Cyclists

07Lapierre wrote: »

well done..sure its not the hardest quiz is it?

What about insurance??

Internet Friend wrote: »

Helmets attract cars to cyclists

When a helmet is useless and when it might save your life

Make yourself seen. reflective clothing & lights - Not HiVis

To share but a few. Loads more here

Just looking at these now. I'm surprised you think any of them contradict anything I have said.

The helmets attract drivers argument would need a bit more empirical research before it can be taken seriously and it doesn't extend as far as claiming helmets cause accidents.

Meanwhile the statistic (aka fact) that 97% of cycling fatalities were not wearing helmets really should be enough, as does the 37% of cycling deaths that would have been avoided if the victims had helmets.

the "hi viz" thing is just splitting hairs and I'll let the RSA argue that one. I mean any garment that can be seen in the dark and I don't see anyone claim that the Irish cyclist default outfit of black clothes is better than something that can be seen.

So thanks for the links but I'm afraid they undermine, not support your argument.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

The helmets attract drivers argument would need a bit more empirical research before it can be taken seriously and it doesn't extend as far as claiming helmets cause accidents.

Empirical research like that done by Dr Ian Walker at University of Bath as detailed in the article? Did you actually read beyond the headline?

First Up wrote: »

Meanwhile the statistic (aka fact) that 97% of cycling fatalities were not wearing helmets really should be enough

Presumably, the statistic that 100% of motoring fatalities were not wearing motoring helmets is really enough to convince you of the need for mandatory crash helmets for all drivers, right?

First Up wrote: »

the "hi viz" thing is just splitting hairs and I'll let the RSA argue that one. I mean any garment that can be seen in the dark and I don't see anyone claim that the Irish cyclist default outfit of black clothes is better than something that can be seen.

Black clothing contrasts nicely with grey concrete roads, yellow buses, bright green foliage. Green/yellow hi-vis blends with green/yellow foliage, and with bright sunlight. A judge in a UK case suggested that hi-vis was a contributory factor in the death of a cyclist knocked down in bright sunlight.

It wasn't empirical research and it did not offer a single fact to support the argument that helmets cause accidents. It did however show that when accidents occur, helmets save lives.

As I have previously said (as does the article) seat belts are the motoring equivalent of helmets and the data is overwhelming.

I'm talking about cycling on dark nights.

First Up wrote: »

It wasn't empirical research and it did not offer a single fact to support the argument that helmets cause accidents. It did however show that when accidents occur, helmets save lives.

As I have previously said (as does the article) seat belts are the motoring equivalent of helmets and the data is overwhelming.

I'm talking about cycling on dark nights.

What's your definition of empirical research? Here's a standard definition - did you have something different in mind?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What's your definition of empirical research? Here's a standard definition - did you have something different in mind?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research

The Mods warnings limit my scope to answer. I should have more accurately said it is not quantitative research as the sample is inherently skewed, being limited to only one cyclist. Plus, we don't know if the cyclists behaviour also varied from one trial to the other. Nor is it the study independently verified. It also assumes correlation equals causation. It is interesting and a valid discussion point but compares poorly with to the solid statistics that support the alternative conclusion.

The people with the best grasp of such issues are actuaries working with insurance companies. They deal in facts. You could ask them which position they support.

CramCycle wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

The Mods warnings limit my scope to answer. I should have more accurately said it is not quantitative research as the sample is inherently skewed, being limited to only one cyclist.

it is one of the major flaws of the paper, although it excludes alot of other issues by going this route.

Plus, we don't know if the cyclists behaviour also varied from one trial to the other. Nor is it the study independently verified. It also assumes correlation equals causation. It is interesting and a valid discussion point but compares poorly with to the solid statistics that support the alternative conclusion.

What is the alternative conclusion, that he rode in a manner that made motorists give more space. As far as I am aware, the tests were repeated enough to overcome bias although I would have liked if he expanded the list of cyclists to include the range of people he emulated, doing the same ride and also repeating the experiment as he done it. It would remove the bias but looking at the data, I can't see it changing the findings. This said, intuitive and cycling safety are rarely co conspirators, so I could be wrong.

The other glaring omission is anything about how the motorists saw any difference and if/how it influenced them. The whole point of the exercise was to measure change in motorists' behaviour so the failure to explore that makes it pretty meaningless as a scientific study.

Plastik wrote: »

This is that .gif playing out in real life isn't it?

The one where the guy won't go to bed because someone on the internet is wrong?

In this case, it is absolutely everyone that is wrong.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Plastik wrote: »

This is that .gif playing out in real life isn't it?

The one where the guy won't go to bed because someone on the internet is wrong?

In this case, it is absolutely everyone that is wrong.

Feel free to say why.

First Up wrote: »

The other glaring omission is anything about how the motorists saw any difference and if/how it influenced them. The whole point of the exercise was to measure change in motorists' behaviour so the failure to explore that makes it pretty meaningless as a scientific study.

It's an innovative and very clever study. And he's perfectly willing to defend it:
https://twitter.com/ianwalker/status/935043049230688256

As he said, it's not n=1. It's one cyclist and 2200 subjects.

He did a follow-up with Dorothy Robinson very recently, and it's well worth a read. It's in the Megathread towards the end.

First Up wrote: »

I'll remind everyone that my point in joining the discussion was just about cyclists without lights.

Yes, I'm well aware that you came here to repeatedly accuse us of condoning people who cycle without lights at night.

First Up wrote: »

Can I take that as an unqualified condemnation of them?

They should use lights. Lights are good.

I might write a perl script to post this after every post you make from now on.

First Up wrote: »

tomasrojo wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I'll remind everyone that my point in joining the discussion was just about cyclists without lights.

Yes, I'm well aware that you came here to repeatedly accuse us of condoning people who cycle without lights at night.

Can I take that as an unqualified condemnation of them?

It has already been said many times to you. Repeating it is not helping it sink in. You have not shown anywhere where on this forum where people are condoning not using lights yet you argue over and over that we are condoning it. That’s why the gif referred to earlier is apt. You perceive absolutely everyone to be wrong. However in your case you are disagreeing with them agreeing with you about lights. Maybe you are stuck in some weird loop.

First Up wrote: »

Fighting Tao wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

tomasrojo wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I'll remind everyone that my point in joining the discussion was just about cyclists without lights.

Yes, I'm well aware that you came here to repeatedly accuse us of condoning people who cycle without lights at night.

Can I take that as an unqualified condemnation of them?

It has already been said many times to you. Repeating it is not helping it sink in. You have not shown anywhere where on this forum where people are condoning not using lights yet you argue over and over that we are condoning it. That’s why the gif referred to earlier is apt. You perceive absolutely everyone to be wrong. However in your case you are disagreeing with them agreeing with you about lights. Maybe you are stuck in some weird loop.

We can all read pal. Lets draw our own conclusions eh?

Im certainly no pal of yours. I have read every post on the thread and countless other threads here. There is no evidence to back up you up in your assertions that cyclists here are anti-lights. You have not proved one shred of evidence either.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Fighting Tao wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

tomasrojo wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I'll remind everyone that my point in joining the discussion was just about cyclists without lights.

Yes, I'm well aware that you came here to repeatedly accuse us of condoning people who cycle without lights at night.

Can I take that as an unqualified condemnation of them?

It has already been said many times to you. Repeating it is not helping it sink in. You have not shown anywhere where on this forum where people are condoning not using lights yet you argue over and over that we are condoning it. That’s why the gif referred to earlier is apt. You perceive absolutely everyone to be wrong. However in your case you are disagreeing with them agreeing with you about lights. Maybe you are stuck in some weird loop.

We can all read pal. Lets draw our own conclusions eh?

Im certainly no pal of yours. I have read every post on the thread and countless other threads here. There is no evidence to back up you up in your assertions that cyclists here are anti-lights. You have not proved one shred of evidence either.

I don't need to "prove" (provide) anything. People can read it and draw their own conclusions.

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Im certainly no pal of yours. I have read every post on the thread and countless other threads here. There is no evidence to back up you up in your assertions that cyclists here are anti-lights. You have not proved one shred of evidence either.

There is also not one shred of evidence that unlit cyclists are a significant safety issue on the roads, especially when compared to something like speeding motorists.

First Up wrote: »

The Mods warnings limit my scope to answer. I should have more accurately said it is not quantitative research as the sample is inherently skewed, being limited to only one cyclist. Plus, we don't know if the cyclists behaviour also varied from one trial to the other. Nor is it the study independently verified. It also assumes correlation equals causation. It is interesting and a valid discussion point but compares poorly with to the solid statistics that support the alternative conclusion.

Again, I'm left wondering where you are getting your definitions from when you claim that it is not quantitative research. It fits any definition I've ever seen for quantitative research.

Yes, there are limitations with the study, including the participation of only one cyclist - but you can say that about pretty much any quantitative study, that a bigger sample would give better results.

It doesn't assume anything about correlation or causation. It just presents the results of the research. It has been independently verified by the standard peer review process involved in publication.

And where specifically are these 'solid statistics' you mention?

First Up wrote: »

The other glaring omission is anything about how the motorists saw any difference and if/how it influenced them. The whole point of the exercise was to measure change in motorists' behaviour so the failure to explore that makes it pretty meaningless as a scientific study.

So how exactly would you do that research? Ahead of the cyclist, you're going to have to stop each driver and ask them their views on something they did instinctively, without thinking too much? That's going to be both illegal and impractical. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that this is nitpicking to try to undermine peer-reviewed research.

Eamonnator wrote: »

You've a lot to answer for!

I see that the OP has two posts on boards, the first one being this seagull load that he dropped before flying away. Maybe the cycling forum should have a standardised response to this kind of one-off unloading that really adds nothing to the debate?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

....Again, I'm left wondering where you are getting your definitions from when you claim that it is not quantitative research. It fits any definition I've ever seen for quantitative research.

.......Yes, there are limitations with the study, including the participation of only one cyclist - but you can say that about pretty much any quantitative study, that a bigger sample would give better results.

.......It doesn't assume anything about correlation or causation. It just presents the results of the research. It has been independently verified by the standard peer review process involved in publication.

......And where specifically are these 'solid statistics' you mention?


......So how exactly would you do that research? Ahead of the cyclist, you're going to have to stop each driver and ask them their views on something they did instinctively, without thinking too much? That's going to be both illegal and impractical. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that this is nitpicking to try to undermine peer-reviewed research......

Not the done thing to continue to debate with someone after they have been banned.