Posts by David Haywood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I'm just working on a longer reply, but in the meantime a question for Megan Wegan RE:
I just completely outed myself of being of the upturned collar persuasion...
Can you comment on the wider history of this phenomenon? When I first moved to Christchurch (in 1995), I remember seeing a woman in Merrivale and thinking: "Oh, she's forgotten to put her collar down. How embarrassing for her -- should I say something?" And then the next woman walking down the street was the same, and then the next, until I realized that it must be the fashion.
But I never remember seeing this in Auckland or Wellington. Was it purely a local Canterbury fashion? Or would I have seen it in the rural(ish) parts of the home counties -- along with green wellingtons and range rovers.
-
Very quick update on the posts I missed while typing the above...
Danielle wrote (and Emma also noticed):
That gas cooker line caused An Actual Guffaw.
I can't tell you how pleased I am that someone got that!
And, as always, thank you Jackie Clark!
P.S. Have lots underway at the moment, but am very aware that I still owe replies on the previous Southerly thread. Expect something ASAP.
-
Hi all, just a quick reply while I occupy Bob with 'OK Go' music videos (proving what a bad parent I am).
Many thanks for all the comments; several of which are wittier than the story itself. I find it very stressful to make this sort of thing public, so your kindness is greatly appreciated!
Now who were the people in real life on which this story was based?
Defiantly saw all the major players of fine tale yesterday as I lurched through Ballantynes, attempting to get that 'first hour free' parking
But, but, I thought this was going to be fiction?
It's more like a cover article from AvenuesNo need for a disclaimer along the lines of "No elements in this story can be regarded as autobiographical'?
It's more like an exposé.
Ah, so you noticed! Yes, certain aspects of this piece we're, er, inspired by real people. In fact, I can reveal that there is a real Nigel and Jacqueline (very nice people; not at all like the characters in this story). Although it should be noted that all resemblance to the diaries of Megan Wegan is completely co-incidental.
Ian Dalziel wrote:
Love in the Time of Collars up...
Uncannily perceptive, as always, Ian. Yes, an earlier draft did explain that Marjorie wore her collar like that -- but I thought no-one would get it. Should've known.
andin wrote:
Is this a common mode of thought in Chch?
I feel dirty now, mannered lives do that to me.I'm afraid this passage is a direct quote from real life (from a real-life CHCH millionaire). Sad isn't it?
BenWilson wrote:
Where do I send the cheque?
Public Address prefers unmarked $20 bills in used non-sequential notes...
-
JLM wrote:
I would be in favour of compulsory helmets for kids
So would I -- for the reasons you give (and also because kids can't get drivers' licences!). One of Scufham's papers has some data that may support this on a cost-benefit basis (although the paper is rather simplistic in its analysis).
But the problem with repealing the current law, is that -- as when we made helmets compulsory -- we're in the position of not having data from another country. In other words, no other country has had such a law (with all its demonstrably negative consequences) and then repealed it. Although, as I said up-thread, Israel may be about to do so.
Or, to put it another way, just because we repeal the law doesn't mean that we'll go back to the same cycling rate as we had before. The damage has already been done. There's a lot of research that says its very easy to get people off bikes, but terribly hard to get them back on.
So it's complicated. If you were to repeal the law you might also have to introduce a bunch of other incentives to get people back on bikes (although, it has to be said, there would probably still be a cost-benefit advantage in simply repealing the law without any of that).
Grace Dalley wrote:
Please don't quit. Otherwise we'll have to argue about politics, or, heaven forbid, sport.
Crikey, I was only kidding -- I need the money! Don't let Bob starve, Kathryn!
-
It's still not the helmet's fault!
But I NEVER EVER said it was the helmet's fault. I said the studies showed that it was the effect of the compulsory cycle helmet law!
Yes, it may be possible to introduce a raft of legislation to force people onto bicycles (although good luck staying in power if you try). You'll note that I haven't suggested a solution to this problem -- I've only reported what the studies seem to say.
But ask yourself this question: why don't they have compulsory cycle helmet laws in Holland? Why don't they have them in Denmark? Why don't they have them in Germany?
And why have other countries used NZ and Australia's experiences with cycle helmet laws as a reason not to enact similar laws in their jurisdiction? And why is Israel in the process of repealing their version of NZ's law (although this has yet to pass its final reading)?
And yes, of course, the clever statisticians who work on this stuff have various methods for testing the significance of different factors. That's what being a clever statistician is all about!
Anyway, I'm working in the four hours per week that I've set aside not to work in -- so I'm off to watch a DVD.
P.S. Apologies if this reply sounds shouty -- I certainly don't mean it that way. Perhaps this debate all boils down to the difference between the reality-based pragmatism of the engineer, as opposed to the healthy idealism of the uncynical non-engineer. It's probably much better to be idealistic, I dare say.
P.P.S. And, of course, I still love you, Giovanni!
-
Jolisa wrote:
I completely buy your science, David. I just don't fancy testing it on New Haven roads, or letting my kids test it...
Oh, but this comment suggests that I'm still not managing to explain myself properly!
The studies I've been talking about say nothing about helmet safety -- they're about the effect of the compulsory helmet law.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU ARE TESTING THE SCIENCE EVERY TIME YOU CYCLE ON NEW HAVEN ROADS UNDER YOUR NON-COMPULSORY HELMET REGIME.
According to the science, the fact that you don't have compulsory cycle helmets in New Haven means that every time you cycle, you and your kids are less likely to suffer an accident (than if you were cycling under a compulsory helmet regime).
Similarly, according to the science, you and your kids will be enjoying some (probably very slight) economic benefit from the fact that the New Haven economy doesn't have to pay for the additional negative health consequences (heart disease, diabetes, etc) that would have occurred under a compulsory helmet regime.
In fact, you and the kids have the best of both worlds -- you have all the health and safety benefits of non-compulsory cycle helmet laws, and you wear helmets anyway (yes, George, I know that the efficacy of helmets is uncertain). I wish that I cycled in your world.
I now officially admit that I obviously can't explain science for shit and shall give up trying. If you're reading this post, Kathryn Ryan, then please consider it to be my formal resignation.
-
giovanni tiso wrote:
I was just making the point that if you accept that so long as you cycle, it's safer to do it with an helmet, the law itself doesn't seem misguided to me.
But now you've forgotten the other part of the studies that I talked about, dude -- the fact that because there are fewer cyclists on the road means that it's more dangerous for the remaining cyclists.
This is known in the business as Smeed's law. Here's a review paper that talks about Smeed's law w.r.t to cyclists.
Dr Dorothy Robinson (an Australian statistician) has argued that in Australia -- under a compulsory helmet regime -- the greater likelihood of an accident for cyclists outweighs the benefits of wearing a helmet.
If this is also true for NZ (I can't find any research about this here) then your point is only half the story, i.e. it's not really much help if the same laws that make you wear a (protective) helmet also make it far likelier for you to have an accident.
-
giovanni tiso wrote:
I thought you said you accepted that they did in fact protect the cyclist. If you don't, why do you wear one?
We must be talking at cross-purposes here!
What I said (or certainly meant to say) is that the studies indicate that the negative health consequences of stopping cycling (i.e. coronary disease, diabetes, etc) are much greater than the negative health consequences of continuing to cycle without a helmet (i.e. slight chance of an accident).
To quote again from the author of what seems to me to be the most comprehensive and authoritative paper on this subject (de Jong, 2009):
... only under extreme, theoretical circumstances do mandatory helmet laws not end up costing the healthcare system. Head injuries must be a substantial proportion of bicycling injuries, few riders must abandon their bikes due to helmet laws, and the health benefits of cycling need to be low
You can read an article about this paper at New Scientist.
It might turn people off cars, so think of the health benefits!
We could argue about why it is that people would rather stop cycling than wear a helmet until we both die of old age -- but the fact is that they do. Yes, I think it's stupid to care that much about your hair (to give one example), but the fact is that people seem to (not me, obviously).
-
George Darroch wrote:
I think that comment here has missed a lot of the most important parts of the debate (or rather non-debate, as most issues aren't discussed in any form). Apologies to David if any of these issues were covered in detail, I couldn't get the file to open.
I didn't want to touch the whole 'do helmets actually work' question, because it's just too murky and contradictory for me (although I think that your decision not to wear a helmet is fair enough -- despite the fact that I've made the opposite decision).
But I discussed all the other points that you've raised RE: the compulsory cycle helmet law.
If only it were so simple.
Quite. It rather reminds me of the prohibition law in the USA. A well-intentioned law designed to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour associated with drunkenness, that actually had exactly the opposite effect. Very anti-intuitive but very real in its outcomes.
And though I don't want to get into the whole 'do helmets actually work' question, it does seem utterly astonishing that (as far as I can see) no-one has properly tested bicycle helmets, i.e. put lots of accelerometers and micro-load-cells on the head of a crash-test dummy (or a cadaver, if you prefer) and put it through a bunch of 'real' bicycle accident scenarios. As an engineer, this is the first thing that I would have done.
-
giovanni tiso wrote:
Yes, it seems that cycling without a helmet increases your chances of becoming a very healthy corpse.
No, that's not what I was saying at all -- quite the opposite. I assume that you're just messing with my brain now?
Somebody told me recently about a surgeon who tastefully referred to cyclists as "donors"
But cycling (with or without helmet) just isn't that dangerous. The UK figures (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys) rate tennis as four times more dangerous than cycling, horse-riding as 29 times more dangerous, and fishing as 41 times more dangerous (per capita per hour). I can't find such figures for NZ, alas.
Seeing as you're circulating on the road, it's not just your business. If I'm driving (which I don't) and you split your skull on my windscreen, that's not going to improve my life either.
Apart from the fact that -- as I said upthread-- cycle helmets aren't designed to protect you from accidents with motor vehicles, you're now getting into some quite complicated philosophy.
So if a car runs into you, and the passengers suffer head injuries, and they weren't wearing crash helmets (and, by the way, the evidence that crash helmets reduce injuries in motor accidents is overwhelming -- that's why racing-drivers wear them), would you feel the same way? That the irresponsibility of the passengers in not wearing helmets has done you harm?
And yes, I do know of a physicist who wears a helmet in his car for safety reasons during everyday driving. And yes, he thinks everyone should.