Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
There are plenty examples of blatant cheating to choose from - it is those that FIFA should go after; the easy ones, not the difficult ones. Just a few high-profile sanctions will at least show there are possible adverse consequences to be had from such actions.
Indeed.
I don't know what replays you and Hadyn have seen. In the ones on my telly, there's contact between the tip of the goalkeeper's foot and Suarez.
Yes, there is contact. It was a sloppy move - but that's what they hand out yellows for, right?
After the absolutely ridiculous red card handed out in the Australia - Germany match, my interest in the game has decreased substantially. Any kind of replay shows that Cahill did all in his power to avoid contact when he realised there was going to be a collision. A suspension in the next match was completely unjustified.
Diving might be a popular sport elsewhere, but for somewhat casual watchers of the game it's deeply unattractive.
-
I fantasize about the day we all live in a flat, bike-friendly, combustion-engine-rejecting utopia, where it never rains till after sundown, and we all ride everywhere at a leisurely pace on beautifully designed paths, wearing our prettiest clothes at all times. I mean, phwooaaaar.
This seems to be the other counter-argument, frequently used in NZ, Australia and the US. 'It's all very well for those Europeans, but things are different here'. The reality is that these arguments are independent of the level of cycling.
And when you have something that suppresses cycling as much as helmets do, and makes it an activity associated with "danger", then you'll never get there. It's a vicious cycle.
-
Edit: actually, this is a little TLDR - best read the link above instead.
Oh, the helmet argument.
I think that comment here has missed a lot of the most important parts of the debate (or rather non-debate, as most issues aren't discussed in any form). Apologies to David if any of these issues were covered in detail, I couldn't get the file to open.
I'll just make one long comment and hope to address as much as possible. I'll round up links later, but the site I quoted above is a good place to start. I also warn that this is rather macabre - I had this conversation with a friend once, and it brought up traumatic issues that related to the head injury of a friend.
As you so rightly pointed out earlier, this says nothing about the individual.
The individual is where all of this gets interesting.
Firstly... what is a bicycle helmet? This isn't such a silly question. Essentially, a bicycle helmet is a small piece of specially manufactured polystyrene, covered by a plastic shell. It is designed to cushion an impact, up to the point of failure. When it cracks it has reached that point. It is nothing more, and nothing less.
Secondly, what is it tested to do? Helmets* are failure tested with a blunt object of 15kg dropped horizontally from a height of 1 metre onto the top of the helmet, producing a force of .15kn. No side testing or angular testing is required.
The forces generated in a collision with a car are significantly greater than this, and most impacts happen to the side, back, and front of the head. The force of 15kg from 1 metre is in the range of what you'll get falling off your bike. It is more than what a child will get (and for this reason, I have no opposition to young children without a great sense of balance wearing helmets). Still, worth reducing an impact, right?
Well, no, possibly not if you're going to cause yourself rotational injuries. A collision will cause bruising to the brain in the part that hits the skull. If the head is twisted with force, however, there is the possibility of causing yourself very significant brain injuries, as the entire brain is literally turned within the skull. There is research that indicates, but does not prove, that helmets significantly increase the risk of rotational injuries. A direct collision with the ground gets turned by a helmet, and significant head injury results. Rather than "saving your life" in that awful collision, as an ED doctor might surmise, it could be doing you harm.
A helmet is not a magic talisman that will protect you from danger. It is something that is designed to reduce the impact of a direct collision at low speed.
Since most serious collisions with the ground result from accidents involving motorvehicles, the best way to reduce your risk is to avoid those collisions. There is evidence that both cyclists and drivers see a helmeted cyclist as "safer" and are less likely to give the room required - a study found that drivers gave much more room to unhelmeted cyclists, and that risk perceptions of unhelmeted cyclists were more accurate.
Given that head injuries in cyclists in NZ stayed static while cycling decreased by 1/3 in the years immediately after the helmet law, and this has been seen elsewhere (Australia, in all states and territories, various Canadian territories), there's also some circumstantial evidence on this point.
For all of the above reasons, I believe that I am actually safer riding on the road in general traffic without a helmet, than with one. Of course I take other efforts to improve my safety, such as good lights, reflectors, and riding in a manner that is likely to reduce the risk of collision.
Yes, it seems that cycling without a helmet increases your chances of becoming a very healthy corpse.
Now, to address the comments quoted above. Helmets were introduced in NZ after a series of tragic accidents, and a campaign from a distraught mother who had lost her child. The campaign was emotive, but it took what seemed like a reasonable solution. It wasn't however a decision based on evidence, and since then no evidence based review of the law and head injuries has taken place (to my knowledge). Helmets are promoted heavily by helmet companies, who have an obvious interest (although they refrain from making claims about the efficacy of their helmets that could be tested in a court of law). They are also promoted by governments, who see them as an easy fix to cycle safety. And since the 1990s they've been promoted by many cycling advocates, who figure the safety of their constituents is a good thing. If only it were so simple.
*(for a standard US helmet - and I assume here most helmets sold in NZ are made to US specifications)
-
Preparing a long response, will take a few minutes. In the meantime, start here.
-
Suarez, in my mind, embodies everything I hate about football. Diving, self-important arseholes and playing to screw over the other team.
And then there are the corrupt referees and the match-fixers. Declan Hill has written very accessibly about the subject.
-
7.) Messi, and the rest of the Argentine team will still be unable to afford a haircut.
-
Greenpeace’s policy on genetic engineering (GE) has not changed.
And you're proud of the fact that you're making the same claims that you were in the late 1990s and early 2000s?
-
put a whole lot of both species in a box and have them breed like crazy - use your modern GE-fu to look at the results, you'll get some hybrids with the right genes you want - pick a nice one, put the white clover in a box with those guys - grab something appropriate, lather rinse repeat.
As I understand from the work of the International Rice Research Institute, this takes a long time, reaching into decades. And even then you've still got to deal with the traits from the target plant that you don't want, which causes further delays.
-
That makes me want to vote for the Greens, actually. I'd go to quite some length to hamstring "NZ Inc".
Repeat after me: a country is not a corporation.
I think this is why the clover is so interesting. There are many issues involved here about what kind of New Zealand we want, and GE is being used as a stalking-horse for quite a few of those by opponents.
Which is why disentangling them is so important. Mixed messages might be easy to use, but they're also easier to criticise and rebut - all you need to do is find the weakest part.
-
I think not enough people took their shirts off for it to qualify.
Here's more gratutiousness in the form of a non-fan's guide to the men of the world cup, possibly safe for work (depending on how comfortable your employers are with shirtlessness).