#251
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
Ads |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
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. |
#253
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
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/ |
#254
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
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 |
#255
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
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 |
#256
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
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 |
#257
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
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 |
#258
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
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 |
#259
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
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. |
#260
|
|||
|
|||
advisor wanted
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|