All true. Though metrics used to measure IQ are generally defined around a distribution where median=average. (eg the normal distribution) Though I'm probably telling you what you already know....uart wrote:Lol, probably not. But those who have studied statistics probably would.
Ross wrote:
Unfortuately your view is not correct. Impractical, misleading, downright stupid... Yep. But that is the reality as confirmed from the Advertising Standard Bureau.softy wrote:I do have a different view than that;
in Australia you need to follow as you have suggested, overseas complying becomes impractical and possible misleading. examples.
http://www.executivestyle.com.au/cyclin ... -ad-gpowsxThe authority's Ms Jolly confirmed to me this week that even if it depicted overseas activity, "Australian community standards on health and safety must still be met within the advertisement".
well that is fine to make that statement, but the reality is it is not enforced for most foreign movies, docos, etc. they would be banning pretty much everything that doesn't confirm to OZ law. Just look at action movies!! drive everywhere breaking every law. drug taking, weapons, etc..... let alone some people riding helmetless through the background. It is a ridiculous law which is not enforced, So the toothless tiger can make outlandish statements if they like, but is doesn't mean much.human909 wrote:Unfortuately your view is not correct. Impractical, misleading, downright stupid... Yep. But that is the reality as confirmed from the Advertising Standard Bureau.softy wrote:I do have a different view than that;
in Australia you need to follow as you have suggested, overseas complying becomes impractical and possible misleading. examples.
http://www.executivestyle.com.au/cyclin ... -ad-gpowsxThe authority's Ms Jolly confirmed to me this week that even if it depicted overseas activity, "Australian community standards on health and safety must still be met within the advertisement".
The irony is that Australian community standards on cyclist safety are atrocious. As we all should know, it isn't foam hats that make cycling safe it is the attitudes of drivers and infrastructure for cyclist.
It is pretty clear which word in the Advertising Standards Bureau you fail to comprehend.softy wrote:well that is fine to make that statement, but the reality is it is not enforced for most foreign movies, docos, etc. they would be banning pretty much everything that doesn't confirm to OZ law. Just look at action movies!! drive everywhere breaking every law. drug taking, weapons, etc..... let alone some people riding helmetless through the background. It is a ridiculous law which is not enforced,
Toothless tiger? They have complete authority on the issue, and have not only bared their teeth but previously taken several bites.softy wrote: So the toothless tiger can make outlandish statements if they like, but is doesn't mean much.
I've been wondering that myself.mikesbytes wrote:It's Chris Rissel's birthday today. He seems to have vanished from the scene, I haven't seen or heard of him in a long time.
Moved to Victoria? That would explain why I haven't seen him in Sydneyfat and old wrote:Rissel showed at the Vic passing distance hearings a few months back, as an observer and kept his mouth shut afaik
A SELF-proclaimed “elderly” cyclist who refuses to wear a helmet has again showed her disdain for traffic rules, riding away from court bareheaded after copping a $220 fine.
In a seven-year battle against bike helmets Sue Abbott has had her driver’s licence suspended, bikes confiscated and four criminal convictions recorded. But she insists her war on helmets has nothing to do with spoiling her “crazy hair”, claiming it is all about saving the planet.
At Waverley Local Court yesterday Abbott told an unimpressed Magistrate Michael Barko it was necessary for her to not wear a helmet.
Helmet-hater... Sue Abbott has waged a seven-year war against wearing a helmet. Picture: John Grainger
The 56-year-old, who lives with her doctor husband in the Hunter Valley town of Scone, told the court she believed a helmet put her at greater risk of a “catastrophic brain injury” because it increased the mass of her head, creating a large area that could be affected by a collision.
She told Mr Barko she could not wear a helmet but had to keep riding her bike to do her part to mitigate, “catastrophic climate change”.
“My possible death or my catastrophic brain injury as well as the climate’s continued demise because we won’t face our responsibility towards climate change should far outweigh this infraction under NSW road rules,” she said.
Mr Barko dismissed Abbott’s linking of helmet laws to climate change as an argument with “no rational reasoning”.
“How is you riding a bike going to stop the glacier melting in the North Pole?” he asked.
The court heard Abbott was fined by Australian Federal Police at Sydney Airport after she was spotted riding her bike without a helmet in the right-hand lane of a multi-lane road near the domestic terminal.
Sue Abbott showed her disdain for traffic rules, riding away from court bareheaded after copping a $220 fine.
Mr Barko chastised Abbott for fighting the fine only to admit at the last moment she was not wearing a helmet on October 17 last year.
“You have cost the community an absolute fortune to prosecute this case, this is not a forum for a public speech,” Mr Barko said.
The judge told Abbott that he had worked as a coroner and seen the head injuries sustained by cyclists who did not wear helmets.
He imposed the maximum penalty of $220, as opposed to the $71 fine originally given to her by the AFP.
Outside court Abbott said the magistrate demonstrated the negative attitude most Australians had to cyclists.
“This is the reason why you don’t see other elderly women like me riding,” she said.
She said police who had fined her in the past had presumed her refusal to wear a helmet was a “hair thing”.
“It is not a hair thing. Nothing can squash my hair,” she said.
While the article points to her 'disdain for traffic rules' it would have been nice if wshe had been quoted to say something like 'while I agree that I have disdain for this particular traffic law, I observe and uphold all other laws as I otherwise legally ride my bicycle' Focussing on her disobeying the helmet law, and implying that she does not abide by any laws only helps the haters. But then, what can you expect from the tabloid 'news'.human909 wrote:So apparently cyclists are now to blame costing "the community an absolute fortune" because of the cost involved in prosecuting a victimless crime.
If you are complaining about the costs of prosecuting a victimless crime then maybe one should reconsider whether it should be a crime at all...
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/n ... 13988fa445
I suspect that her argument against helmets based on that type of potential injury is probably the only legal excuse she could use, something a lawyer dragged up to create a level of doubt. She is probably trying to work out any 'reasonable' argument because she thinks that a helmet is not necessary, makes her head hot or messes up her hair or some other similar argument that has no science behind it. Any judge would throw out 'I just don't want to' so you need to come up with something else, now she's stuck with it after trying it on all these years.fat and old wrote:Re the Sue Abbot use of the diffuse axonal injury argument...If you were to strike the ground with your head hard enough (I have no idea how "hard" this has to be) to suffer this injury without having a helmet what would be the likely outcome? Has any comparative study been done?
human909 wrote:So apparently cyclists are now to blame costing "the community an absolute fortune" because of the cost involved in prosecuting a victimless crime.
So we have magistrates in Australia that still don't understand the connection between fossil fuel usage and global warming. Seriously?Mr Barko (the magistrate) dismissed Abbott’s linking of helmet laws to climate change as an argument with “no rational reasoning”.
“How is you riding a bike going to stop the glacier melting in the North Pole?” he asked.
Exactly. It's not about just one person Mr Barko, it's a whole demographic who are affected! Non sports cyclists.Outside court Abbott said the magistrate demonstrated the negative attitude most Australians had to cyclists.
“This is the reason why you don’t see other elderly women like me riding,” she said.
Most radicals and instigators of change do come across as "loonies"... In fact many people think lycra clad cyclists are loonies!SheikYerbouti wrote:Sue Abbott may have a position that many sympathise with, but she comes across as slightly loony
LOL! How would this comparative study pass the ethics committee!fat and old wrote:Re the Sue Abbot use of the diffuse axonal injury argument...If you were to strike the ground with your head hard enough (I have no idea how "hard" this has to be) to suffer this injury without having a helmet what would be the likely outcome? Has any comparative study been done?
She is doing far more than most people. She is getting press coverage. And the ratio of positive tabloid comments to negative is higher than most cycling stories!fat and old wrote:And she does nothing to help the situation through her behavior.
We have politicians who don't understand or refuse to believe the connection.uart wrote:So we have magistrates in Australia that still don't understand the connection between fossil fuel usage and global warming. Seriously?
'
Yeah, but it's good though isn't it.human909 wrote:How many Australian laws is the King of the Netherland and the Princess breaking in this photograph?
I don't know about the laws, but the orange pants are definitely a fashion crime.human909 wrote:How many Australian laws is the King of the Netherland and the Princess breaking in this photograph?
The Princess is the one who isn't riding the bike.
Users browsing this forum: chyaroh
