Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Thread Closed  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
08-12-2018, 16:25   #331
First Up
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 12,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting Tao View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by First Up View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting Tao View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by First Up View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomasrojo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by First Up View Post
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.
First Up is offline  
Advertisement
08-12-2018, 16:48   #332
CramCycle
A wholly unreasonable man
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 17,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by First Up View Post
I don't need to "prove" (provide) anything. People can read it and draw their own conclusions.
MOD VOICE: Time to take a few days away from the thread. You have been repeatedly told no one condones it, no one can find anyone condoning it, and you haven't shown it. I have to presume you are simply not interested in discussion. Please do not post in here again for a week. If you have any issues with the modding, please PM me.
CramCycle is offline  
08-12-2018, 22:46   #333
AndrewJRenko
Registered User
 
AndrewJRenko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 8,937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting Tao View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by First Up View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by First Up View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eamonnator View Post
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 is offline  
08-12-2018, 23:07   #334
Macy0161
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,499
Maybe an approval process to post in the forum, like the football forum has. Or used to have anyway.
Macy0161 is offline  
Thanks from:
08-12-2018, 23:23   #335
Wishbone Ash
Registered User
 
Wishbone Ash's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 22,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewJRenko View Post
....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.
Wishbone Ash is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
08-12-2018, 23:26   #336
Enfilade
Registered User
 
Enfilade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy0161 View Post
Maybe an approval process to post in the forum, like the football forum has. Or used to have anyway.
I wouldn't go that far but I'm massaging my temples between this thread and the hi-vis one at this stage.

There has to be line, I'm all for debate but when people argue in circles it becomes pointless and should be shut down.
Enfilade is offline  
08-12-2018, 23:30   #337
eeeee
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,627
We've been circling the drain for sometime now.

It is done
eeeee is offline  
Thread Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search