Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Podc wrote:
where the risk of injury and death is actually reduced by the risk reduction measures then it doesn’t really matter if people change their behaviour. When it does matter is when the actual risk isn’t reduced – just people’s perception – and then the risk increases.Not quite. What matters is whether the risk reduction from the measures is greater than any increased risk from changed behaviour, and then whether that net gain in safety is worth any loss of freedom from the imposition of the measures.
Arguably, it also matters who that risk is to. If an activity poses a danger to a third party, it’s more reasonable to impose measures on those taking part in that activity, before demanding that the third party protect themselves. Or if a measure increases overall safety, but does so by protecting those taking part at the expense of the safety of bystanders, then that’s morally questionable, since the former at least have a choice about whether to take part.
As far as this article goes, it seems to me that it’s guilty of precisely the inverse of what it’s arguing against. It criticises people for taking the risk compensation concept and applying it liberally as an objection to any proposed safety measure without evidence. But then it turns around and takes a handful of cases where it doesn’t appear to outweigh the benefits, and tries to use these to argue that we should basically ignore risk compensation altogether. But since every intervention is different, and will have a unique psychological impact, the more valid approach would be to try to model what role it might play on a case-by-case basis.
Having gone to the trouble to
Having gone to the trouble to put it all out for you, I’m pretty sure they’d be offended if you left any.
depends on your definition of advanced reallyFurther ahead in the queue.
I’ve been using the bike less for communing over the last couple of yearsIs that because of the lockdown ban on group rides?
Could be an odd way of saying
Could be an odd way of saying that instead of maintaining a steady speed behind them, they accelerated into the back of them. It sounds as though the investigators aren’t much clearer at this point either, though, given that it says they are ‘trying to piece together’ what happened.
They tried to, but their aim
They tried to, but their aim was poor and they ended up liking it 5 times instead.
I think we’re better off just ignoring them as they crave the attention.I think it’s clear that the squirrel in that image is craving attention the most.
Well fair play – balancing on its tail like that is impressive.
…Squirrel LegsWe are the road.cc Borg…
Thanks – never heard that one
Thanks – never heard that one before. I guess from the idea of ‘shoulder’ as boundary area (like a hard shoulder)?
Your reply reminded me to go look it up – unsuccessfully, but I now know that ‘shoulder dates’ are those where demand for a theatre show etc. starts to fall away and you can’t make a full house.
Every day’s a school day.
For a moment I was wondering
For a moment I was wondering what kind of weird-ass overkill rack setup you had there.
Then I realised it was a fence.
Where’s a headdesk smiley when you need one?
That particular stable door has been thoroughly nailed shut.I doubt that’ll be enough to stop someone driving a car through it, though.
Your comment obviously has a
Your comment obviously has a vital couple of watts saving over mine.
I’ll just return the slowest pair.Are you going to be testing them in the wind tunnel?
I’m trying to figure out what
I’m trying to figure out what autocorrect fail might produce ‘Autumn shoulder’ and coming up blank. Is it just an idiom I’m unfamiliar with?
I have a strange picture in my head of people trying to wear gloves on their shoulders.
Think I’ve fixed it.
Think I’ve fixed it.
