advisor wanted

Dave Larrington wrote:

Moreover, they haven't yet invented the lightweight portable power station
or Several hundred kilometre mains lead required to recharge your
super-duper hi-power burn holes in errant badgers light when it runs down in
the middle of a "400"...

....or several days camp touring. Though since you have overnights you
can plug the charger unit into a handy 240V pine tree by the tent while
you snore blissfully under your electric blanket.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch wrote:
SMS wrote:

In fact I have never maintained that. What I have stated, and what
every lighting expert agrees with, is that the brighter, battery
powered lights provide more visibility, make you more visible, and are
hence safer.


Only if they're working, which they don't do once the battery has run
down, and only if you have them with you at all, which you may not do if
you've left them elsewhere for some reason.

Yes, that's true. You have to have the lights with you and the batteries
charged. Duh. At least you don't dispute the main premise.

SMS wrote:

Yes, that's true. You have to have the lights with you and the batteries
charged. Duh.

Well if it's just a case of "Duh" how come I've seen plenty of
instances of them running down in use and having been forgotten in the
first place? Lights that will always be on the bike and will always
have power have significant advantages on a utility cycle.

At least you don't dispute the main premise.

The main premise that a brighter light is safer than a dimmer one isn't
in itself a lot of use in many circumstances. Wearing body armour will
arguably make you safer than not wearing it, but that in itself is not
enough reason to make people wear it. If safety is really your #1
indisputable priority you would be, but for almost everyone it turns out
it isn't... Convenience in something that is perfectly adequate is
usually more useful.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 23:36:55 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 23:57:41 -0800, said in
:

I have done a lot of work in this area, on contract and employed by
medical and pharmaceutical companies. CI does not compare to the
rigours of original research. Much of it is a low-level data
gathering.

Much of it, but not all of it, right? Don't assume that what I do is
what you did - low level data gathering. Most research calls for data
gathering, doesn't it? It can compare to original research. It depends
on the project.

Your paranoia is showing.

And your stupidity. If you understood CI and the range of activities
that it encompasses, you would realize how dumb the statement was that
I replied to.


But to answer at least one of your points, there is a copyright
statement: "Unless otherwise stated, the copyright to all material on
this site is owned by the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation. Site
content may be copied and redistributed freely so long as the source
is acknowledged and it is not modified in any way or reproduced out of
context."

Correct. The site under question also states that it could not put up
any of the other research due to copyright issues. That is a bogus way
to skate out on it.

No, it is absolutely accurate. I can give you copyright dates and
holders of the research it does not print in full. Some holders are
content to waive or extend copyright, others are not. That's just how
it is. If you think it sucks, write to the New England Journal of
Medicine and the Cochrane Collaboration and tell them so.

More importantly, can you PROVE the site requested copyright
permission from those it said it could not get clearance from? Or did
they merely say that to keep that information from being available?

THAT is the issue. Stay focused.


Those materials which are copyrighted and appear on the site, appear
by permission of the individual authors or publishers. A good example
is this: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2017.pdf which is
copyright of John Franklin and CTC, the UK's national cyclists;
organisation. For some reason the publishers of the 1989 Seattle
study are unwilling to grant a copyright release on something for
which they (still) make money on reprints. Especially when the
requester is openly sceptical of its quality. But do be assured that
I have read it (as have all those contributing to the site) and can,
if you want proof, quote chapter and verse ,to the extent permitted by
"fair use".

Are they unwilling or is that just some bs? I seriously doubt the
veracity of that claim as it is also used to expalin why NO OTHER
research to the opposite is included. Not just that one study.

Of course they are unwilling! They make money from reprints! Jeez,
anyone would think you'd never asked a commercial publisher for
permission to publish their copyright material on a website or
something!

Bull. Prove they refused, put up the denial of use. Everyone makes
money from reprints, but usually allow fair usage in covering their
papers. And at that, it could be paraphrased without permission.



What remains unexplained is how you can presume to judge the quality
of research you plainly have not read.

What flys right over your head is that I was commenting about a site
as that was the first place I have landed. A site, not anyting lese.
Apparently, you are incapable of understanding that.

I understand perfectly well what you are doing: you are looking for
excuses not to believe the conclusions, based on your failure to
actually read the evidence.

Wrong, nice ASSumption, but not a fact in sight. I always look at the
reporting sources initially to see where they are coming from, are
they fair and balanced or one-sided and if the latter, what axes they
are grinding. Any, ANY, researcher would the name does that initially.



If you'd devoted a tenth of the energy to pursuing the evidence that
you've devoted to arguing, you'd be a lot better informed.

And if you devoted a tenth the energy to not making it necessary for
me to repeat myself ad nauseum, I would have more time to do these
things.


You also cite BHSI as an authority. That site also fails to print the
contents of the studies you want to see, and for the same reason. And
that site certainly fails any objectivity test which cyclehelmets.org
would fail.

I have not cited anyone as an authority. Wishful thinking on your
part. I merely said they have a summary of helmet standards. They do.
They also state that CPSC is equivalent to a previous SNELL standard.
True or not, I do not know, but will be looking at the actual
standards (once I get fully back to this desk).



I have said, at least a dozen times, that the first site was my
initial visit and that I would get into the others and the research in
due time. Were there any words there you fail to understand? I've been
told there are some 900 studies. Obviously, I cannot read them all at
one sitting and in .02 nanosecond like you did with 100 percent
comprehension.

So here's what you do: go away and read the evidence. Come back then.
In the mean time, shut up, because Tony and I know substantially more
about the evidence than you do. You haven't even read the evidence
which underpins your own position, let alone the opposing one!

You might know more, but you cannot pose as anything other than what
you are - anti-helmet. You might know more, but your level of research
seems to skip right over the basics of examining the reporting source.

Pity.

Back with you later.


jim

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 23:39:14 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:17:30 -0800, said in
:

As I have explained to you time and ahgain and you cannot seem to
understand, it takes time to go from one place to another

So why did you keep arguing for so long after it became apparent that
you were deeply unfamiliar with the subject on which you were tackling
people who have spent some considerable time researching it?

That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

But my answer is not. I have been talking about the reporting source,
in case that flies right over your head for the dozenth time. That I
do know something about, at least enough to examine where they are
coming from and are they grinding an axe - something that went right
over your head, pitiable researcher that you claim to be.


jim

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 23:40:11 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:20:46 -0800, said in
:

False. However, the sceptical position is not the opposite of the
helmet zealot position. If you can find me anyone who is lying to his
legislature to try and get a law banning bicycle helmet use, then you
will have found the person who represents the opposite pole to the
compulsionists.

Somehow, in the general case, I think these folks exist and are far
more common than we think. In politics, you have the, hopefully, best
and, frequently, the worst.

Do feel free to give me named examples of people campaigning for laws
banning helmet use.


Have to check with those Harley people, I think they tried in various
states, but lost. Of course, the antis may not try it because they
know they would be soundly thrashed, but instead of at least putting
up a legislative fight, they prefer to snipe from the sidelines,
chickens that they are.

I wonder why, with all that evidence that gives credence to their
position, why they are afraid to fight for what they believe. Makes
one wonder doesn't it.


jim

James Lane wrote:


I have not cited anyone as an authority. Wishful thinking on your
part. I merely said they have a summary of helmet standards. They do.
They also state that CPSC is equivalent to a previous SNELL
standard. True or not, I do not know, but will be looking at the
actual standards (once I get fully back to this desk).


"However, those helmets passing Snell's B-95 or N-94 standard will
automatically qualify because Snell's standards exceed CPSC's"

Source: Snell Memorial Foundation http://www.smf.org/articles/bcomp.html

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 19:46:46 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On 21 Nov 2005 14:41:07 -0800, said in
s.com:

Be sure to get a Snell approved helmet (B90 is the most commonly
available bicycle helmet).

The most commonly available helmet in the US is CPSC certified, not
Snell, and B95 is the current standard. In most of Europe, Snell
certified helmets are all but unobtainable.

Here is a list of Snell certified helmets:
http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-90...90C_B-95C.html

Note the lack of any products from the market leader, Bell Sports.

Of course, missing is B-90S because Bell probably meets that as there
are minor differences between that and CPSC. Otherwise why drop only
one of the B-90 standards from their webpage. By eliminating that
standard, they prevent Bell from being listed.

Smart tactics, but a bit transparent. Yes, I know that this is not
directed toward Bell, but toward CPSC.


jim

James Lane wrote:

Smart tactics, but a bit transparent. Yes, I know that this is not
directed toward Bell, but toward CPSC.

It is not just the standard, but the fact that with Snell approval Snell
actually tests the helmet for compliance. With CPSC it's self-certification.

Dave Larrington wrote:
Peter Clinch wrote:

[Light-O-STULL]

Moreover, they haven't yet invented the lightweight portable power station
or Several hundred kilometre mains lead required to recharge your
super-duper hi-power burn holes in errant badgers light when it runs down in
the middle of a "400"...

Practical fuel cells for cycling can not arrive too soon. Then I can
use 100/55 W (high/low beam) halogen driving lights on my HPV's.

Fried badger, anyone?

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
"ever get suspicious about chain saw oil attracting wood dust?
generally mucking up after two cuts?
try dumping hot oil into a container just right sized for inserting
the running blade on the job. rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.....
plus 750 rpm! " - G. Daniels