Giro helmets - huge appreciation

[Angelfishsolo]

i havnt used a stat to attempt to prove my own beliefs, those who are doing are being selective, then get frustrated when their 'evidence' isnt accepted without being challenged, pot and kettle spring to mind

This is like arguing which football team is best. It will all end in tears.

 

[Red Light]

It's rather like the argument that the elderly are better drivers according to insurance companies. They base this on the fact the elderly make fewer accident claims. There is a large piece of the puzzle missing however and that is the elderly are far more likely to settle without going through their insurance company. Thus the insurance data is skewed.

Not at all like that for one simple reason. The elderly make fewer claims in your example. There is no evidence helmet wearers have fewer head injuries.

 

[david k]

Not at all like that for one simple reason. The elderly make fewer claims in your example. There is no evidence helmet wearers have fewer head injuries.

so we agree there is no evidence supporting whether it leads to less injuries or not?

and Everton to answer the other question

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Not at all like that for one simple reason. The elderly make fewer claims in your example. There is no evidence helmet wearers have fewer head injuries.

All of the data collected is based on reported injuries correct? I have never reported the times I have come of my bike and hit my head as there was no need to. I am not alone in this. That skews the data surely?

 

[Red Light]

i havnt used a stat to attempt to prove my own beliefs, those who are doing are being selective, then get frustrated when their 'evidence' isnt accepted without being challenged, pot and kettle spring to mind

I've yet to see a credible challenge. A credible challenge would be counter-evidence but you don't do evidence. You seem to think your evidence free assertions are a credible challenge but they're not.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

so we agree there is no evidence supporting whether it leads to less injuries or not?

and Everton to answer the other question

I am football neutral so it could be Acrington Stanley for all I care

 

[david k]

I am football neutral so it could be Acrington Stanley for all I care

so you choose to ignore the irrefutable evidence that everton are better than stanley?

care to back up your claims with hard evidence?

 

[david k]

I've yet to see a credible challenge. A credible challenge would be counter-evidence but you don't do evidence. Dont take hump bridge because i have countered your 'evidence' if you wish to submit evidence you should be able to accept people will challenge it You seem to think your evidence free assertions are a credible challenge but they're not. ignore what you cannot explain

 

[Angelfishsolo]

so you choose to ignore the irrefutable evidence that everton are better than stanley?

care to back up your claims with hard evidence?

I made no such assertion. Read the Jabberwickly / kinserton report 1997 and see for yourself.

 

[Dan B]

It's rather like the argument that the elderly are better drivers according to insurance companies. They base this on the fact the elderly make fewer accident claims. There is a large piece of the puzzle missing however and that is the elderly are far more likely to settle without going through their insurance company. Thus the insurance data is skewed.

If you're an insurance company you really don't care that much whether the elderly are better drivers or not: what you know, and what you want to know, is whether they cost you more or less to settle their claims. The insurance data may be skewed for the purpose of deducing whether the elderly are actually safer, but it's perfectly fine for the purpose of setting premiums.

Same deal with the "red cars" argument you used before. Whether they make more claims because red is an intrinsically more dangerous colour or because people who like the colour red also like to drive dangerously - it doesn't matter. The point you care about is that they do it, not why they do it.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

If you're an insurance company you really don't care that much whether the elderly are better drivers or not: what you know, and what you want to know, is whether they cost you more or less to settle their claims. The insurance data may be skewed for the purpose of deducing whether the elderly are actually safer, but it's perfectly fine for the purpose of setting premiums.

Same deal with the "red cars" argument you used before. Whether they make more claims because red is an intrinsically more dangerous colour or because people who like the colour red also like to drive dangerously - it doesn't matter. The point you care about is that they do it, not why they do it.

You are missing the point. According to statistic data gathered by the insurance companies "old people are safer drivers".

 

[david k]

I made no such assertion. Read the Jabberwickly / kinserton report 1997 and see for yourself.

lol,

the Jabberwickly / kinserton report 1997 does not take into account form, away grounds, injuries and therefore has gaping holes in it. There was a study into everton/accrington completed in USA circa 1980's that is world renownded, it conduced everton were better

also check out 'soccer punter' another renowned survey and statistical data
http://www.soccerpunter.com/soccer-...ad_statistics/home/Accrington_Stanley/Everton

 

[Angelfishsolo]

lol,

the Jabberwickly / kinserton report 1997 does not take into account form, away grounds, injuries and therefore has gaping holes in it. There was a study into everton/accrington completed in USA circa 1980's that is world renownded, it conduced everton were better

also check out 'soccer punter' another renowned survey and statistical data
http://www.soccerpun...Stanley/Everton

I'm sorry that was discredited by The Sun last week.

 

[david k]

If you're an insurance company you really don't care that much whether the elderly are better drivers or not: what you know, and what you want to know, is whether they cost you more or less to settle their claims. The insurance data may be skewed for the purpose of deducing whether the elderly are actually safer, but it's perfectly fine for the purpose of setting premiums.

Same deal with the "red cars" argument you used before. Whether they make more claims because red is an intrinsically more dangerous colour or because people who like the colour red also like to drive dangerously - it doesn't matter. The point you care about is that they do it, not why they do it.

similar to the pedestrian argument, just because more pedestrians have more head injuries does not mean being a pedestrian is more dangerous

 

[david k]

I'm sorry that was discredited by The Sun last week.

on page 3?