Jabiru7252 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 I remember when folks said they wouldn't wear seatbelts in case they ended up in a river and the belt got jammed. Think how utterly stupid that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbleboy Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 I remember when folks said they wouldn't wear seatbelts in case they ended up in a river and the belt got jammed. Think how utterly stupid that is. Yes stupid indeed but ironic I had a school mate drown by that very cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabiru7252 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 The chances of being caught under water with a jammed seat belt are about the same as having a shark attack in the Tod River. Your mate (with due respect) was a very, very unlucky man. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 I remember when folks said they wouldn't wear seatbelts in case they ended up in a river and the belt got jammed. Think how utterly stupid that is. It's quite sad that in China you get into someone else's car sometimes and put your belt on and they can actually be offended - obviously you don't trust their driving. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Going back to your original nonsense, allow me to offer you an example ...Lets say tomorrow Australia says no one has to wear seat belts any longer and 99% of the population say stuff it, I'm not wearing it but you choose to continue to wear yours. Now no other rule has changed and everyone continues to drive as they were. Now we will use the stick that says wearing seatbelts reduces fatalities by 50% (I think that's close to the truth anyway) so now your ... "Fatalities per 100,000 motor vehicles = Australia - 8" might read like; "Fatalities per 100,000 motor vehicles = Australia - 16" ... has the risk to you personally doubled? No it hasn't. In fact the risk to you hasn't increased at all, possibly even lowered your risk as more idiots remove themselves from the roads. In China 99% of drivers do not wear seatbelts, 50% of vehicles on the road are motorcycles or bicycles who don't wear helmets, many roads in China are dangerous mountain roads, and include millions travel by bus every year on those dangerous roads that fall over occasionally. Your niave statistical statements take none of this into account and I would doubt that the Australian equivalent road user in China is of any greater risk here and I would claim actually safer in suburban areas. Lies, damn lies and statistics. And properly analysis (and slicing and dicing), as you have done, shows that statistics is a most valuable tool. The difficulty with a lot of data, from which statistics are drawn, is less than full truth or breadth and depth. All drivers claim to be sober, wearing seatbelts, not texting, not speeding, that the cyclist in the breakdown lane were invisible and the pedestrian ran out onto the road while breaking an Olympic record. Some of the official records claim everyone was speeding and drunk. Statistics can't remove all furphies but go a great distance in determining causes of problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 ...so don't ride over 200kph, easy peasy... just ease off with the right wrist, thaaat's right... the SV650 doesn't have that pronlem, at least... Aaah, but the numbers change again, if you use a B double or road train as a comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Llewellyn Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Aaah, but the numbers change again, if you use a B double or road train as a comparison. Normal distribution - I would argue that (1) a Dunnydore is the median mass vehicle on the road - or near as - and (2) a single-occupant Dunnydore is a reasonable representative of an average commuting vehicle in Australia. It follows that 200km on a GPz-900R is equivalent safety, of benefit to society via reduced emissions, and has a smaller road footprint for half the amount of time! S**t, us motorcyclists ought to get medals! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffreywh Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 I got into a taxi in China and had to wait whilst the driver tossed a rope over the roof and thru' the window frames to keep the doors shut. .....Statistics can prove anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coljones Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Normal distribution - I would argue that (1) a Dunnydore is the median mass vehicle on the road - or near as - and (2) a single-occupant Dunnydore is a reasonable representative of an average commuting vehicle in Australia. It follows that 200km on a GPz-900R is equivalent safety, of benefit to society via reduced emissions, and has a smaller road footprint for half the amount of time! S**t, us motorcyclists ought to get medals! But only if you are pedalling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Llewellyn Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 But only if you are pedalling One dabs the rear brake ocassionally... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Statistics can't remove all furphies but go a great distance in determining causes of problems. Statistics without real world experience and facts as to why the numbers are what they are are completely useless. I got into a taxi in China and had to wait whilst the driver tossed a rope over the roof and thru' the window frames to keep the doors shut. .....Statistics can prove anything... ... and yet in 10 years here and having ridden in thousands of taxis nothing even remotely similar has ever occured to me but it's singular reports of extremely odd occurances such as this that often people identify an entire country with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 There is information in all statistics but it is the deliberately biased selection that makes the outcome suss. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Llewellyn Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 There is information in all statistics but it is the deliberately biased selection that makes the outcome suss. Nev Statistical analysis of information can reveal more than is at first evident to the unassisted optic. Some of this revealed data may be true. If the data revealed by a statistical analysis can be verified, then it is valuable. Mathematicians are poor users of words, so many statistical terms are misleading. A great deal of the early use of statistics was in improving the average quality of Guiness Stout, which is a noble occupation for any mathematician. (Maybe the only worthwhile thing they've ever done? No, no, I'm sure they've done something else useful, or why would the species survive?) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ave8rr Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 This thread is now way off topic. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Llewellyn Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 This thread is now way off topic. Statistics is not fun? I put it to the forum: the issue of regulation according to safety of third parties would be reasonable, is applied fairly. Now, on a D?L medical standard, I have a license that will allow me to drive a 20,000 litre (non-articulated in my case) petrol tanker through a major city. Potential energy in a crash/burn? Lots and lots. Therefore, RAAus certificate holders should not be allowed to fly anything with a total kinetic energy greater than... a P-51? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 This thread is now way off topic. So you're saying the fun has gone for you? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Statistics is not fun? I put it to the forum: the issue of regulation according to safety of third parties would be reasonable, is applied fairly. Now, on a D?L medical standard, I have a license that will allow me to drive a 20,000 litre (non-articulated in my case) petrol tanker through a major city. Potential energy in a crash/burn? Lots and lots. Therefore, RAAus certificate holders should not be allowed to fly anything with a total kinetic energy greater than... a P-51? Sounds reasonable......as long as you built it yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Llewellyn Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Sounds reasonable......as long as you built it yourself. Yup. I'm there... Daryl Greenamayer's F-104 was a homebuilt, wasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 How can the fun be gone? GA is fun. RA is fun. Warbirds are fun, and so on. They just need different amounts of effort and expense to get to the fun. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 The fun may diminish but the addiction remains. Face it . You get hooked on this stuff. Depending on your current Bang for Bucks arrangement, you should continue or try to kick the habit. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Llewellyn Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 The fun may diminish but the addiction remains. Face it . You get hooked on this stuff. Depending on your current Bang for Bucks arrangement, you should continue or try to kick the habit. Nev is the MAAA about to get 10,000 new members?:faint:I think not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Quality and quantity are not the same. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Here's an interesting statistic. It is twice as dangerous to be 5kg overweight as it is to fly RAAus planes. I hope anybody being given a ramp check does not have an overweight CASA inspector. He is demonstrating twice the risk he is "saving" you from. Here's the figures: Mortality ( all causes) 10 in 1000 per year for Australian male in 60's. Mortality increase 5kg overweight = 20% ie 2 in 1000 extra. Increase for flying = 1 in 1000. So is you are overweight and you fly it must be 13 in 1000 per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Llewellyn Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Quality and quantity are not the same. Nev no, "quality" has an "l" in it... The common quality is, we are all aircraft nuts. My post was meant to underscore the point that, once one has mainlined on flight, going back to a substitute such as models doesn't cut it for long... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsm Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 is the MAAA about to get 10,000 new members?:faint:I think not... What is MAAAA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now