I finished Couch to 5K today!
(The Zombies run version)
I've been working on this since February.
I finished Couch to 5K today!
(The Zombies run version)
I've been working on this since February.
Where did you get the impression that European countries do this on a large enough scale to matter*? There are separate bike roads in some cities, but they tend to end abruptly and lead straight into traffic at places where nobody expects cyclists to appear or show similar acts of genius in their design. If you photograph just the right sections, they definitely look neat. But integrating car and bike traffic in a crowded city is a non-trivial problem; especially in Europe where roads tend to follow winding goat paths from the Dark Ages and are way too narrow for today's traffic levels already.
While the plural of anecdote is not data, two of my friends suffered serious head trauma in a bicycle accident they never fully recovered from (without a helmet, they'd likely be dead), while nobody I know personally ever was in a severe car accident. And quick search also seems to indicate that cycling is about as dangerous as driving (with both of them paling by comparison to motorcycles...).
*with the possible exception of the Netherlands, but even for them I'm not sure.
Where did you get the impression that by "it's far safer" that I meant "it's far safer... than driving"?
i am completely ignoring your anecdotes - they cannot be taken for actual data. I have friends that have been in extremely dangerous car accidents. I have a friend who was killed in a car crash. Anecdotes are a bad idea on this.
I'd be happy with real data on the actual base rates of this stuff, and yes, perhaps the bike lanes are not sufficient to overcome the danger of riding off the bike lane. But I don't think it's quite as bad as you're making out. It definitely depends on where you need to get to by bike... but my experience with riding in Perth was that I could ride from the outer suburbs to the city without going through traffic. The same for large portions of Sydney (once you hit the main bike routes along the freeways). If you're riding into the CBD, but get off your bike before hitting the main CBD streets themselves (ie choose your route carefully), then you can get to a goodly portion of the city without hitting the (I agree) utterly ridiculous bad bike lanes
...and that's before even considering Europe.
But yeah, if you have some real data, I'm happy to change my mind.
Donated $25,000. My employer will also match $6,000 of that, for a grand total of $31,000.
I donated $100 (AU$140)
Note, this is the same event as http://lesswrong.com/meetups/1bx But we've noticed there are two names for it... so we have it twice
Note: this is the same meetup/camp as: http://lesswrong.com/meetups/1bt We just noticed that there were two competing names for it... so now we have both, just in case.
The event is also on facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/events/739163932864385/
I have successfully gone for a run three times a week all month.
It's often possible to sidestep the difficulty of communicating evidence by focusing on explaining relevant concepts, which usually doesn't require evidence (or references), except as clarifying further reading. Evidence may be useful as motivation, when it's easier to communicate in the outline than the concepts, but not otherwise. And after the concepts are clear, evidence may become easier to communicate.
(Imagine trying to convince a denizen of Ancient Greece that there is a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy. You won't get to presenting actual astronomical observations for quite some time, and might start with the entirely theoretical geometry and mechanics. Even the mechanics doesn't have to be motivated by experimental verification, as it's interesting as mathematics on its own. And mentioning black holes may be ill-advised at that stage.)
I think this depends strongly on whether the person you're explaining-to is initially open or closed to your ideas.
An example - if a new-earth creationist approached me to talk about their ideas on the creation of earth - I would not want them to spend time explaining their ideas until they showed me sufficient evidence to warrant my expenditure of time.
By comparison, most people on LessWrong I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and let them explain the idea, then go look up evidence to confirm whether it has a solid foundation.
Keeping in mind that tendency to auto-accept ideas told to us...
Or because they share basic cultural assumptions: how parents ought to treat their children, how children out to treat their parents, how teenagers ought to decide what to do as adults, how strangers ought to behave towards other strangers, etc. Japan and the USA have definite cultural differences, the most basic of which, massively simplified, is individualism versus collectivism as a society. This makes fiction written by Japanese authors and set in Japan seem alien to readers from the USA; in an appealing, artsy, interesting way maybe, but still alien.
I can easily see such a mechanism operating with the cultural differences between males and females who both live the USA (or in Japan) could have a similar effect, making male-oriented fiction feel a bit odd and alien to girls who read a lot of chick lit because it's what their mothers and sisters and friends recommend all the time. I can see this transferring over, more subtly, to differences in styles of non-fiction writing and blogging. I don't know if it actually does, but it might.
Our comrades hopes and dreams are etched into its code, transforming even Platonic darkness into light!
Unmatched in Heaven and Earth: one program, one engine, whose power surpasses even the gods!
SUPER GALAXY PROBABILISTIC HALTING!
Witness: the power of the human race!
Can you explain what you did?