Nuxx:A30d61f8-8468-415b-8993-e6f5a6edbd97@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: TOM CRISPIN Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 11:23:16 -0700 (PDT) References:    <4a2b7a09$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com> <47eb4596-3432-4f75-9b33-70948d185c5f@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>  <67ce705f-d895-4d91-b885-35f22ab4f913@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <791ogrF1nho59U1@mid.individual.net>   <038e8f25-6d5d-4ce3-a49a-6727c436db4f@d31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 40 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1244398996 319 127.0.0.1 (7 Jun 2009 18:23:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 18:23:16 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.27; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3926 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:708247

On Jun 7, 3:34=A0pm, JNugent  wrote: > spindrift wrote: > > JNugent  wrote: > >> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > >>> Matt B  wrote: > >>>>> Yep, the latest research shows using a mobile is MORE DANGEROUS tha= n > >>>>> drink-driving: > >>>> None of that research seems to take account of risk compensation. > >>> Because it's not relevant in context. =A0It directly compares driving > >>> performance on the same routes when using versus not using a phone, > >>> and it demonstrates a clear reduction in driver performance which is > >>> entirely consistent with that observed in the parallel case of alcoho= l > >>> impairment (as measured by the same methods). > >> But what about the observed phenomenon of drivers slowing down whilst = using a > >> hand-held mobile (or, for that matter, a hands-free phone)? > >> That is =A0form of risk compensation. Why do you choose to ignore it? > >> Is it simply because it suits you to do so, even though you (or others= ) > >> emphasise the same concept in the context of cycle helmets? > > Previous studies cited by the UK's Independent newspaper have shown > > that drivers using mobile phones have four times the risk of an > > accident. If Risk Compensation exists, it makes very little difference > > since mobile phone-using drivers are demonstrably more dangerous. > > You don't know that. You can't know that. The risk-compensation might hav= e a > greater effect than the alleged risk. You have no way of knowing. You're = just > saying that which you wish to believe.

believe that cameras work because he's anti-motorist? Surely you're not saying that he wishes to believe that helmets *don't* work because he's decided that rules should never apply to cyclists? That would mean that he was putting a desire to force people to stop using cars and start cycling *before* the desire to save people's lives! That would make him a right callous b**tard. And a liar. And all the rest.
 * Gasp* Surely you and Matt B aren't saying that Chapman wishes to