Deaths when not using helmet

[Angelfishsolo]

Unless you fiddle the results!

Side impacts in cars are a prime example.

When cars are tested the side impact is at a set height to reflect a collision by passenger car. It has been the same height for many years.

Vehicle manafacturers than use these to advertise how safe the vehicles are.


There are however two problems.

1. The test is no longer representative as every 4x4, SUV and many "utility" vehicles now have a subframe and bumper above this height and simply bypass the vaunted side protection bars.

2. Th test only refers to an adult male dummy, there is no data for smaller drivers, females or children form side impact testing.

In the US work done by the regulatory bodies ( National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ) shows that the chance of a fatal injury is doubled if the other vehicle is an SUV as opposed to a normal passenger car for exactly this reason. Increased femoral, and abdomial injuries are also showing through

They are now coining the wonderful phrase of "Aggressivity" when looking at vehicle.

Once again I agree. The same can be said of statistics. They can be made to show pretty much whateyer you want them to show. The Ncap tests are better than the previous test and certainly better than nothing. If the tests are flawed then they need to be improved. Either that or we look at the data another way and conclude we should all drive SUV's.
My poimt is that a demonstrative test is (to me) more conclusive than raw data and easier to see flaws with. Eg the airbag helmet appears to only work when a rear shunt occures. Not the most realistic of tests.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Once again I will state that this is like a Science v Faith debate. The only people who can see both sides are those who hold no beliefs.

They call those people " Scientists"!

 

[Angelfishsolo]

They call those people " Scientists"!

Crap.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Crap.

And your evidence to prove this hypothesis is...?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

And your evidence to prove this hypothesis is...?

Fabrication of scientific data for one

 

[twobiker]

Watch out for those dangerous beds and mattresses

Total product-related injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms nationwide


Stairs, Ramps, Landings, Floors 2,324,938
Beds, Mattresses, Pillows 560,129
Bicycles & Accessories 515,871
Basketball 481,011
Chairs, Sofas, Sofa Beds 476,109
Football 455,193
Bathroom Structures & Fixtures 330,102
Non-glass Doors, Panels 321,665
Tables, not elsewhere classified 309,252
ATV’s, Mopeds, Minibikes, etc. 278,671
Baseball, Softball 277,702
Exercise, Exercise Equipment 264,921
Desks, Cabinets, Shelves, Racks 262,171
Cans, Other Containers 248,126
Clothing 245,129
Ladders, Stools 227,769
All Toys 224,827
Playground Equipment 219,625
Soccer 198,679
Swimming, Pools, Equipment 155,322
Glass Doors, Windows, Panels 155,269
Skateboards 143,682
Workshop Manual Tools 131,396
Carpets, Rugs 128,361
Other Misc. Furniture & Accessories 122,662

I knew an Editor who dropped twelve stories into a waste paper basket.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Fabrication of scientific data for one

a) Any data that is fabriacted is not scientific.
b) Starting with an idea and then fabricating data is an partial indicator of faith.


So what you seem to be saying is that hypothesis that scientists are people who start without beliefs is "crap", is based up on the actions of those that have a belief and pretend to use science to defend it. In short you have provided your own argument against your orginal hypothesis.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I am saying that science can be a faith and like many people of other faiths the follower of said faith will twist facts to suit themselves.
Fabricated data may not be science but it is fabricated by scientists.

 

[Red Light]

I am saying that science can be a faith and like many people of other faiths the follower of said faith will twist facts to suit themselves.
Fabricated data may not be science but it is fabricated by scientists.

Ooohhhh....where do I start listing the logical fallacies in those statements?

 

[Mad at urage]

Ooohhhh....where do I start listing the logical fallacies in those statements?

Logical fallacies they may be, but often true none the less. People who's profession is 'scientific' are still people. Despite being termed 'Scientists' and their research being accepted as 'Science' they often get emotionally involved in what they are trying to prove (like the professor of microbiology I had who had "proved that it was not possible to cook a turkey properly if it was stuffed" because he'd measured the internal temperature of a bird his wife was cooking and it never got above (I think it was 90C)).

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Ooohhhh....where do I start listing the logical fallacies in those statements?

I am sure you will find a place.

 

[Dan B]

I am saying that science can be a faith and like many people of other faiths the follower of said faith will twist facts to suit themselves.
Fabricated data may not be science but it is fabricated by scientists.

In much the same way the Crusades were fought by self-professed Christians, but any dispassionate follower of that religion would surely acknowledge that there was very little "Christian" about them. This is not a fault of science but of (some of) the people who conduct it, and their failure to live up to its principles is indictment of the people not the principles.

 

[ufkacbln]

......... some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

[/color]

Bugger! You got to it before me!

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

I am saying that science can be a faith and like many people of other faiths the follower of said faith will twist facts to suit themselves.
Fabricated data may not be science but it is fabricated by scientists.

No, science can not be a faith. Faith requires belief to start. Science doesn't

Science requires proof, faith doesn't


Science accepts that it is not a perfect ultimate answer , it is only the best answer to date.

Faith proclaims that IT is THE answer.


As for "Fabricated data may not be science but it is fabricated by scientists."
Again you are using an oxymoron, this time as a "big lie"?

Scientists are people who use the scientific method , fabricated data is not a scientific method , therefore( Why is there not a key stroke for that symbol?) those who fabricate data cannot be scientists.