what I thought but I need to replace the very bad things in my life with some thing else very soon and seeing as I'm in the trade it seems to make sense!

Chatattack, I'm not trying to re-start the helmet debate and make the camper van no fun for anyone. This is because I don't actually have anything to say about the helmet debate that hasn't already beeen said and given the lenght and depth of previous helmet debates it seems unlikely that you do either so if we don't already agree at this stage we're probably not going to, and that's ok. A little bit of disagreement is good every now and then.

What I am raising issue with, as someone who has dabbled (albeit only briefly) in statistics during my academic career is the piece quoted below where you accuse the opposition of relying on 'sketchy statistical analysis' and then cite a 'sample study of 1' to support your views, which is pretty much the definition of statistically sketchy.

chakattack wrote: »

the driver psychology/safety in numbers argument has very little real evidence aside from some arguably sketchy statistical analysis.

My sample of 1 study has shown twice that...

Can I just say. OH HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD, WOMAN OF JOESPH, HOST OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, VEHICLE OF IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. FORGIVE US FOR THIS MOST MALLIFICIENT TRANSGRESSION OF ALL THAT IS JUST AND RIGHT AND PURE IN THE WORLD. Billions of blue blistering barnacles there is wrong and there is wrong and then there’s just holding your head in your hand, putting on your frown face and wailing to all the gods and demons and spirits and ghosts and talismens in Christendom and beyond for some small, smidgeoning slice of forgiveness. Some crimes are too great, too far beyond our comprehension of wickedness, too massively depraved to ever merit pardon. But within this subset of unparalleled evil acts is a consortium of wrong so great so as to exceed our human capacity for punishment. All that remains is to wish for undoing.


I am stumped, flabbergasted, shocked, appalled and simply exhausted by what I have seen here.



But then again, it's possible I have an unreasonably low tolerance for poor science.

Lumen wrote: »

If a man walks up to you in the street and punches you in the face, do you ask him to do it again for the sake of statistical significance?

Yeah, I have a problem...

AstraMonti wrote: »

http://boingboing.net/2009/03/19/verizon-doesnt-under.html

This is amazingly hilarious. The guys on the phone can not understand the difference between 0,002 cents and 0,002 dollars.

Speaking of Innumeracy, this Verizon tale reminded me of another story in the book, where a student who was asked to calculate hair growth in miles per hour said it couldn't be done.

Bike lockers now available in parts of Dublin. Interesting idea, though I wonder whether you'd have trouble with storing a bike with a full length rear mudguard.



Edit: Oops, already covered in this thread

Vélo wrote: »

Has there been a Boards Fantasy League done up on Velogames for this years TDF?

I can't find anything and someone normally has one set up by now.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79342746&postcount=48