A blonde wig is safer than a helmet according to:



"Tim Forcer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Just where would one apply the pancake powder, bright red lipstick and
> balloon boobs to be visible as "completely in drag" to a driver
> approaching from (ahem) the rear?


I do believe the ladies of 'Little Britain' have the answer to your dilemma
;-)

Cheers, helen s
 
dkahn400 wrote:

> I think Ian's results support what many of us have long suspected.
> However, there does seem to be a weakness in the method if Ian was his
> own subject especially if, as I believe, the results confirm his
> original suspicions. It would be impossible for Ian to show that his
> riding style was not unconsciously affected by his prejudices.
>


Hello,

This is a really important and valid point, and I think I can shed some
light. Although the helmet finding was one I thought I might see based
on various people's personal experiences, the riding position results
and the gender result were both in the opposite direction to what I
expected: like many people, I'd always believed that the further out
into the road one travelled, the more space one got from overtaking
vehicles. And as for the gender, I suspected that women would be seen
as more reliable and less likely to do something stupid than men (which
is probably true!). So given that two out of the three findings here
(and some others, like SUVs being no different to other cars) were not
what I expected, I think I can make a good case for not haveing
subconsciously influenced the results after all.

Greetings to all - I was a regular on this group back when I had time
to keep up with it!

Ian
 
In article <[email protected]>
Ian Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
> like many people, I'd always believed that the further out
> into the road one travelled, the more space one got from overtaking
> vehicles.


To aome extent this must be dependent on the available space - if the
cariageway is narrow and the cyclist commands sufficient space, there is
a point where only the most intellectually impaired driver will try to
squeeze past. On a wider carriageway there will probably be a greater
tendency on the part of drivers to minimize direction and speed changes,
and there's a limit to how much road the cyclist can reasonably claim.
Speed difference is probably also a major factor. Were the passing
distances correlated with proximity to junctions or general road
conditions?
 
Ian Walker wrote:
> dkahn400 wrote:
>
> > I think Ian's results support what many of us have long suspected.
> > However, there does seem to be a weakness in the method if Ian was his
> > own subject especially if, as I believe, the results confirm his
> > original suspicions. It would be impossible for Ian to show that his
> > riding style was not unconsciously affected by his prejudices.
> >

>
> Hello,
>
> This is a really important and valid point, and I think I can shed some
> light. Although the helmet finding was one I thought I might see based
> on various people's personal experiences, the riding position results
> and the gender result were both in the opposite direction to what I
> expected: like many people, I'd always believed that the further out
> into the road one travelled, the more space one got from overtaking
> vehicles. And as for the gender, I suspected that women would be seen
> as more reliable and less likely to do something stupid than men (which
> is probably true!). So given that two out of the three findings here
> (and some others, like SUVs being no different to other cars) were not
> what I expected, I think I can make a good case for not haveing
> subconsciously influenced the results after all.
>
> Greetings to all - I was a regular on this group back when I had time
> to keep up with it!


Hi Ian,

I read the 'professional briefing' and you showed that there are
several factors involved including the time of day, distance from the
kerb etc. I presume that you have done the appropriate normalisations
and calculated the significance of these results and this will appear
inthe AAP paper?

It's certainly getting a lot of publicity.

...d
 
Quoting Nobody Here <[email protected]>:
>at a given distance. Of course it's inconceivable that I personally
>am fully aware of the distance I pass cyclists under any number of
>circumstances. That would be impossible, because someone, somehwere
>has done some research showing that *on average* motorists pass helmeted
>cyclists closer than unhelmented ones.


If we find that is true on average and that most motorists feel, like you,
that it is not true of them personally, then indeed most people who feel
that are deluded and hence you are probably deluded.

You're just producing the equivalent of the standard "But *I* don't risk
compensate" rant, right down to the "I think I know myself better" drivel.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Potmos, September.
 
David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Quoting Nobody Here <[email protected]>:
>>at a given distance. Of course it's inconceivable that I personally
>>am fully aware of the distance I pass cyclists under any number of
>>circumstances. That would be impossible, because someone, somehwere
>>has done some research showing that *on average* motorists pass helmeted
>>cyclists closer than unhelmented ones.

>
> If we find that is true on average and that most motorists feel, like you,
> that it is not true of them personally, then indeed most people who feel
> that are deluded and hence you are probably deluded.


Who said most motorists feel it's not true of them personally?

> You're just producing the equivalent of the standard "But *I* don't risk
> compensate" rant, right down to the "I think I know myself better" drivel.


Ok, so even though I acknowledge that there are factors that certainly
do influence my passing distance, it's entirely impossible that helmet
use is *not* one of them? Even though as I've pointed out quite clearly,
I thought, that I don't believe a helmet makes you or me any safer, so
it's unlikely that I'm "risk compensating" for someone wearing a helmet,
it's absolutely inconievable to you that I might be right? After all,
all that Ian's research found was that *on average* motorists passed
closer. Does that mean that *all* motorists passed closer? Indeed does
that preclude the possibility that *some* motorists might even pass less
close? Is it not possible that, as a cyclist and therefore in a class
of motorist that might be more aware of cyclists in general than the
great majority of motorists, it might make no difference to me whether
they're wearing a helmet or not?

Do you drive? Whn you pass a cyclist do you drive closer if they're
wearing a helmet? If so, why? Do you think, now that it's been pointed
out to you that on average motorists do that, you'll still be passing
helmeted cyclists closer than unhelmeted ones? Or do you think you'll
make a special effort in future to stay equally as far away from both?
By your logic, that'll be impossible, because some magic force will suck
you in to being 8.5cm closer to helmeted cyclist, even though you're
now aware of the possibility that you might be passing closer if they're
wearing a skid lid.


--
Nobby Anderson
 
Nobody Here wrote on 13/09/2006 18:28 +0100:
> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You're just producing the equivalent of the standard "But *I* don't risk
>> compensate" rant, right down to the "I think I know myself better" drivel.

>
> Ok, so even though I acknowledge that there are factors that certainly
> do influence my passing distance, it's entirely impossible that helmet
> use is *not* one of them?


85% of drivers are convinced they are above average drivers. At least
40% of them must be wrong.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
Tony Raven wrote:

>
> 85% of drivers are convinced they are above average drivers. At least
> 40% of them must be wrong.
>

88% of competitors in The Boat Race are of above average height and
weight for competitors in The Boat Race. [1]

Your statement only holds if there is a normal(ish) distribution

(although given that there is (in theory) a minimum standard for
drivers, it would be reasonable to presume that the majority of drivers
are of below average ability (of qualified drivers) as there can be a
long tail of very good drivers but no "very bad" drivers)

Tim.

[1] N.B. competitors, not rowers.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>
>85% of drivers are convinced they are above average drivers. At least
>40% of them must be wrong.


Why not 35%, at least theoretically? (Oh hang on, by "40% of them" you
mean "of the 85%" not "of all drivers"?)
 
Quoting Nobody Here <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Quoting Nobody Here <[email protected]>:
>>>at a given distance. Of course it's inconceivable that I personally
>>>am fully aware of the distance I pass cyclists under any number of
>>>circumstances. That would be impossible, because someone, somehwere
>>>has done some research showing that *on average* motorists pass helmeted
>>>cyclists closer than unhelmented ones.

>>If we find that is true on average and that most motorists feel, like you,
>>that it is not true of them personally, then indeed most people who feel
>>that are deluded and hence you are probably deluded.

>Who said most motorists feel it's not true of them personally?


If you want to insist that, if you asked motorists if they pass helmeted
cyclists closer, the majority would say "Why, yes, I probably do"... well,
that's up to you.

>>You're just producing the equivalent of the standard "But *I* don't risk
>>compensate" rant, right down to the "I think I know myself better" drivel.

>Ok, so even though I acknowledge that there are factors that certainly
>do influence my passing distance, it's entirely impossible that helmet
>use is *not* one of them?


Who wouldn't acknowledge that there are some factors that influence their
passing distance? You're not special here.

Is it _impossible_ that helmet use is not one of them? No. Is it most
likely that you are deluded? Yes.

>it's absolutely inconievable to you that I might be right?


This is the lottery argument. If I have a lottery ticket and proclaim that
I definitely must have won, you'd be quite right to point out I'm deluded
even though there is a small possibility that I am right.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Teleute, September.
 
Quoting Nobody Here <[email protected]>:
>Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>>85% of drivers are convinced they are above average drivers. At least
>>40% of them must be wrong.

>I truly really don't know why you're spouting this ****. Where have I
>ever said or even implied that I think I'm an above average driver?


It's a very similar case. When everyone thinks they're different to the
averages, most of them must be wrong.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
Today is Teleute, September.
 
In message <WFE*[email protected]>
David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Quoting Nobody Here <[email protected]>:
> >Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>85% of drivers are convinced they are above average drivers. At least
> >>40% of them must be wrong.

> >I truly really don't know why you're spouting this ****. Where have I
> >ever said or even implied that I think I'm an above average driver?

>
> It's a very similar case. When everyone thinks they're different to the
> averages, most of them must be wrong.


Surely it depends on the distribution of members of the set?

For many distributions most members *will* be different from the average
(mean, median, mode), but some of them will be above, and others below.
The problem comes when a disproportionate number of them think that they
are above, or below, the average.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
 
In article <WFE*[email protected]>
David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Quoting Nobody Here <[email protected]>:
> >Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>85% of drivers are convinced they are above average drivers. At least
> >>40% of them must be wrong.

> >I truly really don't know why you're spouting this ****. Where have I
> >ever said or even implied that I think I'm an above average driver?

>
> It's a very similar case. When everyone thinks they're different to the
> averages, most of them must be wrong.
>

Consider this distribution curve:

|
| .--. .--.
| / \ / \
| / \_/ \
+-------------------
 
David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Quoting Nobody Here <[email protected]>:
>>David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>Quoting Nobody Here <[email protected]>:
>>>>at a given distance. Of course it's inconceivable that I personally
>>>>am fully aware of the distance I pass cyclists under any number of
>>>>circumstances. That would be impossible, because someone, somehwere
>>>>has done some research showing that *on average* motorists pass helmeted
>>>>cyclists closer than unhelmented ones.
>>>If we find that is true on average and that most motorists feel, like you,
>>>that it is not true of them personally, then indeed most people who feel
>>>that are deluded and hence you are probably deluded.

>>Who said most motorists feel it's not true of them personally?

>
> If you want to insist that, if you asked motorists if they pass helmeted
> cyclists closer, the majority would say "Why, yes, I probably do"... well,
> that's up to you.
>
>>>You're just producing the equivalent of the standard "But *I* don't risk
>>>compensate" rant, right down to the "I think I know myself better" drivel.

>>Ok, so even though I acknowledge that there are factors that certainly
>>do influence my passing distance, it's entirely impossible that helmet
>>use is *not* one of them?

>
> Who wouldn't acknowledge that there are some factors that influence their
> passing distance? You're not special here.
>
> Is it _impossible_ that helmet use is not one of them? No. Is it most
> likely that you are deluded? Yes.
>
>>it's absolutely inconievable to you that I might be right?

>
> This is the lottery argument. If I have a lottery ticket and proclaim that
> I definitely must have won, you'd be quite right to point out I'm deluded
> even though there is a small possibility that I am right.


No, of course, you're quite right, I'm deluded. Silly me. On average,
motorists pass closer to helmeted cyclists so of course I must. How could
I have been so blind? Thanks for opening my eyes for me.

I presume now that your eyes have been opened by Ian's research you'll be
making absolutely sure you don't pass helemted cyclists closer than you
do unhelmeted ones? Oh no, I guess, given your logic you won't actually be
able to *not* pass them closer because you, like me apparently, are incapable
of reglecting the helmet issue when you're in the process of deciding exactly
how close to pass a cyclist. Something invisible will suck you towards them,
no matter how hard you try. It's no wonder cyclists have such a hard time
on the road with people like you and me around, eh? Or is it that now you
know you're likely to be passing closer you'll modify your behaviour so you
no longer do it? Ah, but then you'll be just like me. Deluded.

--
Nobby Anderson
 
David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Quoting Nobody Here <[email protected]>:
>>Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>85% of drivers are convinced they are above average drivers. At least
>>>40% of them must be wrong.

>>I truly really don't know why you're spouting this ****. Where have I
>>ever said or even implied that I think I'm an above average driver?

>
> It's a very similar case. When everyone thinks they're different to the
> averages, most of them must be wrong.


Actually, clueless, most people are different to the average. Take three
of your mates. Are any of them the average height of the four of you?

So here's a clue: When someone thinks they're average, they almost
certainly aren't. Where does that leave you? Oh yeah, with one more
clue than before.

--
Nobby Anderson
 
Nobody Here wrote on 15/09/2006 00:52 +0100:
>
> Actually, clueless, most people are different to the average. Take three
> of your mates. Are any of them the average height of the four of you?
>


But at least one and probably two will be below the average height.

With the helmeted and unhelmeted issue it has to be a subconscious
effect as until earlier this week nobody knew it was happening. So to
claim you have always compensated for a subconscious effect nobody knew
about is a little far fetched IMO. YMMV


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nobody Here wrote on 15/09/2006 00:52 +0100:
>>
>> Actually, clueless, most people are different to the average. Take three
>> of your mates. Are any of them the average height of the four of you?
>>

>
> But at least one and probably two will be below the average height.
>
> With the helmeted and unhelmeted issue it has to be a subconscious
> effect as until earlier this week nobody knew it was happening. So to
> claim you have always compensated for a subconscious effect nobody knew
> about is a little far fetched IMO. YMMV


Why would there be a subconcious effect in soneone who doesn't believe
a helmet makes any difference to a rider's safety at all? I can fully
believe that there might be a subconcious effect in someone who *did*
beleve that, and I'm also happy to belleve that the majority of drivers
*do* beleve that a helmet makes a rider safer, and that may well
explain the effect that Ian is seeing.

Do you believe helmets are effective? Vociferously not, according to your
posting history. Do you believe that some subconcious effect over the
efficacy of helmets makes *you* drive closer to a helmeted driver? I
guess so, because presumably if you can't believe it makes no difference
to me then the same argument must, in all fairness, apply to you. So
perhaps you really do, deep down, believe helmets are effective protectors
for the human lid. Or are you just being illogical?

Norbert.

--
Nobby Anderson
 
Nobody Here wrote:

> Why would there be a subconcious effect in soneone who doesn't believe
> a helmet makes any difference to a rider's safety at all?


It's not very easy to say why, because it's, errrr, subconscious!

To what extent do you /absolutely believe with no shadow of doubt
whatsoever/ that a helmet makes no difference /at all/? I certainly
don't believe that to a completely and absolute degree, rather I think
it *probably* makes /more or less/ no difference. There's a lot of room
for subconscious effect in there, especially given the complexity of the
human mind.

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 [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/