| |
Main
Date: 20 Aug 2007 10:14:15
From: Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
>> The only study I am aware of to measure the effect of bicyclist helmet
>> use on motorist passing distance DID show that motorists give less
>> clearance to helmeted cyclists.
> Did it? The whole study was a Crock. Even if it DID show what you and the
> researcher claim, the drivers were passing less than 10% closer. BFD.
Yes it does make a BF difference when your on a bike you fucking piece of
shit.
Maybe people could do a BFD with your well being and safety.
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 02:28:27
From:
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
On Aug 21, 5:13 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
>
>
> I hear that Albert Einstein used to wear a pigtail wig performing his
> experiments, too.
Hmm - another lame attempt at humor by our champion fact-free poster.
But I'll use this opportunity to inject a fact. Einstein did, indeed,
ride a bicycle. And he did it without a helmet and without apparent
worry. At least, that's what the photograph hanging in my office
shows.
I'm sure the crowd that yells insults like "Darwin" and "no brains to
protect" has some rationalization to exempt Albert. But I doubt their
thinking is up to Einstein's level.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 12:55:21
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
On Aug 20, 8:26 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
> John Kane wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 12:06 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> >> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> >>>>> The only study I am aware of to measure the effect of bicyclist
> >>>>> helmet use on motorist passing distance DID show that motorists
> >>>>> give less clearance to helmeted cyclists.
>
> >>>> Did it? The whole study was a Crock. <snip>
>
> > Fascinating Bill. Perhaps you could give us the correct citation to
> > the article and a short critique of why the study was not so good?
>
> > John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
> Sornson can defend himself, but my own review of this poor excuse for a
> study, with citations, is here.http://journals.aol.com/mikekr/ZbicyclistsZlog/#Entry798
Well, I guess it is a review. Of course, it is usual to review the
actual paper not the newspaper reports. :) Given the limitations of
the design it looks like a rather good study to me. And yes I have
read the actual paper [1], it is just out in the most recent (August)
issue of Accident Analysis and Prevention.
Your label of junk science is a bit harsh and to be honest, most of
your cycling related criticisms seem to indicate that you really need
to read the entire paper which is much clearer about the
methodology.
I don't think the study is definitive but the strong position and
helmet main effects are quite fascintating as are the results based on
motor vehicle types.
I am surprised that buses and heavy goods vehicles pass more closely
than do passenger vehicles. My own impression is that we have the
opposite here but my impression could be wrong or the differences in
road conditions may be having an effect.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
@ARTICLE{Walker2007,
author = {Ian Walker},
year = {2007},
title = {Drivers overtaking bicyclists: objective data on the
effects of riding
position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender.},
journal = {Accid Anal Prev},
volume = {39},
pages = {417--425},
number = {2},
month = {Mar},
abstract = {A naturalistic experiment used an instrumented bicycle
to gather proximity
data from overtaking motorists. The relationship between rider
position
and overtaking proximity was the opposite to that generally believed,
such that the further the rider was from the edge of the road, the
closer vehicles passed. Additionally, wearing a bicycle helmet led
to traffic getting significantly closer when overtaking. Professional
drivers of large vehicles were particularly likely to leave narrow
safety margins. Finally, when the (male) experimenter wore a long
wig, so that he appeared female from behind, drivers left more space
when passing. Overall, the results demonstrate that motorists exhibit
behavioural sensitivity to aspects of a bicyclist's appearance during
an encounter. In the light of previous research on drivers' attitudes
to bicyclists, we suggest drivers approaching a bicyclist use
physical
appearance to judge the specific likelihood of the rider behaving
predictably and alter their overtaking accordingly. However, the
extent to which a bicyclist's moment-to-moment behaviour can be
inferred
from their appearance is questionable, and so the tendency for
drivers
to alter their passing proximity based on this appearance probably
has implications for accident probability.},
doi = {10.1016/j.aap.2006.08.010},
keywords = {Accidents, Traffic; Automobile Driving; Bicycling;
Female; Head Protective Devices; Humans; Male; Risk-Taking; Sex
Factors},
pii = {S0001-4575(06)00154-0},
pmid = {17064655},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2006.08.010}
}
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 22:56:43
From: Mike Kruger
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
John Kane wrote:
> On Aug 20, 8:26 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> my own review of this poor excuse for a study, with citations, is
>> here.http://journals.aol.com/mikekr/ZbicyclistsZlog/#Entry798
>
> Well, I guess it is a review. Of course, it is usual to review the
> actual paper not the newspaper reports. :)
Frankly, that's unfair.
I did read all the material which was available at the time THE AUTHOR
AND/OR HIS INSTITUTION started issuing press releases on it. This included
not just the press release, but a sort of annotated graph presentation that
was likely presented at a professional meeting.
Note that the press blizzard occurred practically a year before the paper
itself was available, and this early release was hardly due to investigative
journalism -- it was due to THE AUTHOR AND/OR HIS INSTITUTION trying to get
publicity. That's the way the academic game is played now.
So, under the circumstances (given that I read all the material available
and Walker did not make the full paper available) I think what I did was
fair.
The general practice to issuing press material on studies months ahead of
publication is reprensible, I agree, but it forces one to review the
available material. It's either that or say nothing for a year and try to
hunt down the article later. Again, it's not that I didn't want to review
all the material available, it's that Walker and/or his institution chose to
publicize the information in a certain way at a certain time.
I might add that I do (and review) behavioral research for a living
(although not in the area of traffic or accident prevention). .
> Given the limitations of
> the design it looks like a rather good study to me. And yes I have
> read the actual paper [1], it is just out in the most recent (August)
> issue of Accident Analysis and Prevention.
I don't subscribe, don't have access to a service that carries it, and the
PDF is $30. This is a test of my motivation to be truly fair that I may not
pass. ;)
If anybody sends copy to zbicyclist at yahoo dot com I won't tell on you.
>
> Your label of junk science is a bit harsh
Maybe, but I'll stand by it.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 14:13:09
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
John Kane wrote:
> On Aug 20, 8:26 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> John Kane wrote:
>>> On Aug 20, 12:06 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>>>> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>>>>>>> The only study I am aware of to measure the effect of bicyclist
>>>>>>> helmet use on motorist passing distance DID show that motorists
>>>>>>> give less clearance to helmeted cyclists.
>>
>>>>>> Did it? The whole study was a Crock. <snip>
>>
>>> Fascinating Bill. Perhaps you could give us the correct citation to
>>> the article and a short critique of why the study was not so good?
>>
>>> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>>
>> Sornson can defend himself, but my own review of this poor excuse
>> for a
>> study, with citations, is
>> here.http://journals.aol.com/mikekr/ZbicyclistsZlog/#Entry798
>
> Well, I guess it is a review. Of course, it is usual to review the
> actual paper not the newspaper reports. :) Given the limitations of
> the design it looks like a rather good study to me. And yes I have
> read the actual paper [1], it is just out in the most recent (August)
> issue of Accident Analysis and Prevention.
{snip}
I hear that Albert Einstein used to wear a pigtail wig performing his
experiments, too.
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 02:13:15
From: Lobby Dosser
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it > wrote:
>>> The only study I am aware of to measure the effect of bicyclist
>>> helmet use on motorist passing distance DID show that motorists give
>>> less clearance to helmeted cyclists.
>
>> Did it? The whole study was a Crock. Even if it DID show what you and
>> the researcher claim, the drivers were passing less than 10% closer.
>> BFD.
>
> Yes it does make a BF difference when your on a bike you fucking piece
> of shit.
>
> Maybe people could do a BFD with your well being and safety.
>
>
2-3" when the norm is 4 FEET, jerkoff!
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 20:05:59
From:
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
On Aug 20, 1:53 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> John Kane wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 12:06 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> >> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> >>>>> The only study I am aware of to measure the effect of bicyclist
> >>>>> helmet use on motorist passing distance DID show that motorists
> >>>>> give less clearance to helmeted cyclists.
>
> >>>> Did it? The whole study was a Crock. Even if it DID show what you
> >>>> and the researcher claim, the drivers were passing less than 10%
> >>>> closer. BFD.
>
> >>> Yes it does make a BF difference when your on a bike you fucking
> >>> piece of shit.
>
> >>> Maybe people could do a BFD with your well being and safety.
>
> >> The study was a joke and 3" is no big deal. (That's what your wife
> >> says, anyway.)
>
> >> <eg>
> > Fascinating Bill. Perhaps you could give us the correct citation to
> > the article and a short critique of why the study was not so good?
>
> Boring John. It was a dork on a bike with a clipboard and a lady's wig.
> Chiffon blouse, too, IIRC.
>
> Only thing the "study" was worth was a laugh.
>
Another content-free post from Bill Sornson!
And Bill, even the minor guesses you made about that study were mostly
wrong. Are you _never_ embarrassed about posting from ignorance?
Will you _never_ read about the issues we discuss?
The researcher in question used electronic sensors and a data
collection system to measure passing distances from thousands of
cars. Sorry, although the mean difference in passing distance was
small, it was real, and statistically significant. (Sorry about the
big words, Bill.)
And as the author noted, the mean distance is not really what cyclists
are worried about. The minimum distance is. And there were more
significant changes in that minimum distance.
Read the blasted paper before making a fool of yourself.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 10:31:18
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
On Aug 20, 12:06 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> >>> The only study I am aware of to measure the effect of bicyclist
> >>> helmet use on motorist passing distance DID show that motorists
> >>> give less clearance to helmeted cyclists.
>
> >> Did it? The whole study was a Crock. Even if it DID show what you
> >> and the researcher claim, the drivers were passing less than 10%
> >> closer. BFD.
>
> > Yes it does make a BF difference when your on a bike you fucking
> > piece of shit.
>
> > Maybe people could do a BFD with your well being and safety.
>
> The study was a joke and 3" is no big deal. (That's what your wife says,
> anyway.)
>
> <eg>
Fascinating Bill. Perhaps you could give us the correct citation to
the article and a short critique of why the study was not so good?
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 19:26:13
From: Mike Kruger
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
John Kane wrote:
> On Aug 20, 12:06 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>>>>> The only study I am aware of to measure the effect of bicyclist
>>>>> helmet use on motorist passing distance DID show that motorists
>>>>> give less clearance to helmeted cyclists.
>>
>>>> Did it? The whole study was a Crock. <snip>
>
> Fascinating Bill. Perhaps you could give us the correct citation to
> the article and a short critique of why the study was not so good?
>
> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
Sornson can defend himself, but my own review of this poor excuse for a
study, with citations, is here.
http://journals.aol.com/mikekr/ZbicyclistsZlog/#Entry798
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 10:53:42
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
John Kane wrote:
> On Aug 20, 12:06 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>> Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>>>>> The only study I am aware of to measure the effect of bicyclist
>>>>> helmet use on motorist passing distance DID show that motorists
>>>>> give less clearance to helmeted cyclists.
>>
>>>> Did it? The whole study was a Crock. Even if it DID show what you
>>>> and the researcher claim, the drivers were passing less than 10%
>>>> closer. BFD.
>>
>>> Yes it does make a BF difference when your on a bike you fucking
>>> piece of shit.
>>
>>> Maybe people could do a BFD with your well being and safety.
>>
>> The study was a joke and 3" is no big deal. (That's what your wife
>> says, anyway.)
>>
>> <eg>
> Fascinating Bill. Perhaps you could give us the correct citation to
> the article and a short critique of why the study was not so good?
Boring John. It was a dork on a bike with a clipboard and a lady's wig.
Chiffon blouse, too, IIRC.
Only thing the "study" was worth was a laugh.
HTH
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 09:06:32
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Helmets (was Raged motorist strikes two cyclists)
|
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>>> The only study I am aware of to measure the effect of bicyclist
>>> helmet use on motorist passing distance DID show that motorists
>>> give less clearance to helmeted cyclists.
>
>> Did it? The whole study was a Crock. Even if it DID show what you
>> and the researcher claim, the drivers were passing less than 10%
>> closer. BFD.
>
> Yes it does make a BF difference when your on a bike you fucking
> piece of shit.
>
> Maybe people could do a BFD with your well being and safety.
The study was a joke and 3" is no big deal. (That's what your wife says,
anyway.)
<eg >
|
|
