Jeremy Vine stopped from cycling

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:00:22 -0500 someone who may be Ben C
wrote this:-

I should think the air in a typical room mostly ends up all at the same
temperature before long.

You think wrongly. What the differences in air temperatures are does
depend on ceiling height and the form of heating.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In ,
JNugent tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

What you actually said (to the extent that it can be summed up in
that brief format) was:

You [ie, some other poster] cannot provide evidence of X not being
the case. Therefore X is the case.

That is just so wrong it's laughable.

In other news, NugentWorld scientists prove back is white because they said
so.

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
Apparently Guy has now got a Brompton. I'd never have guessed.

In ,
Judith M Smith tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 10:40:28 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

In ,
JNugent tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:
Matt B wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009, Matt B wrote:
This is self evident because in places where the rules and
regulations have effectively been removed or suspended, serious
accidents have stopped happening.


Yeah. There are NO SPEED CAMERAS on the moon, and also, there are
no pedestrian fatalities. That proves it. Stands to reason.

You'll need to do better than that.

Well... yes... but there was someone posting bhere just last week
along the lines: "You can't prove that x is not the case, therefore
x must be the case".

Up to a point, Lord Copper.

What I ACTUALLY said is:

There is evidence of X
There is no evidwence of not X

not quite:

we were discussing risk compensation and cycle helmets - I said there
was no evidence that such relationship existed.

I asked you for evidence "that there is a risk compensation effect
when wearing a cycle helmet?"

Which was provided. If you choose to ignore it, that's up to you, but to
claim that it was not provided is what is commonly known as a lie.

You insisted I provide evidence that "users of cycle helmets are/not/
affected by risk compensation"

Havinng provided some evidence that risk compensation does affect users of
cycle helmets, the ball is now in your court. Responses along the following
lines, by the way, do not constitute evidence:

1) It's not happening. There's no way it's happening. You can't prove it.
No, shut up. I'VE GOT MY FINGERS IN MY EARS AND I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

2) Okay, it's happening. But we didn't do it. It's not our fault. It's the
cows. The sheep. The volcanoes. Esther Rantzen. SHUT UP. I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

3) It's not happening. There's no way it's happening. You can't prove it.
No, shut up. I'VE GOT MY FINGERS IN MY EARS AND I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

It was pointed out - I believe by Mr Nugent - how stupid this request
was.

You get quite cross because Mr Nugent made you look quite silly.

No, I get quite cross because Mr Nugent is painstakingly omitting half the
facts. I suspect that in a previous life he was Tony Blair

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
Murdock's Gardening Law: If it's green, the paving isn't
finished yet.

On 2009-09-04, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:00:22 -0500 someone who may be Ben C
wrote this:-

I should think the air in a typical room mostly ends up all at the same
temperature before long.

You think wrongly. What the differences in air temperatures are does
depend on ceiling height and the form of heating.

Usually you put your heaters near the floor. Hot air rises and the
cooler stuff sinks so you get a bit of a convection current going which
encourages the whole room to reach thermal equilibrium.

Sure the light bulb is near the ceiling, but I think you've got enough
convection from the heaters for that not to matter.

Anyway, it would be quite easy to do a bit of an experiment actually. I
might try it when it gets colder and I've got the heating on.

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 04:54:36 -0500, Ben C wrote:

On 2009-09-04, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:00:22 -0500 someone who may be Ben C
wrote this:-

I should think the air in a typical room mostly ends up all at the same
temperature before long.

You think wrongly. What the differences in air temperatures are does
depend on ceiling height and the form of heating.

Usually you put your heaters near the floor. Hot air rises and the
cooler stuff sinks so you get a bit of a convection current going which
encourages the whole room to reach thermal equilibrium.

Not so. In winter our bedroom can get quite cold, so I actually run
the ceiling fan in reverse to provide a current of air. Clearly I
don't want it blowing down on the bed, but having it sucking upwards
moves the whole room's air around such that a much more even mix is
attained. Without this I have to have the radiator thermostat set much
higher to achieve the same comfort level.

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:24:56 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

snip


we were discussing risk compensation and cycle helmets - I said there
was no evidence that such relationship existed.

I asked you for evidence "that there is a risk compensation effect
when wearing a cycle helmet?"

Which was provided. If you choose to ignore it, that's up to you, but to
claim that it was not provided is what is commonly known as a lie.

snip

No it wasn't - you provided no evidence at all - as you say - to claim
that you have done something when you haven't is known as a lie. Some
people would say that a person making such a claim was a liar.

You did not name a paper, so I asked you if you were referring to:

"Risk compensation in children's activities: A pilot study" provides
evidence that wearing cycle helmets increases the risk that people
take on their cycles?


You did not confirm one way or another

So I asked :

Have you actually read the paper?

You did not confirm one way or the other

Are there any others that you have considered? - or perhaps you are
basing your opinions solely on that paper?

You did not confirm lone way or the other.


So, in a nutshell, you have yet to say which paper you believe
provided evidence "that there is a risk compensation effect when
wearing a cycle helmet?"

Please feel free to do so.

In the absence of such evidence it is of course to correct to say:

There is no evidence "that there is a risk compensation effect when
wearing a cycle helmet".

Thanks for letting me clarify the situation - appreciated.






--

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:06:46 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:40:16 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
wrote:

On Sep 2, 8:53 am, Tom Crispin
wrote:
I seem to recall that motoring is the biggest single cause of
unnatural death in the UK.
Is that why you want everyone (except maybe yourself) to be forced to
stop driving?
I have never said that. However, I do think that people in the
Western world are addicted to the use of the private motor vehicle.
Don't you simply mean that they have a strong preference for the advantages
it confers, as compared with the "advantages" of other modes?

And as it happens, isn't it true that the only reason why car-use in the
former Second World and the Third World is constrained only by economic factors?

Wrong answer.

So car-use is *not* increasing in such places as people get richer (from the
absence of socialism)? One wonders whther it is in fact possible to believe that.

If you had ever taken a lond distance coach trip in India or China,
Russia or Egypt you would undestand why people are happy to pay
thousands for a private motor vehicle.

I don't need to. I understand why people are happy to pay thousands for a
road vehicle here and in other First World countries. People in the RoW are
not different. It's only their circumstances which are different.

The odd thing is that few people are willing to pay a few extra paise
or fen, kopecs or Piasters to upgrade to more comfortable travel
arrangements, but will pay many times more for a private motor
vehicle.

I think this is what I was saying, and what you said was the wrong answer
(oddly, but then, it was you...).

Once bought, the motor vehicle will be used for ever increasingly
shorter journeys. I was the same. I used to drive the mile and a
half to my work each day. I broke the habit.

The use of the private motor vehicle is an addiction. Even George
Bush Junior admitted as much (he actually admitted that America was
addicted to oil, but that's close).

I couldn't care less hat GW Bush says or said. He doesn't speak for me.

Dave Larrington wrote:
In ,
JNugent tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

What you actually said (to the extent that it can be summed up in
that brief format) was:

You [ie, some other poster] cannot provide evidence of X not being
the case. Therefore X is the case.

That is just so wrong it's laughable.

I fully understand that you wish it was wrong (or, more accurately:
"inaccurate").

But it isn't.

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:46:39 +0200, Ace wrote:

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 04:54:36 -0500, Ben C wrote:

On 2009-09-04, David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:00:22 -0500 someone who may be Ben C
wrote this:-

I should think the air in a typical room mostly ends up all at the same
temperature before long.

You think wrongly. What the differences in air temperatures are does
depend on ceiling height and the form of heating.

Usually you put your heaters near the floor. Hot air rises and the
cooler stuff sinks so you get a bit of a convection current going which
encourages the whole room to reach thermal equilibrium.

Not so. In winter our bedroom can get quite cold, so I actually run
the ceiling fan in reverse to provide a current of air. Clearly I
don't want it blowing down on the bed, but having it sucking upwards
moves the whole room's air around such that a much more even mix is
attained. Without this I have to have the radiator thermostat set much
higher to achieve the same comfort level.

How about having a higher bed?