Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The first school camp I've ever been on where we actually camped. Shakespear Park. On left of shot, beyond the pavilion, is where the Burma Trail was laid out, going up the hill into the bushes. I thought I'd do a pre-inspection, since my boy is disabled and could not manage the previous year's one. I gave it the all clear, and then felt a bit responsible for the fact that one child broke his ankle and another was apparently concussed (but subsequently turned out just to be dehydrated and exhausted from lack of sleep). I had not factored in just how much gusto the other parents would have in the whole hiding in the bushes and scaring the shit out of the kids, nor just how hard it is to get excited children to follow instructions like "No, don't go that way, there's a big hole....", or "drink from your waterbottles whenever you feel thirsty".
-
Two shots of the kids for the price of one. Captain Budgie Smuggler in the background gives front and rear. Takapuna Beach.
ETA: Not sure why these are showing rotated in the previews. When I open them it seems to come right.
-
Rakino: Hole in the rock, seen from kayak.
-
Rakino: Main Rd, lunch rush. From the ridge - Waiheke to left (between trees), Motutapu and Rangitoto to right. Overlooking Woody Bay. Hard to convey in pics just how hilly this island is.
-
Hard News: Fear of Cycling, in reply to Bart Janssen,
the authors discuss and account for substitution of exercise
They do, and it's a very cunning accounting indeed. The substitution can be accounted for by varying v, the health benefit of every kilometer of accident free cycling. I was interested in how they attained a reasonable figure for it, but the answer is that if you look at equations (3) and (4) they eliminate v completely from the equation for phi, which is value they are interested in calculating, the (net health impact of helmet law)/(Helmet preventable health cost).
So they don't have to estimate it at all. It occurs as a part of a number of variables that they can estimate from actuarial data, and in the manipulation cancels itself out. You probably could also work out v, but they were not interested in it, and it does not need to be estimated for phi to be estimated.
Wouldn’t it fail a First Year stats assignment? Where’s the evidence that a shortfall in cycling wasn’t taken up by more walking, more swimming, more gym, more whatever?
No. This is well beyond first year statistics (I'm 4th year myself right now so I can say this with confidence). It's a detailed and statistically sophisticated study undertaken by a very competent actuary with the express purpose of informing public policy, giving the entire detail of the formula and estimation values. In some cases the phi values come out positive, with some choices of parameters. It looks like Italy is that dangerous to cyclists that the helmet laws probably are a good idea, if your belief about the parameter beta (the benefit-cost ratio of unhelmeted cycling) is especially low.
-
I am still not sure how you prove
Proving causation is seldom trivial. But the correlation is pretty well known, and the mechanism is at least believable - that when a society is at pains to make laws to make cycling harder and less appealing then probably social attitudes to cyclists are not as good. Whether the social attitudes cause the laws or vice versa is not really that important. We need to change both of them.
TBH, if helmet wearing were not compulsory, I think I wouldn't. Yes, if I crash a helmet would probably reduce the chances of serious damage. But I frankly don't really care. The chances of the crash are small and the discomfort of a helmet will literally be thousands of hours worth. I find that wanting.
Is there any evidence that car drivers, who can typically negotiate traffic without hitting other vehicles, are more likely to actually hit a cyclist who is wearing a helmet (vs drive closer to them) ?
It seems pretty likely to me that any group who is having cars driving significantly closer to them is going to have a higher rate of collisions, and other accidents (like the cyclist hitting the kerb to avoid the car). There are so many random events in traffic that cause vehicles to move from side to side that narrowing the margin of error is bound to lead to more accidents. The bike rider is may keep a beautifully straight line in the tiny space allotted, but they can't control gusts of wind, stones/glass on the road, pedestrians, driver distraction, animals, minor mechanical upsets like a poor gear transition. Also the more geared up rider is typically going faster, which carries more risk with it automatically.
But you asked for data, and I got none. Maybe it all balances out and the perceptions of drivers that it's safer to drive closer to cyclists who are more well-geared is correct. I just doubt it. I don't think human instinct has actuary powers to judge this stuff, especially when it's not their own life at stake. They probably don't really get the numbers right, that the chances of reduced injury from wearing a helmet are actually outweighed by the increased chances of the accident in the first place.
-
Hard News: What the wastewater tells us…, in reply to Russell Brown,
It really doesn’t make sense.
Sure doesn't. Meanwhile lots of people die from alcohol, and many lives, careers, and families (not to mention brain cells) are destroyed by alcohol every year, and you can still freely buy from the corner dairy tobacco that basically ruins the health of and then kills a very large proportion of users, and is an endless monkey on their backs, typically for their whole lives. And because of that 600g of P, there's basically no effective relief from the symptoms of colds and flus for the entire population, causing millions of hours of needless suffering and lost productivity. Cancer sufferers have to deal with criminals to get pain relief, and resources are diverted from much more serious lawbreaking.
But we digress.
-
Hard News: Fear of Cycling, in reply to sandra,
Sheesh, how many cyclists have a bell to give a little ping?
Dunno, but it's such a basic safety device I was prepared to pay the tiny sum to get one. Very seldom used, but it's bloody handy when needed. When approaching pedestrians from behind I ring it several times from quite a distance. It does take the average person several seconds to register what it is. I pretty much ring it until they look up. If they don't look up, I don't stop ringing it. It is entirely possible that pedestrians are hard of hearing or even deaf.
I actually keep meaning to fit one of the two I have to my new bike. It solves the problem of what warning to shout when you’re approaching someone looking the other way.
When I had to use a bike without a bell for a while I hit upon the best alternative. Just start whistling loudly. Not a wolf-whistle, which is a bit aggressive, and anyway I don't know how...just whistle a tune. Pop-goes-the-weasel seems to bring a smile to faces. Can be difficult when you're puffing hard, though. But you e-bikers shouldn't be doing that, right?
-
Pretty amazing idea. Hard to see how a steady flow of this kind of information could be anything but a boon for informing public policy on a whole range of issues.
Outright incredible that the byproducts of 600g of any substance is detectable in the hundreds of millions of liters of wastewater produced in Auckland daily. Also incredible to think that the entire daily consumption of P in Auckland could fit in an old pint-sized milk bottle. No wonder it's so compelling to deal in the stuff.
-
Hard News: Superannuation: Back to the Future, in reply to Rob Stowell,
Or even both
