The self-evident versus the counter-intuitive

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: The self-evident versus the counter-intuitive

Postby Tonyf33 » 14 Sep 2013, 7:50pm

Mick F wrote:
Si wrote:I think that there are examples closer to home, for instance the debate about where in the lane to ride: the self-evident might suggest 'as far from the cars as possible, right in the gutter' whereas the counter intuitive would say 'out in secondary or primary where the cars will see you and won't try to squeeze past'.
Yep.
That works for me.

Today in Tavistock, we drove through and there were a couple of cyclists. They were oblivious to the traffic around them and TBH got in the way. I squeezed past them, and Mrs Mick F suggested they were very bad examples of cyclists and gave cyclists a bad name.
I had no problem squeezing past. They probably had no problem with me squeezing past. Perhaps they thought that all traffic always squeezed past all cyclists. They seemed fully accepting of the situation and were content to be squeezed. Good job I was in control and understanding the situation!

Had it been me cycling, I'd have been in control of the traffic, out in primary, holding my own. Someone like me in a car wouldn't have been able to squeeze past.

Great thread Horizon!
Good analogy and a good slogan too.

They gave cyclists a bad name because they allowed motorists to pass unsafely, yet you proceeded to do exactly that at an unsafe distance (squeezing past) something that evokes particular chagrin in cycling circles, that makes total sense :?

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 48241
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: The self-evident versus the counter-intuitive

Postby Mick F » 14 Sep 2013, 8:17pm

You weren't there and you didn't see.

I used the phrase "squeezed past" because it was used where I was quoting, and illustrated my point quite well.
I hope you didn't think I was putting those two cyclists in danger ............... coz I wasn't.
I hope they are still ok, because I feel that they are in danger in the future from vehicle drivers less sympathetic than me.
Mick F. Cornwall

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: The self-evident versus the counter-intuitive

Postby Tonyf33 » 14 Sep 2013, 8:41pm

you don't 'squeeze past', how can you know that they accept it, why should they as cyclists accept that, do you? in any case it sets a bad example to other drivers is that accceptible .. Classy that those in the big metal thingy are pronouncing that those cycling along minding their own business are 'setting a bad example' yet you squezzed past anyway...righty ho

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 48241
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: The self-evident versus the counter-intuitive

Postby Mick F » 14 Sep 2013, 8:58pm

You weren't there, you don't know where we were or how slow we we driving or how slow they were riding or what the traffic was like, so you cannot comment.

I was very much in control, and kept an eye on them ............ so did Mrs Mick F. :lol:

Going round this bend to the left.
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=tavist ... 79,,0,5.91
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: The self-evident versus the counter-intuitive

Postby hubgearfreak » 14 Sep 2013, 9:03pm

Mick F wrote:I hope you didn't think I was putting those two cyclists in danger ............... coz I wasn't.


almost all close overtaking motorists don't think that they're putting cyclists in danger.
perhaps you knew that they weren't about to suddenly swerve to avoid glass/pothole or get knocked sideways by a dog. if so, brilliant driving, you're clearly way above average.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 48241
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: The self-evident versus the counter-intuitive

Postby Mick F » 14 Sep 2013, 9:11pm

Oh good grief! :evil:
I was only illustrating a point as per the OP.

There are no potholes, there was no glass and there wasn't a dog, not even a pedestrian at the time.
I was doing about 5mph up a one-way street with two cyclists oblivious to everything, but steering a course on the far left as far to the left as they could get in and out of the parked cars with not a thought to the door zones.

Had it been me, I'd have been going faster and holding a primary position.

I crept past them - squeezing? - with plenty space for them to gaze about and daydream.

I'm a keen and proficient cyclist and I understand cycling. Please don't think I'm not and I don't.
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
Benethi
Posts: 303
Joined: 6 Jun 2010, 9:50pm

Re: The self-evident versus the counter-intuitive

Postby Benethi » 14 Sep 2013, 10:15pm

The Monty Hall problem.

I've used it as an example of why not to trust intuition when debating helmets with people!
"Frankly, I’m suspicious of anyone who has a strong opinion on a complicated issue" - Scott Adams
Photos:
Scott's Travels 2010
Sparky's Travels 2012
Sparky's Travels 2013
:)

Geriatrix
Posts: 1852
Joined: 23 Oct 2007, 1:33pm
Location: Caterham

Re: The self-evident versus the counter-intuitive

Postby Geriatrix » 14 Sep 2013, 10:55pm

Benethi wrote:The Monty Hall problem.

I've used it as an example of why not to trust intuition when debating helmets with people!

Like most I got the Monty Hall problem wrong when I was presented with it. I was quite proud to have figured out the solution on my own but its not easy to explain. I failed miserably to convince a chartered engineer. I believe there are some mathematicians that don't get it.

Another good one is Simpson's Paradox. Much easier than the Monty Hall problem by some stretch.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled - Richard Feynman

User avatar
Mr. Viking
Posts: 371
Joined: 6 Jun 2012, 9:29pm
Location: Liverpool

Re: The self-evident versus the counter-intuitive

Postby Mr. Viking » 14 Sep 2013, 11:55pm

Geriatrix wrote:
Benethi wrote:The Monty Hall problem.

I've used it as an example of why not to trust intuition when debating helmets with people!

Like most I got the Monty Hall problem wrong when I was presented with it. I was quite proud to have figured out the solution on my own but its not easy to explain. I failed miserably to convince a chartered engineer. I believe there are some mathematicians that don't get it.

Another good one is Simpson's Paradox. Much easier than the Monty Hall problem by some stretch.

Paul Erdos, the Hungarian who was famous for his algebra was one example. He could have been having one of his jokes, or it could have been a lack of understanding. His maths outside of his preferred field was not great

drossall
Posts: 4700
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: The self-evident versus the counter-intuitive

Postby drossall » 15 Sep 2013, 12:12am

Nearer to home, various things in road safety have been reversed. Straightening roads and removing obstacles, for example, has been found in some circumstances to lead to worse accidents. The whole thing about removing clear indications of priority and letting road users negotiate (in built-up and residential areas) being safer is the antithesis of the old thinking.

It's little more than hyperbole, but various safety and medical authorities have advocated spikes, instead of air bags, on steering wheels.

User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 4202
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: The self-evident versus the counter-intuitive

Postby bovlomov » 15 Sep 2013, 12:15am

drossall wrote:Nearer to home, various things in road safety have been reversed. Straightening roads and removing obstacles, for example, has been found in some circumstances to lead to worse accidents. The whole thing about removing clear indications of priority and letting road users negotiate (in built-up and residential areas) being safer is the antithesis of the old thinking.

Yes, indeed! And we can thank Hans Monderman for much of the new thinking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Monderman

mrjemm
Posts: 2933
Joined: 20 Nov 2011, 4:33pm

Re: The self-evident versus the counter-intuitive

Postby mrjemm » 15 Sep 2013, 1:43am

The idea that mobile phones, the internet, and other aspects designed for 'an easy life of leisure' would set us free.

Like the good old robots letting us relax... as they reduce jobs. Gotta love Ned Ludd's boys. they had something.

kwackers
Posts: 14368
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: The self-evident versus the counter-intuitive

Postby kwackers » 15 Sep 2013, 11:06am

Geriatrix wrote:
Benethi wrote:The Monty Hall problem.

I've used it as an example of why not to trust intuition when debating helmets with people!

Like most I got the Monty Hall problem wrong when I was presented with it. I was quite proud to have figured out the solution on my own but its not easy to explain. I failed miserably to convince a chartered engineer. I believe there are some mathematicians that don't get it.

Another good one is Simpson's Paradox. Much easier than the Monty Hall problem by some stretch.

The Monty Hall problem is all about point of view. If you take the right point of view it's quite easy to explain - it only gets difficult when you allow mathematicians to explain it.

Simply put:
You pick a box, everyone will agree the chances of getting the right box is 1 in 3.

Next (and most importantly) you get them to agree that the odds are that there's a 2 in 3 chance that the prize is in the remaining boxes.
Then ask them if they'd swap their box for the remaining 2 boxes - you'd need to be pretty stupid not to agree that would be the best thing to do.

Next you tell them that you'll remove one of the boxes that won't have the prize in, logically they still have to agree that the remaining box must have a 2 in 3 chance of holding the prize.

Once you get there it should be obvious to anyone that the remaining box must have a 2 in 3 chance of holding the prize whilst the box they've got only has a 1 in 3 chance, therefore they should change their mind.

Of course where it falls down is that people get emotionally and irrationally attached to their choice - but that's the basis of this thread isn't it? :wink:

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 48241
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: The self-evident versus the counter-intuitive

Postby Mick F » 15 Sep 2013, 11:09am

kwackers wrote: ................ people get emotionally and irrationally attached to their choice - but that's the basis of this thread isn't it? :wink:
Yep.
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: The self-evident versus the counter-intuitive

Postby meic » 24 Nov 2016, 6:03pm

TonyR wrote:Jevons' Paradox. The more efficiently you consume a resource, the more of it you consume.

Gyroscopes. They move at right angles to the direction you push them.

The Mpemba effect whereby a hot glass of water will freeze quicker than a cold glass of water if you put them in a freezer together.

The earth is flat and the stars revolve around it.

Segregated cycle tracks

Risk compensation.

Etc, etc

Though now science is coming around to admitting that in actual fact cold water does freeze faster than hot water after all!
Yma o Hyd