Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discussion

General chat from around the world

Moderator: Traffic warden

atleastinheaven
Power slider
Power slider
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:27 pm

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby atleastinheaven » Wed May 11, 2011 2:02 pm

Naomi wrote:
atleastinheaven wrote:Gummidge - for some reason, your post to me and my reply to you [...] has disappeared.
FYI, I checked the moderator log and no move or removal has been done by a mod. I thought maybe they might have been split off for some reason, but no.


Thanks for letting me know. Dan and I must suffer from the same idiopathic typographical syndrome.

atleastinheaven
Power slider
Power slider
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:27 pm

Re: I have (partially) changed my mind and other matter

Postby atleastinheaven » Wed May 11, 2011 2:13 pm

gummidge wrote:
atleastinheaven wrote:Think of it like this. I don't want to be the victim of someone else's smoking. I do not want to be the victim of someone's drinking. Nor do I want to be victim of another person's wreckless skating. I am sure that you don't either.

Yeah, and I don't want to be the victim of terrorism neither. Is that relevant as well?

By the way, did you read my post in full? And have you had a look at the links I provided? They are long but interesting and have caused me to modify my views. The same might happen to you.

That would be odd, if the same evidence changed your mind one way, and everyone else's the other.


Gummidge - apologies but I am a little embarrassed to admit that I do not know how to box someone's quote and then reply to it before moving on to the next point and answering them in sequential boxes. So, if you do not mind, I'll have to 1) and 2) your points (but if anyone reading this could give me a lesson in how to box quotes etc I would be very happy).

1) I honestly don't know. But what I do know (what I hope) is that the relevant authorities are taking every precaution possible to minimize the danger of terrorism. And that applies to any risk assessment procedure. Besides, in the general hierarchy of things I think I am more likely to be harmed by secondary smoker or the behaviour of a binge drinker than a terrorist. (Besides, I want to talk about minimizing risks in skating(

2) I would be astonished if I made a complete about turn in my views on Mr 40 mph and everyone else did the same and agreed with my original viewpoint. Anyway, we're not living in the land of the fairies and like you said above, it's lunchtime so I'm off to eat and will have a look at other posts this evening.

gummidge
Traffic Warden
Traffic Warden
Posts: 5690
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:50 am
Location: SkateBitch Towers

Re: I have (partially) changed my mind and other matter

Postby gummidge » Wed May 11, 2011 2:23 pm

atleastinheaven wrote:1) I honestly don't know. But what I do know (what I hope) is that the relevant authorities are taking every precaution possible to minimize the danger of terrorism. And that applies to any risk assessment procedure.

Every precaution possible? I sincerely hope not, even in the case of terrorism.

Besides, in the general hierarchy of things I think I am more likely to be harmed by secondary smoker or the behaviour of a binge drinker than a terrorist.

Don't get me started on secondary smoking. Being able to smell a fart is not the same as eating poo.

(Besides, I want to talk about minimizing risks in skating

Fair enough. I was simply following your example of listing other risks you wish not to be exposed to.

gummidge
Traffic Warden
Traffic Warden
Posts: 5690
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:50 am
Location: SkateBitch Towers

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby gummidge » Wed May 11, 2011 2:31 pm

atleastinheaven wrote:Gummidge - for some reason, your post to me and my reply to you - the post where you made three points relating to mass of objects being of significance, has disappeared. They may re-appear at some stage in the future. If they don't, rest assured that I agree with all three of the points you make and that you can see that I have done as much in 3) in my post to Dan above. and that, as a result of this information, I have made a minor modification to my viewpoint to reflect the importance of this scientific information. Jonathan

My post is still there.

I would hardly call it a minor modification when the logic of your position was (whether you realized it or not) that a flea carried on the wind at 40mph was as dangerous as a runaway train. Even with respect to a car versus a skater, the difference in mass makes a very significant difference to the danger they pose others due to their speed. You had already conceded everything bar the danger the skater posed others. Now with this "new information" and the subsequent "minor" modification to your viewpoint, I would say that you have done a complete about turn on this one remaining point you had in this thread.

atleastinheaven
Power slider
Power slider
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:27 pm

Re: I have (partially) changed my mind and other matter

Postby atleastinheaven » Wed May 11, 2011 3:57 pm

gummidge wrote:
atleastinheaven wrote:1) I honestly don't know. But what I do know (what I hope) is that the relevant authorities are taking every precaution possible to minimize the danger of terrorism. And that applies to any risk assessment procedure.

Every precaution possible? I sincerely hope not, even in the case of terrorism.

Besides, in the general hierarchy of things I think I am more likely to be harmed by secondary smoker or the behaviour of a binge drinker than a terrorist.

Don't get me started on secondary smoking. Being able to smell a fart is not the same as eating poo.

(Besides, I want to talk about minimizing risks in skating

Fair enough. I was simply following your example of listing other risks you wish not to be exposed to.


1) Disagree but don't want to get involved in a discussion about your views on sanctions to reduce incidents of terrorism on this thread. It's for 'Foo' and I dont' do 'Foo' because I hate personal abuse and foul language

2) When the evidence that smelling farts can harm you as much as secondary smoking is published let me know and I will have a look at it. Won't discuss it here, though, because it is off topic

3)No comment required

atleastinheaven
Power slider
Power slider
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:27 pm

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby atleastinheaven » Wed May 11, 2011 4:24 pm

gummidge wrote:
atleastinheaven wrote:Gummidge - for some reason, your post to me and my reply to you - the post where you made three points relating to mass of objects being of significance, has disappeared. They may re-appear at some stage in the future. If they don't, rest assured that I agree with all three of the points you make and that you can see that I have done as much in 3) in my post to Dan above. and that, as a result of this information, I have made a minor modification to my viewpoint to reflect the importance of this scientific information. Jonathan

My post is still there.

I would hardly call it a minor modification when the logic of your position was (whether you realized it or not) that a flea carried on the wind at 40mph was as dangerous as a runaway train. Even with respect to a car versus a skater, the difference in mass makes a very significant difference to the danger they pose others due to their speed. You had already conceded everything bar the danger the skater posed others. Now with this "new information" and the subsequent "minor" modification to your viewpoint, I would say that you have done a complete about turn on this one remaining point you had in this thread.


Yes, your post is there but I can assure you it did 'disappear' in much the same way as the one that Dan has referred to. And I have now replied to it.

I cannot agree with your contention that my change in view is a 'minor modification'. The major modifications I made were:

1) That I now agree that once you are going at 40 mph then the wearing of traditional rollerblading 'protective clothing including helmet' will make no difference to outcome viz physical injury to the skater. Interesting, though, that I had to come to that conclusion as a result of the research I did as opposed to being directed to that research by those who were taking what was, at that time, an opposite view.

2) That I now agree that the evidence from the data I (not other people) researched indicated that if someone wanted to skate down an urban hill at those speeds then the best time to do so would be at night when the roads would be quieter and therefore the risk to innocent third parties would be diminished.

Given 1) and 2) and given that I am not a bio-physicist and cannot therefore fully understand the science involved in time, speed, mass and so on, the fact that I accept that the consequences of a crash are not fully understood by myself (and doubtless, by many other people) I describe it a minor amendment to my thinking because whereas I can fully understand 1) and 2) I cannot claim to do so to the same extent in the case of this matter. You may have a much better understanding of the physics involved and believe it to be a 'major' shift in my thinking. I can assure you that in relation to the other two matters, it is not and probably never will be as a study of bio-physics in the context of road traffic injuries will never be high up my list of things to do.

That means I will say that the shift in my opinion on 1) and 2) is major. The shift in my opinion on the matter of bio-physics is minor compared to the first two. You have a different view. You can have your different view and I will have mine. You call it major and I'll call it minor.

Dan B
New school
New school
Posts: 3837
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:01 pm
Location: Seen with sound equipment
Contact:

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby Dan B » Wed May 11, 2011 4:37 pm

My disappearing post was most likely the result of my pressing Control-W at the wrong time while composing it. There's no need to start submitting bug reports or go hunting in forum logs for it

Becca
New school
New school
Posts: 3135
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:37 pm
Location: In BarbieLand
Contact:

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby Becca » Wed May 11, 2011 4:51 pm

atleastinheaven wrote:
On that basis of 1) to 3) above the conclusion I have to draw now about 40 mph man is that what he did was extremely dangerous and irresponsible because he would have had no control over the actions of other road users - including all forms of transport and pedestrians. And you can never predict what othe road users will do or, indeed, when they might suddenly appear.


This has already been said by others (on the other thread) but this conclusion ignores various factors e.g. that he was on an empty road, where (if a car or pedestrian emerged) he would most likely be able to avoid it. Plus he did it when there was very little chance of pedestrians anyway.
The logic of your conclusion seems to be that you can't predict what others will do, so don't do anything that might harm them or you in case they suddenly appear. In that case, wouldn't driving a car, riding a bike, and many other actions in life all be dangerous and irresponsible as you can't predict the actions of others? I can't predict that a child won't run out onto the street in front of me, so should I never drive a car just in case? If you look at your logic, you'll see that it could be applied to any action to judge it as dangerous and irresponsible. We can't live our lives on the basis of what others might do, as we'd end up shutting ourselves in a fire/bomb-proof cell to protect us from others' possible actions.

atleastinheaven wrote:
The injuries he might have caused others, though, are too appalling to think about.


As are the injuries I could cause someone with my car. And the injuries you could cause someone with your car. And it's far more likely that we would crash our cars and hurt someone due to driving around on busy roads in the daytime.
And do you know who has an even higher risk of hitting a pedestrian at speed? A marshal on a street skate, skating around the pack by nipping onto the pavement on a sunday afternoon in central London. Yet you go on sunday strolls, so you must be accepting that risk. Why are you so against the actions of this guy, when the risk of him hurting others is less than a marshal on streetskate?

atleastinheaven wrote:
I have been told by one of the Marshalls who monitors such things that the average speed of a Sunday Stroll is between 6-8 mph. We will rarely go above 15 mph though some people may think it is faster because you in direct contact with the road surface.


Yes, the punters might go at that speed. But what about the marshals? I wonder how fast the marshals will be going down Ladbroke Grove tonight, whilst attempting to overtake the pack to block junctions. Would any marshals who have the ability to record their speed do so tonight so that we have a figure to go on? I wonder if any of them get over 30mph. I wonder if any approach 40mph. If so, would you think them dangerous and irresponsible? If so, perhaps you should stop attending stteet skates in protest.

Phil
Old school
Old school
Posts: 7925
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:44 am
Location: Stuck between 2 cones
Contact:

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby Phil » Wed May 11, 2011 5:08 pm

Becca wrote:Yes, the punters might go at that speed. But what about the marshals? I wonder how fast the marshals will be going down Ladbroke Grove tonight, whilst attempting to overtake the pack to block junctions. Would any marshals who have the ability to record their speed do so tonight so that we have a figure to go on? I wonder if any of them get over 30mph. I wonder if any approach 40mph. If so, would you think them dangerous and irresponsible? If so, perhaps you should stop attending stteet skates in protest.


I raised that question already in the other thread but there was no response:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36806&start=80#p515492

Dan B
New school
New school
Posts: 3837
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:01 pm
Location: Seen with sound equipment
Contact:

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby Dan B » Wed May 11, 2011 5:55 pm

Becca wrote:I wonder how fast the marshals will be going down Ladbroke Grove tonight, whilst attempting to overtake the pack to block junctions. Would any marshals who have the ability to record their speed do so tonight so that we have a figure to go on? I wonder if any of them get over 30mph. I wonder if any approach 40mph.

Pretty certain the answer to that is "not unless they're suicidal or the pack is extremely strung out". I've been nearly wiped out often enough by pack skaters who swing right without looking behind them that I will not overtake a bunch of skaters with more than 5mph or so speed differential or a nice clear wide path. Far more risk of collision than skating on the open road or in traffic: most drivers are at least moderately predictable.

Duncan Clarke
Beach bum
Beach bum
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:03 pm
Location: Stoke (yes - other side of Birmingham)
Contact:

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby Duncan Clarke » Wed May 11, 2011 6:02 pm

Simple answer - ban skating, it's dangerous.

atleastinheaven
Power slider
Power slider
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:27 pm

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby atleastinheaven » Wed May 11, 2011 6:21 pm

Becca wrote:
atleastinheaven wrote:
On that basis of 1) to 3) above the conclusion I have to draw now about 40 mph man is that what he did was extremely dangerous and irresponsible because he would have had no control over the actions of other road users - including all forms of transport and pedestrians. And you can never predict what othe road users will do or, indeed, when they might suddenly appear.


This has already been said by others (on the other thread) but this conclusion ignores various factors e.g. that he was on an empty road, where (if a car or pedestrian emerged) he would most likely be able to avoid it. Plus he did it when there was very little chance of pedestrians anyway.
The logic of your conclusion seems to be that you can't predict what others will do, so don't do anything that might harm them or you in case they suddenly appear. In that case, wouldn't driving a car, riding a bike, and many other actions in life all be dangerous and irresponsible as you can't predict the actions of others? I can't predict that a child won't run out onto the street in front of me, so should I never drive a car just in case? If you look at your logic, you'll see that it could be applied to any action to judge it as dangerous and irresponsible. We can't live our lives on the basis of what others might do, as we'd end up shutting ourselves in a fire/bomb-proof cell to protect us from others' possible actions.

atleastinheaven wrote:
The injuries he might have caused others, though, are too appalling to think about.


As are the injuries I could cause someone with my car. And the injuries you could cause someone with your car. And it's far more likely that we would crash our cars and hurt someone due to driving around on busy roads in the daytime.
And do you know who has an even higher risk of hitting a pedestrian at speed? A marshal on a street skate, skating around the pack by nipping onto the pavement on a sunday afternoon in central London. Yet you go on sunday strolls, so you must be accepting that risk. Why are you so against the actions of this guy, when the risk of him hurting others is less than a marshal on streetskate?

atleastinheaven wrote:
I have been told by one of the Marshalls who monitors such things that the average speed of a Sunday Stroll is between 6-8 mph. We will rarely go above 15 mph though some people may think it is faster because you in direct contact with the road surface.


Yes, the punters might go at that speed. But what about the marshals? I wonder how fast the marshals will be going down Ladbroke Grove tonight, whilst attempting to overtake the pack to block junctions. Would any marshals who have the ability to record their speed do so tonight so that we have a figure to go on? I wonder if any of them get over 30mph. I wonder if any approach 40mph. If so, would you think them dangerous and irresponsible? If so, perhaps you should stop attending stteet skates in protest.



Becca - you may have noticed that in one of my replies to gummidge I explained that I did not know how to do the 'quote box' system of responding to posts so you will have to allow me to reply numerically to the points you raise:

1) You said "We can't live our lives on the basis of what others might do, as we'd end up shutting ourselves in a fire/bomb-proof cell to protect us from others' possible actions". You are right about that but there is one thing Mr 40 mph could do to minimize risk to innocent third parties. And that is to go off-road. Problem solved. Then, in the context of all the research that I have done, he can go as fast as he likes because the data I have produced suggests his fast speed would not be a factor in the degree of any injury to himself. In a public place he has a responsibility towards others. Off road, on a private track, his responsibility is determined by both the owner of the property and his own lifestyle choice.

2) You said "As are the injuries I could cause someone with my car. And the injuries you could cause someone with your car. And it's far more likely that we would crash our cars and hurt someone due to driving around on busy roads in the daytime.
And do you know who has an even higher risk of hitting a pedestrian at speed? A marshal on a street skate, skating around the pack by nipping onto the pavement on a sunday afternoon in central London. Yet you go on sunday strolls, so you must be accepting that risk. Why are you so against the actions of this guy, when the risk of him hurting others is less than a marshal on streetskate?"

You couldn't cause those injuries in your car if you were banned from using that off road track whilst Mr 40 mph was using it. And I bet - no, I sincerely hope - that when you are driving your car you take every action necessary to prevent injury to yourself or innocent third parties. In many ways, you are forced to do that eg by traffic lights, speed bumps, speed cameras etc.

I do agree with you about the Marshalls. It's a job I could not do because I have no acceleration. Marshals are volunteers who have received (I hope) good training and it that training and their awareness which reduces the possibility of them hitting a pedestrian. That's not to say it cannot happen and I do not know if it has.

I do go on the Sunday Strolls and (as I have said before) the data I have presented on these boards suggests that up to speeds of 12 mph the helmet I wear would protect me against serious head injury. Believe me, if I had come across incontrovertible data saying that my helmet would not protect me up to those speeds then I would have to seriously consider whether to participate in street skates in the future. I do not believe that data exists because, as I said in the first post of this thread, virtually all the data available relates to cycling which is our closest 'cousin'.

3) You said "Yes, the punters might go at that speed. But what about the marshals? I wonder how fast the marshals will be going down Ladbroke Grove tonight, whilst attempting to overtake the pack to block junctions. Would any marshals who have the ability to record their speed do so tonight so that we have a figure to go on? I wonder if any of them get over 30mph. I wonder if any approach 40mph. If so, would you think them dangerous and irresponsible? If so, perhaps you should stop attending stteet skates in protest"

This is a very good point but one which can be answered in this way. The fact that the Marshals go that speed actually increases the safety of not just participants but also third parties in the vicinity of the skate. They go ahead to scout, block traffic and aid the movement of pedestrians. Mr 40 mph is undertaking an activity purely to indulge himself. As I said above, Marshals are volunteers who undertake their role for altruistic reasons and I bet any one of them could give a sound justification for their speed whilst undertaking their duties. Mr 40 mph couldn't. All he could say is something along the lines of 'I really wanted to do something really cool for my own self-satisfaction'.

Again, apologies for the format I used in anwering your questions. The 'cut and pasting' I did was to ensure that I included only those words relevant to my answer. Your points are well made but then I expected that after following your debate on 'Foo' last year.

Becca - I've spent most of the day finding time to get this thread going and then answer peoples' questions. I really have to stop now today otherwise I won't get the marking done. I wish we were having this debate in July when I'd have a lot more time to answer questions but, just to finish off for today, let me summarise the views I hold which haven't changed (as opposed to those which have changed - and there is no need to repeat them here as I have articulated them in other posts above)

1) If an individual wants to indulge themselves by skating at high speeds under poorly managed conditions then he should do so off road because that is the best way to ensure that harm to third parties is minimized
2) Just as there is evidence which has allowed me to reconsider views which I have now changed, there is evidence that a cycling helmet will give protection to cyclists (and therefore probably skaters) up to around 12 mph. That's why I will continue to wear my helmet and I would urge others to do the same. However, as I have said,
the decision to wear a helmet up to and even beyond that speed is a lifestyle choice and all skaters should be free to exercise that choice - including Mr 40 mph even if he manages to get up to 60 mph off road.

One last thing to all readers. Just as I have put a lot of effort into researching these matters and providing both myself and yourselves with information which really does inform the debate, can you do the same thing, please? If you can find something which provides a rationale for a further modification to my views on this or any other matter, then please publish it or provide a link to it. But I can only do skating topics. No Foo. Yuk. Disgusting. I once had to post on it because a thread I was posting on in the General Boards was moved to the Foo section by the Moderator. Horrendous. Good place for the chavs to hide, though.

Duncan Clarke
Beach bum
Beach bum
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:03 pm
Location: Stoke (yes - other side of Birmingham)
Contact:

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby Duncan Clarke » Wed May 11, 2011 6:44 pm

Put simply, your argument is naive at best. You can't eliminate risk, much as you seem to think you can.

The limitation of activities in the persuit of "safety" has deminishing returns. You skate. Many would consider that to be irrational, irresponsible and dangerous. Should we ban all skating based on this? Any time you are skating could cause a fatal injury. Is it worth that risk? In fact, driving is even more dangerous, ban that too.

There is no way to ever "do everything possible to reduce the risk" as there is ALWAYS something more you could do. However for most rational people they understand that risk is a balance and a personal choice. The main problem with the risk averse is their complete lack of understanding of the issues and risks involved. I have a huge problem with people trying to dilute my life by removing all risk. All you are doing is actually making things worse. So many these days are growing up not understanding risk becuase the decisions have been taken away from them. Paranoid parents, terrorist media and protectionist vote-hungry poloticians are sanitising this country to a point where life itself is deemed too dangerous.

In short, what gives you the right to impose your paniced, overbearing, exaggerated assessment of risk to others with a more balanced and realistic view? Surely you can see from the reactions to this video, not only in the skating world, but in the media at large that your myopic paranoia is out of step with even the "scared of everything" public in general. Time to chill out and learn to have fun again.

Becca
New school
New school
Posts: 3135
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:37 pm
Location: In BarbieLand
Contact:

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby Becca » Wed May 11, 2011 7:15 pm

atleastinheaven wrote:You said "We can't live our lives on the basis of what others might do, as we'd end up shutting ourselves in a fire/bomb-proof cell to protect us from others' possible actions".
You are right about that but there is one thing Mr 40 mph could do to minimize risk to innocent third parties. And that is to go off-road. Problem solved.


Not really. There aren't exactly that many places to do this kind of thing off road, and even those that do exist would most likely charge a fee.

atleastinheaven wrote:
You couldn't cause those injuries in your car if you were banned from using that off road track whilst Mr 40 mph was using it.


I wasn't talking about causing the injuries to 40mph man! I don't even know how you misunderstood that.
I was talking about the risk that you are going to cause injuries every day when you drive your car - to pedestraians, cyclists, other drivers etc. Driving a car, in the day time, in a busy area (e.g. driving past a school at 3.30 on a weekday) is far more risky to other people than what that guy did. But you do it anyway, right?

atleastinheaven wrote:And I bet - no, I sincerely hope - that when you are driving your car you take every action necessary to prevent injury to yourself or innocent third parties.


No, I don't. Because the main action I could take to prevent injury to myself and others would be to NOT DRIVE AT ALL. That's where the logic of your arguments leads. I drive every day, despite the possible risks to myself and others. However, I minimise the risks by not driving too fast in built up areas in the day time, just as this guy did by doing this at night when there were few (if any) pedestrians and few vehicles.

I do agree with you about the Marshalls. It's a job I could not do because I have no acceleration. Marshals are volunteers who have received (I hope) good training and it that training and their awareness which reduces the possibility of them hitting a pedestrian. That's not to say it cannot happen and I do not know if it has.


So, you trust that a marshal is well trained enough to judge the risk for themselves? But you do not trust that this guy is experienced enough to judge the risk for himself? Why the difference in attitude when marshaling appears so much more risky?
Also, do you actually know what training marshals receive? AFAIK it differs between LFNS/Stroll and Londonskate. I'm not going to comment on the extent of the training as I have not done the training, but it's probably not as extensive as you would think. Perhaps a marshal can tell us exactly what the training is.

This is a very good point but one which can be answered in this way. The fact that the Marshals go that speed actually increases the safety of not just participants but also third parties in the vicinity of the skate. They go ahead to scout, block traffic and aid the movement of pedestrians. Mr 40 mph is undertaking an activity purely to indulge himself. As I said above, Marshals are volunteers who undertake their role for altruistic reasons and I bet any one of them could give a sound justification for their speed whilst undertaking their duties. Mr 40 mph couldn't. All he could say is something along the lines of 'I really wanted to do something really cool for my own self-satisfaction'.


So it's ok for marshals to skate at speed so that they and others can have fun, but not for this guy in the video to do it? What a contradiction. Also, I think you'll find (if you ask some of the marshals) that many of them made the move from punter to marshal so that they could skate faster, as many find the pack too slow. Don't kid yourself that marshals do it for others - if they didn't enjoy it, I'm sure they wouldn't be doing it.

atleastinheaven wrote:If an individual wants to indulge themselves by skating at high speeds under poorly managed conditions then he should do so off road because that is the best way to ensure that harm to third parties is minimized


In which case, you're advocating the banning of street skates.


atleastinheaven wrote: No Foo. Yuk. Disgusting. I once had to post on it because a thread I was posting on in the General Boards was moved to the Foo section by the Moderator. Horrendous. Good place for the chavs to hide, though.


So those of us who post in Foo are chavs? Nice.

atleastinheaven
Power slider
Power slider
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:27 pm

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby atleastinheaven » Wed May 11, 2011 7:17 pm

Duncan Clarke wrote:Put simply, your argument is naive at best. You can't eliminate risk, much as you seem to think you can.

The limitation of activities in the persuit of "safety" has deminishing returns. You skate. Many would consider that to be irrational, irresponsible and dangerous. Should we ban all skating based on this? Any time you are skating could cause a fatal injury. Is it worth that risk? In fact, driving is even more dangerous, ban that too.

There is no way to ever "do everything possible to reduce the risk" as there is ALWAYS something more you could do. However for most rational people they understand that risk is a balance and a personal choice. The main problem with the risk averse is their complete lack of understanding of the issues and risks involved. I have a huge problem with people trying to dilute my life by removing all risk. All you are doing is actually making things worse. So many these days are growing up not understanding risk becuase the decisions have been taken away from them. Paranoid parents, terrorist media and protectionist vote-hungry poloticians are sanitising this country to a point where life itself is deemed too dangerous.

In short, what gives you the right to impose your paniced, overbearing, exaggerated assessment of risk to others with a more balanced and realistic view? Surely you can see from the reactions to this video, not only in the skating world, but in the media at large that your myopic paranoia is out of step with even the "scared of everything" public in general. Time to chill out and learn to have fun again.



Again, this is the second time I am publishing a post because the first has disappeared. There is a glitch somewhere.

Duncan Clarke- your whole post is based on the premise that I have said that I wanted to eliminate risk. As I have not said that, your post becomes meaningingless in the context of this debate.

If you read what I have said very carefully, you will notice that what I want to do is to minimize (not eliminate) risk.

Becca
New school
New school
Posts: 3135
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:37 pm
Location: In BarbieLand
Contact:

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby Becca » Wed May 11, 2011 7:20 pm

Dan B wrote:
Becca wrote:I wonder how fast the marshals will be going down Ladbroke Grove tonight, whilst attempting to overtake the pack to block junctions. Would any marshals who have the ability to record their speed do so tonight so that we have a figure to go on? I wonder if any of them get over 30mph. I wonder if any approach 40mph.

Pretty certain the answer to that is "not unless they're suicidal or the pack is extremely strung out". I've been nearly wiped out often enough by pack skaters who swing right without looking behind them that I will not overtake a bunch of skaters with more than 5mph or so speed differential or a nice clear wide path. Far more risk of collision than skating on the open road or in traffic: most drivers are at least moderately predictable.


Yeah I didn't think that most marshals generally achieve those speeds on most skates, but I do remember once that a marshal (who will remain unnamed) was showing everyone the speed (on his phone which recorded it) that he managed on a hill during one skate and it was just over 30mph.
I would've thought that overtaking the pack at 30mph on a day time skate in central London, is far more risky that going 40mph down a very quiet road at night where's there's little other traffic.

Becca
New school
New school
Posts: 3135
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:37 pm
Location: In BarbieLand
Contact:

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby Becca » Wed May 11, 2011 7:24 pm

Duncan Clarke wrote:
The limitation of activities in the persuit of "safety" has deminishing returns. You skate. Many would consider that to be irrational, irresponsible and dangerous. Should we ban all skating based on this? Any time you are skating could cause a fatal injury. Is it worth that risk? In fact, driving is even more dangerous, ban that too.


Exactly. I tried to explain that to him, but he doesn't seem to realise that his logic leads there.

Duncan Clarke wrote: The main problem with the risk averse is their complete lack of understanding of the issues and risks involved. I have a huge problem with people trying to dilute my life by removing all risk.


Absolutely. I would rather experience that risk, and have a life worth living, than remove all risk and be bored senseless.

Duncan Clarke wrote:In short, what gives you the right to impose your paniced, overbearing, exaggerated assessment of risk to others with a more balanced and realistic view?


Hear hear.

Becca
New school
New school
Posts: 3135
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:37 pm
Location: In BarbieLand
Contact:

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby Becca » Wed May 11, 2011 7:34 pm

atleastinheaven wrote:If you read what I have said very carefully, you will notice that what I want to do is to minimize (not eliminate) risk.


Well, no. Minimising something means reducing it to the absolute minimal level. The absolute minimal level is no risk at all. Therefore, in order to minimise the risk of skating, driving or any other activity that you can give up on, you would have to not do that activity altogether. The term 'minimise' only has a meaning separate to that of 'eliminate' if it's an activity that you can't just give up on altogether.
For example: With breathing, to minimise the risk of breathing in dangerous gases, I can't just stop breathing. Therefore minimising the risk while carrying on breathing is the best I can do. However, with skating to minimise the risk of skating would be to not do it at all, as whatever else I do (e.g. wearing pads, only doing marshalled street skates etc), I could always minimise the risk more by not doing it at all.
Last edited by Becca on Wed May 11, 2011 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Becca
New school
New school
Posts: 3135
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:37 pm
Location: In BarbieLand
Contact:

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby Becca » Wed May 11, 2011 7:35 pm

*Waits for everyone to stop reading as it's turned into another semantics debate*

atleastinheaven
Power slider
Power slider
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:27 pm

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby atleastinheaven » Wed May 11, 2011 7:57 pm

Becca wrote:*Waits for everyone to stop reading as it's turned into another semantics debate*



Becca - for the fourth time today, a post I have uploaded has disappeared. This may be temporary or not. It was a very brief answer to your post in which you raise a number of issues including the one about 'Chavs' on 'Foo'. I explained in my reply to you that I put that in just to see if anyone took the bait. Sorry.

I'm afraid this could turn into another semantics debate and that will require me to remove copies of Ayer's works off the shelves and blow off the dust. I really do not want to have to do that. Please do the semantic bits with gummidge and others elsewhere. I want to debate the merits of and de-merits of Mr 40 mph man. It has been good so far as it has given lots of people who read what posts actually say (rather than what they would have liked them to have said) to consider a point of view. I've enjoyed doing that but do not feel I can take this thread further than the objectives I had in mind (firstly, to re-evaluate my views and secondly, to apologise to Mick) because I think those objectives have now been achieved.

If you, or anyone else wants to do the semantic bit or even widen the debate by publishing the results of their researches then I will hand the remainder of the thread over to them. See you. And no, I do not think you are a chav (far from it) but I do think that some of the posters on these boards are. You'd be surprised who I am thinking of and I must talk about it it you one day in the future when you de-minimize your risk-taking and drive up to London.


Return to “General skating”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron