Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cyclists

1678911

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,200 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Answers will only be accepted if they're shouted out the window of what vehicle:

    a) Taxi
    b) Bus
    c) White van
    d) All of the above


    No contest... "a"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 689 ✭✭✭Ray Bloody Purchase


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    No contest... "a"

    Holes


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,735 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    This is a bizarre thread.

    I can't believe that you think that it's ok for cyclists to have no lights!!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,627 ✭✭✭Wildly Boaring


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    well done..sure its not the hardest quiz is it? :D

    What about insurance??


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,832 ✭✭✭shootermacg


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Helmets, Lights and Hi-viz .. the Holy trinity of gripes against cyclists! :)
    treade1 wrote: »
    You forgot red-light jumping!

    I hereby advocate from here on in, that red light jumping be brought under the "Lights" category to bring it in line with the new "Common Sense" approach to motoring...I'll need a second on this though for it to be formally ratified.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up



    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,000 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    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.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,339 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    MOD VOICE: The next person to bring up HIVIS or Helmets in this thread rather than the mega threads gets carded or banned. Fire away with the other gripes but leave these two in the mega threads. Last warning.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,000 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,561 ✭✭✭Eamonnator


    Hi pomgh,

    I've moved your thread across to the Cycling forum and deleted posts that were made when it was in the other forum.

    You've a lot to answer for!


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    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.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,339 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,961 ✭✭✭Plastik


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    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?
    Its a discussion. If its over your head you can go elsewhere.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,735 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    CramCycle wrote: »
    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.

    They did something very similar in Taiwan and Florida, and found the same conclusions about women getting more comfortable passing distances, but I don't think they tried with and without helmet.
    https://twitter.com/ianwalker/status/319005625659035648

    Walker said he didn't set out to investigate the effect of helmets on passing distance, but he included it when someone suggested it would be interesting along with the effect of the gender of the rider and road position.

    This really belongs to the Helmet Hellhole Megathread.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,735 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    CramCycle wrote: »
    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.

    They did something very similar in Taiwan and Florida, and found the same conclusions about women getting more comfortable passing distances, but I don't think they tried with and without helmet.
    https://twitter.com/ianwalker/status/319005625659035648

    Walker said he didn't set out to investigate the effect of helmets on passing distance, but he included it when someone suggested it would be interesting along with the effect of the gender of the rider and road position.

    This really belongs to the Helmet Hellhole Megathread.
    I'll remind everyone that my point in joining the discussion was just about cyclists without lights.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,735 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,735 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    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.
    No you can stop now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,481 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    First Up 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,961 ✭✭✭Plastik


    First Up wrote: »
    Its a discussion. If its over your head you can go elsewhere.

    Sure thing internet guy!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    First Up 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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement