Re: I crash into religion

[Tony Raven]

p.k. wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> p.k. wrote:
>>> The overall population stats are useful for policy level decision
>>> but give zero guidance at the level of the individual..
>>>
>> I presume that before you use any pharmaceutical you check yourself
>> into a medical school to have a carefully monitored clinical trial
>> run on yourself. After all the population trials give you zero
>> guidance at the level of the individual.
>
> different circumstances, different decisions.
>
> But, in a way yes! I check the details on the info sheet and look for both
> contraindications and side effects. I have had occasion to check with my GP
> the appropriateness of prescription drugs and have had cause to discuss
> expressed side effects of drugs.
>

But why are you bothering to read all that information and have the
discussion with your doctor. It's irrelevant to you. That data and his
experience are based on population studies and as you said, it gives
zero guidance to you at the level of the individual. The only thing
that matters to you is your experience. Which way is it going to be?
Do population studies give you useful guidance or not?

--
Tony

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

 

[Phil Armstrong]

41 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Phil Armstrong wrote:
>> had been described as going 120mph+.
>
> It was described as going 121mph, but that was a falsehood.
>
> The true speed of the crash does not seem to be known, but most
> reasonable estimates are in the 50-70mph range.
> <http://tinyurl.com/luhly>

Fair enough.

> These details are easy to check before posting, and it's better to do
> so, because once posted, one piece of misinformation lives far longer,
> and spreads far wider, than any number of corrections.

True.

> The most beneficial safety measure in this case would have been a guard
> rail. The bastards in charge apparently still refuse to put one up,
> since then they would be admitting fault, which La Republique Francaise
> can never do. One can't help wondering if someone from this forum
> advised them.

That's somewhat out of the control of the passengers of said vehicle
however, unlike the seatbelts...

Phil



--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 08:14:21 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You over-snipped, as usual, but it was about the
>> /process/ of making a decisi
>
> This "you oversnipped" argument of yours is getting tiresome.

Than stop doing it. Problem solved; off you go.
>
> If someone snips what you write so as to *change* the meaning of what
> you wrote, then you have a very legitimate beef with them and should
> call them on it

Also when they REMOVE meaning, leaving a new reader (who obviously needs a
life!) in the dark over what prompted the remark.

> But if they snip what you write to take issue with one particular
> *part* of what you wrote, we should all be thankful for it -- it's
> being economical with words.

Only if the context remains clear. I agree with "self sufficient" comments
or thoughts, but not when the context is important or even vital to
understanding.

> You may feel that when you set up a series of steps in your
> "reasoning" and someone shoots a whole in one step by snipping it out
> and demonstating it's wrong they are changing the meaning of what you
> wrote. They're not. But by breaking that step, the series is weaker.

"The series is weaker"? Um, OK.

 

[Sorni]

Richard wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> Aren't there "studies" that show seat belts are ineffective in
>> crashes over, say, X mph?
>
> Are there such studies?

Ask any anti-seatbelt person. One can find a study to confirm almost
anything.

 

[Sorni]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 02:38:36 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:

>> And "emotional decisions" are...BAD somehow?

> Assuming access to good information, they're less effective than
> decisions based on reason, and are less useful in trying to serve as a
> model to other people.

Ah, see, that's where I and many other helmet users differ from you and
Frank and Richard and 41 and...the rest: WE DON'T CLAIM TO BE MODELS FOR
ANYONE.

HTH, BS

 

[Richard]

Sorni wrote:
> Ah, see, that's where I and many other helmet users differ from you and
> Frank and Richard and 41 and...the rest: WE DON'T CLAIM TO BE MODELS FOR
> ANYONE.

What you claim to be, and what you are, are not always congruent.

R.

 

[Clive George]

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

>The most beneficial safety measure in this case would have been a guard
>rail.

Er - bollocks. Not using a ****** driver would have been the most beneficial
safety measure, followed by wearing a seatbelt for the passengers.

clive

 

[[email protected]]

On 14 May 2006 05:31:47 -0700, "41" <[email protected]>
wrote:

[snip]

>It was described as going 121mph, but that was a falsehood.
>
>The true speed of the crash does not seem to be known, but most
>reasonable estimates are in the 50-70mph range.
><http://tinyurl.com/luhly>
>
>These details are easy to check before posting, and it's better to do
>so, because once posted, one piece of misinformation lives far longer,
>and spreads far wider, than any number of corrections.
>
>
>> Thus implying that the upper
>> velocity limit of seatbelt effectiveness was actually quite high.
>
>The most beneficial safety measure in this case would have been a guard
>rail. The bastards in charge apparently still refuse to put one up,
>since then they would be admitting fault, which La Republique Francaise
>can never do. One can't help wondering if someone from this forum
>advised them.

Dear 41,

I've heard theories that the driver who drove head-on into
the pillar was at fault.

So possibly the bastards in charge think that ignoring the
speed limit and driving while drunk or drug-addled were more
to blame than the lack of guardrails in front of every solid
object in France.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

Sorni wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 May 2006 08:14:21 GMT, "Sorni"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> You over-snipped, as usual, but it was about the
> >> /process/ of making a decisi
> >
> > This "you oversnipped" argument of yours is getting tiresome.
>
> Than stop doing it. Problem solved; off you go.
> >
> > If someone snips what you write so as to *change* the meaning of what
> > you wrote, then you have a very legitimate beef with them and should
> > call them on it
>
> Also when they REMOVE meaning, leaving a new reader (who obviously needs a
> life!) in the dark over what prompted the remark.
>

In a medium where the previous post - and the one before it, and the
one before that - are all available by one mouse click?

Surely nobody has much trouble negotiating this system.

What most people do if they feel their meaning has been changed is to
simply re-insert the relevant phrases. If you were to say "The part
you clipped changed my meaning. Here's what I said..." then give the
precise quote, you might come off as looking a bit smarter.

But even then, for God's sake, don't copy the entire previous post.
It's not considered good practice, because by now you'd likely be
quoting all 1000+ posts in each response. We don't need that sort of
exponential growth.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Sorni wrote:
> Richard wrote:
> > Sorni wrote:
> >> Aren't there "studies" that show seat belts are ineffective in
> >> crashes over, say, X mph?
> >
> > Are there such studies?
>
> Ask any anti-seatbelt person. One can find a study to confirm almost
> anything.

But, obviously, you haven't. Yet more vague hand-waving.

I'm convinced you haven't read anything about safety beyond the sticker
on the top tube of your bicycle. You're obviously making up most of
your arguments as you go along.

Sorni, despite your obvious reluctance, it IS possible to read, to
research, to _learn_ before spouting unfounded opinions.

Sure, it's not mandatory. But why continue to post from such a
position of ignorance? If it's worth your time to post so much, why
isn't it worth your time to learn?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[41]

Clive George wrote:
> "41" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >The most beneficial safety measure in this case would have been a guard
> >rail.
>
> Er - bollocks. Not using a pi ssed driver would have been the most beneficial
> safety measure, followed by wearing a seatbelt for the passengers.

(a) His blood alcohol level was tested at 1.87 g/l. A level of 1.75 g/l
is the equivalent of 9 shots of whiskey drunk in rapid succession:
<http://tinyurl.com/rofj5>. Plus, there were traces of prescription
medication that interacts with alcohol found in his blood. Given the
videos of him leaving the hotel to get into the car, and the fact that
he could find the door to it, I find this all way beyond implausible.

(b) Not according to Murray Mackay, head of the Birmingham Accident
Research Centre and Professor of Transport Safety at the University of
Birmingham: <http://tinyurl.com/luhly>. According to his study and
computer simulation of the accident, Diana would have only had a "fair"
chance of survival had she been belted, but all three dead occupants
would "almost certainly" have survived, belted or unbelted, had there
been a guard rail.

I had already posted both these links in my original posts.

(c) Another good safety measure is to check the situation before
flinging your bollocks at someone.
¿

 

[41]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 14 May 2006 05:31:47 -0700, "41" <[email protected]>
> wrote:

> >These details are easy to check before posting, and it's better to do
> >so, because once posted, one piece of misinformation lives far longer,
> >and spreads far wider, than any number of corrections.

> >The most beneficial safety measure in this case would have been a guard
> >rail. The bastards in charge apparently still refuse to put one up,
> >since then they would be admitting fault, which La Republique Francaise
> >can never do. One can't help wondering if someone from this forum
> >advised them.
>
> Dear 41,
>
> I've heard theories that the driver who drove head-on into
> the pillar was at fault.

> So possibly the bastards in charge think that ignoring the
> speed limit and driving while drunk or drug-addled were more
> to blame than the lack of guardrails in front of every solid
> object in Fra nce.


# > Er - bollocks. Not using a pi ssed driver would have been the
most beneficial
# > safety measure, followed by wearing a seatbelt for the
passengers.

# (a) His blood alcohol level was tested at 1.87 g/l. A level of
1.75 g/l
# is the equivalent of 9 shots of whiskey drunk in rapid
succession:
# <http://tinyurl.com/rofj5>. Plus, there were traces of
prescription
# medication that interacts with alcohol found in his blood. Given
the
# videos of him leaving the hotel to get into the car, and the fact
that
# he could find the door to it, I find this all way beyond
implausible.

# (b) Not according to Murray Mackay, head of the Birmingham
Accident
# Research Centre and Professor of Transport Safety at the
University of
# Birmingham: <http://tinyurl.com/luhly>. According to his study
and
# computer simulation of the accident, Diana would have only had a
"fair"
# chance of survival had she been belted, but all three dead
occupants
# would "almost certainly" have survived, belted or unbelted, had
there
# been a guard rail.

I note in addition that these were far from the only three deaths at
this road hazard, which had been the site of many others in previous
years.

# I had already posted both these links in my original posts.

# (c) Another good safety measure is to check the situation before
# flinging your bollocks at someone.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:
> But even then, for God's sake, don't copy the entire previous post.
> It's not considered good practice, because by now you'd likely be
> quoting all 1000+ posts in each response. We don't need that sort of
> exponential growth.

Each successive article would grow linearly. The total
number of characters in a thread would grow quadratically,
very much slower than exponential.

--
Michael Press

 

[davek]

[email protected] wrote:
> So for people who are interested in the issue, and interested in
> actually thinking and learning about the issue, there is value in these
> threads.

Perhaps, for the first 20 posts or so...

> If that's you, don't read them.

I wouldn't have time to read a "discussion" running to several thousand
posts, even if I /wanted/ to read the same old arguments again and again
and again...

When was the last time someone contributed something /new/ to a helmet
debate?

d.

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> Richard wrote:
>>> Sorni wrote:
>>>> Aren't there "studies" that show seat belts are ineffective in
>>>> crashes over, say, X mph?
>>>
>>> Are there such studies?
>>
>> Ask any anti-seatbelt person. One can find a study to confirm almost
>> anything.
>
> But, obviously, you haven't. Yet more vague hand-waving.
>
> I'm convinced you haven't read anything about safety beyond the
> sticker on the top tube of your bicycle. You're obviously making up
> most of your arguments as you go along.
>
> Sorni, despite your obvious reluctance, it IS possible to read, to
> research, to _learn_ before spouting unfounded opinions.
>
> Sure, it's not mandatory. But why continue to post from such a
> position of ignorance? If it's worth your time to post so much, why
> isn't it worth your time to learn?

You and Tony AGAIN miss the point. Seatbelts were just an example used to
describe the PROCESS (yes, in caps because it's about the fourth time I've
said it) of making a decision. For some, not all, people. What any
seatbelt study or statistic might indicate is irrelevant; it was a SIMILE is
all.

I've banged my head on something hard while wearing a helmet. The helmet
did its job (at least the one *I* ask it to do). Therefore, I will continue
wearing a helmet no matter what a bunch of strange Usenet Strangers post on
some newsgroup.

You, for about the jillionth time, are free to do what you please.

 

[Richard]

davek wrote:

> When was the last time someone contributed something /new/ to a helmet
> debate?

But how do you know that nothing new has been contributed, if you don't
read it? Not only that, but if you've never read them before (and,
personally, I don't have the time or energy to wade through the entirety
of Google Groups when I join a new group) then it /is/ all new. It
certainly was to me, the first time I (as a helmet wearer) saw a helmet
debate crop up on urc c. 1996.

R.

 

[Richard]

Sorni wrote:
> You and Tony AGAIN miss the point. Seatbelts were just an example used to
> describe the PROCESS (yes, in caps because it's about the fourth time I've
> said it) of making a decision. For some, not all, people. What any
> seatbelt study or statistic might indicate is irrelevant; it was a SIMILE is
> all.

A simile? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Anyway your decision-making process with respect to seat-belts is
nothing to do with these so-far mythical studies, since you appear to
rely only on personal experience. So why do you bring them up?

> I've banged my head on something hard while wearing a helmet. The helmet
> did its job (at least the one *I* ask it to do). Therefore, I will continue
> wearing a helmet no matter what a bunch of strange Usenet Strangers post on
> some newsgroup.

And none of them have told you or asked you to not wear it. What they
have done is point out (many times) where you might find some
information that might make you think twice about wearing it. Instead
of saying "OK, thanks for the info, I'll take a look" or even "OK,
thanks for the info, I don't have time even to look at the summaries
right now", you have persisted in posting straw men, insults,
irrelevancies, and "justifications" of your position.

R.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 13 May 2006 19:41:16 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>

<snipped>

-on what may improve a noted troll's disposition-

>
> > a laxative.
>
> This sort of contentless insult shows you've got nothing substantive
> to say.
>

I keep that in mind next time you are in full troll mode, troll, and
quote it back to you. ;-)

 

[Mark Thompson]

> (a) His blood alcohol level was tested at 1.87 g/l. A level of
> 1.75 g/l is the equivalent of 9 shots of whiskey drunk in rapid
> succession:<http://tinyurl.com/rofj5>. Plus, there were traces of
> prescription medication that interacts with alcohol found in his blood.
> Given the videos of him leaving the hotel to get into the car, and the
> fact that he could find the door to it, I find this all way beyond
> implausible.

What, he sinks the equivalent of 3.5 pints of beer and you think he can't
walk? I can do that and I'm a southerner, you wuss.

 

[Sorni]

Richard wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> You and Tony AGAIN miss the point. Seatbelts were just an example
>> used to describe the PROCESS (yes, in caps because it's about the
>> fourth time I've said it) of making a decision. For some, not all,
>> people. What any seatbelt study or statistic might indicate is
>> irrelevant; it was a SIMILE is all.
>
> A simile? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

"n : a figure of speech that expresses a resemblance between things of
different kinds (usually formed with `like' or `as')

The process of deciding whether to wear a helmet /is like/ (or /similar to/)
the process of deciding whether to use a seatbelt.

> Anyway your decision-making process with respect to seat-belts is
> nothing to do with these so-far mythical studies, since you appear to
> rely only on personal experience. So why do you bring them up?
>
>> I've banged my head on something hard while wearing a helmet. The
>> helmet did its job (at least the one *I* ask it to do). Therefore,
>> I will continue wearing a helmet no matter what a bunch of strange
>> Usenet Strangers post on some newsgroup.

> And none of them have told you or asked you to not wear it.

Not true.

> What they
> have done is point out (many times) where you might find some
> information that might make you think twice about wearing it. Instead of
> saying "OK, thanks for the info, I'll take a look" or even
> "OK, thanks for the info, I don't have time even to look at the
> summaries right now", you have persisted in posting straw men,
> insults, irrelevancies, and "justifications" of your position.

Also not true.