URCM Rejection

DavidR wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
DavidR wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
Clive George wrote:

Evidence of the form I mentioned in the bit you snipped?
Diagrams, photographs, sound meter readings, being shown yourself?
Where are they?

Who did the study?

What - precisely - where their conclusions? What hypothesis/es were they
testing? What is their academic standing? Where are they in the social
and
economic research pecking-order? How were they supervised and how were
the
results moderated and verified?

There may well be more questions.
Geometry was devised by the Greeks over 2000 years ago. It is adequate
proof that a cyclist can see more from their positioning.

You may as well ask for academic proof that the
sun rises in the east every morning.
Astronomy and astro-physics have the answer to that one. Asking it would
not be as futile as asking for evidence of cyclists' alleged better
perception of the world around them.

Perception is a word you intoduced. How people process the information
reaching them certainly does seem to vary between person to person.

You are completely ducking out of the fact that a person on a bike has more
information available than a person in a car. If you want to argue with that
then you have to argue with the laws that guide astronomers.

Ah... you will no doubt be wanting to assist Clive with his "research".

Don't let me stop you.

On 08/04/2010 01:11, JNugent wrote:

Did you follow Rogers advice? When doing science, a thought experiment
means you can skip the really obvious stuff and get onto the
interesting bits.

Well... not really.

I'm aware of the "phenomenology" argument - I was acquainted with it
when I was an undergrad, thirty+ years ago. I was no more impressed by
it then than I am now.

It's not "phenomenology", it's perfectly normal scientific method. When
attempting to discover something new, you don't waste your time going
over all the old stuff again.

Neither of us know what the results would be.

Hmm. I'd be willing to stake a very large sum of money on what the
results of my experiments would be, and I don't think anybody would
take that bet, not even you.

Well, why don't you do the experiment? If you're as confident as you
suggest, it could be the (financial) making of you.

No it couldn't, because nobody would take that bet - or are you saying
you will?

On 7 Apr, 12:21, JNugent wrote:
wrote:
On 7 Apr, 10:39, JNugent wrote:
DavidR wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
Clive George wrote:
Evidence of the form I mentioned in the bit you snipped?
Diagrams, photographs, sound meter readings, being shown yourself?
Where are they?
Who did the study?
What - precisely - where their conclusions? What hypothesis/es were they
testing? What is their academic standing? Where are they in the social and
economic research pecking-order? How were they supervised and how were the
results moderated and verified?
There may well be more questions.
Geometry was devised by the Greeks over 2000 years ago. It is adequate
proof that a cyclist can see more from their positioning.
You may as well ask for academic proof *that the
sun rises in the east every morning.
Astronomy and astro-physics have the answer to that one. Asking it would not
be as futile as asking for evidence of cyclists' alleged better perception of
the world around them.
- *Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

???

"Better perception" is a phrase you have erroneously introduced
yourself,

I have not erroneously introduced it. I meant what I wrote. I usually choose
my words carefully and this was no exception.

You choosing your words carefully has no relationship to whether the
phrase is erroneous or not. Clive never mentioned perception - you
introduced it to attack that rather than Clive's claims. Call it
"straw man", "erroneous", "misleading", whatever (semantic
choreography apparently being your forte at the moment), it is still
not addressing Clive's claims.

[snip: more unsupported assertion from PP]- Hide quoted text -


What was unsupported assertion in what I wrote? Are you going to
claim that you can see through a car pillar?

Colin

"JNugent" wrote
DavidR wrote:

Perception is a word you intoduced. How people process the information
reaching them certainly does seem to vary between person to person.

You are completely ducking out of the fact that a person on a bike has
more information available than a person in a car. If you want to
argue with that then you have to argue with the laws that guide
astronomers.

Ah... you will no doubt be wanting to assist Clive with his "research".

I think the ball is in your court to demonstrate that there are flaws in
some basic 2000 year old mathematics..

JNugent wrote:
wrote:
On 7 Apr, 10:45, JNugent wrote:
JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

Incidentally, are you under the mistaken impression that either a
cyclist or a driver is allowed to cycle or drive if they have normal
hearing?
There is a letter "n" missing there... :-(

Incidentally, are you under the mistaken impression that neither a
cyclist or
a driver is allowed to cycle or drive if they have normal hearing?

No. Are you under the mistaken impression that hearing makes no
difference?

Is it required?

Do you think that anything above the "minimum requirement" can never be
of benefit?

Colin

--
Murphy's Law – If anything can go wrong, it will.
Parkinson's Law – Work expands so as to fill the time available for its
completion
Cole's Law – Thinly sliced cabbage.

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:41:10 +0200, Clive George
wrote:

On 08/04/2010 13:28, JNugent wrote:
Clive George wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Clive George wrote:
On 08/04/2010 01:11, JNugent wrote:

Did you ....

With this many levels of too and fro, it would seem pointless continuing.
get in the bozo bin!

--
Nuns! Nuns! Reverse

Colin Reed wrote:

JNugent wrote:
wrote:
JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

Incidentally, are you under the mistaken impression that neither a
cyclist or
a driver is allowed to cycle or drive if they have normal hearing?

No. Are you under the mistaken impression that hearing makes no
difference?

Is it required?

Do you think that anything above the "minimum requirement" can never be
of benefit?

Asking a wide-open question like that is a fair distance away from a PP's
assertion that:

(e) he thinks he can do something (that isn't even required by law) better
than certain other people (or certain other people in certain circumstances), and

(b) that because of this belief, he should be allowed to ignore his lack of
priority, and the actual priority of others, at a red traffic light.

On 13 Apr, 03:25, JNugent wrote:
Colin Reed wrote:
JNugent wrote:
wrote:
JNugent wrote:
[ ... ]
Incidentally, are you under the mistaken impression that neither a
cyclist or
a driver is allowed to cycle or drive if they have normal hearing?
No. *Are you under the mistaken impression that hearing makes no
difference?
Is it required?
Do you think that anything above the "minimum requirement" can never be
of benefit?

Asking a wide-open question like that is a fair distance away from a PP's
assertion that:

(e) he thinks he can do something (that isn't even required by law) better
than certain other people (or certain other people in certain circumstances), and

(b) that because of this belief, he should be allowed to ignore his lack of
priority, and the actual priority of others, at a red traffic light.

AFAICR the original question was does a cyclists extra perception,
vision and hearing make it safe to break the law and to jump red
traffic lights? A bit like saying burglary is OK if you are very good
and can get away with it!

I will put a question. Would a slightly short sighted and slightly
deaf cyclist listening to loud music on headphones be able to see and
hear a small electric or hybrid car approaching a junction? No!
Thought not!

Please note that because cyclists have no licences, there is no
requirement for even a basic eyesight and hearing test.

Derek C

Clive George wrote:
On 07/04/2010 20:41, JNugent wrote:
Clive George wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Clive George wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Clive George wrote:
JNugent wrote:

Not really, no. I'm asserting that you can hear more and see
more when you're on a bike - this isn't exactly news.

I can easily prove it, but you keep ignoring the ways it can be
done.
Sound meter, photographs, diagrams. What's wrong with those?

*If* there's nothing wrong with them, go ahead and try to do it.
It's a free country.

So, one at a time. Let's start with sound.

If I were to set up a sound generator - loudspeaker generating a
continuous tone, then measure the amplitude of that sound from a
distance of 5 metres, first in free air, then enclosed inside a car,
what would you expect the results of that experiment to be?
Would you expect similar amplitudes, or greater in the first case?
Do you need the experiment carrying out, or do you think the results
will be obvious?
Next, perception of sound. Similar setup, except this time we have
random people as the sound meters. The loudspeaker plays sounds with
increasing amplitude, and they record when they first hear the
sound.
What results would you expect there?

Have you decided on the relevance of your proposed experiments yet?

To my assertion that when you're on a bike you can hear more of the
world around you than when you're in a car? I think it's directly
relevant to that. Why would it be otherwise?

Who knows?

You should, since you're the one who apparently doesn't believe my
assertion. If you're doing anything other than pathetic bluster, you
would have a reason.

Don't talk rubbish. I haven't carried out your proposed experiments or
research any more than you have (or ever will).

That'll be pathetic bluster then.

Hardly.

You made an unsupported assertion and made wild claims on the basis of it. I
asked you whether there is anmy established and respectable support for your
position. There isn't, but you and another made up some stuff about "thought
experiments".

Laughable, really.

Did you follow Rogers advice? When doing science, a thought experiment
means you can skip the really obvious stuff and get onto the interesting
bits.

That's the bit!

Neither of us know what the results would be.

Hmm. I'd be willing to stake a very large sum of money on what the
results of my experiments would be, and I don't think anybody would take
that bet, not even you.

Certainly not you, since you can point to the results of no such
experiments - or to any valid studies of the relevance of any of your
suppositions to traffic.

You're jumping ahead of things here. Right now we're addressing simple
physical things - their application to traffic comes later.

Only if they are relevant, but OK, I can see why you'd want to start
with what you see as the easy bits.

Well, you seemed to have trouble with the harder bits so I thought I'd
work up to it. You then demonstrated you have trouble believing even
most simple of my assertions.

If you have (yes, alright, we know you haven't), what criteria did
you set?

To support my assertion, the experiments would need to show that the
amplitude measured in free space was greater than that measured within
a car, and that the sounds were heard at a lower amplitude in the
second experiment.

Please... go and do the experiments and let us know the results.

Please tell me if you'd expect different results to what I expect. If
not, then there's no point in carrying them out. If you do, please
tell me why you do.

I'm flattered that you value my views so highly, but please... don't
let
*me* stop you!

But you're the only person who doesn't agree with my assertion - I
don't need to persuade anybody else.

You don't *need* to persuade anybody, not even me.

Whence comes this need?

Can you not bear to be doubted - or rather, can you not bear to have
your conclusions - drawn of the basis of experiments you will never
conduct - doubted?

I'm feeling all Reithian at the moment. Educating people is good.

Helpful hint: Start with a spot of auto-didactics.

Carry on, dear chap, carry on. Do your experiments.

You can't do experiments by philosophy.

A great mathematician and scientist once said he got where he was by
standing on the shoulders of giants. You're not even taking advantage
of their footprints.

You're a giant, are you?

Like Mr Newton, I merely stand on their shoulders.

Whose shoulders?
Which eminent scientist has conducted the research you propose to carry
out (if you ever do it, that is)?

You still appear to fundamentally misunderstand how science works.

It doesn't work on the basis of unsupported assertions such as yours. Of
that, I assure you.

You're actually managing to appear sufficiently dumb that you cannot be
helped. This isn't an insult, it's just a fact : the mistakes you're
making are that significant.

You claim that law should be changed (or at the very least, not enforced) on
the basis of the outcome of imaginary experiments.

That says it all.

The arguments you're making could be applied when the subjects under
discussion are complex. But right now we're talking about simple,
readily measurable physical things.

So get on with it?

On 13 Apr, 07:59, Derek C wrote:
On 13 Apr, 03:25, JNugent wrote:





Colin Reedbegin_of_the_skype_highlighting*****end_of_the _skype_highlightingwrote:
JNugent wrote:
wrote:
JNugent wrote:
[ ... ]
Incidentally, are you under the mistaken impression that neither a
cyclist or
a driver is allowed to cycle or drive if they have normal hearing?
No. *Are you under the mistaken impression that hearing makes no
difference?
Is it required?
Do you think that anything above the "minimum requirement" can never be
of benefit?

Asking a wide-open question like that is a fair distance away from a PP's
assertion that:

(e) he thinks he can do something (that isn't even required by law) better
than certain other people (or certain other people in certain circumstances), and

(b) that because of this belief, he should be allowed to ignore his lack of
priority, and the actual priority of others, at a red traffic light.

AFAICR the original question was does a cyclists extra perception,
vision and hearing make it safe to break the law and to jump red
traffic lights? A bit like saying burglary is OK if you are very good
and can get away with it!

I will put a question. *Would a slightly short sighted and slightly
deaf cyclist listening to loud music on headphones be able to see and
hear a small electric or hybrid car approaching a junction? *No!
Thought not!


I regularly see a man who lives near me walking his dog - his dog only
has three legs. Generally speaking it wouldn't be seen as an
unsupported assertion to say that dogs usually have four legs.

Colin