Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

I keep a few very sharp knives in the kitchen. Over the years I've got
very good at bandaging up rather nasty knife cuts. Not mine, other
peoples. I actually specially keep certain first aid supplies just for
that purpose.

I've tried all sorts of ways to reduce the accident rate. I got as far
as keeping two sets of knives, one ordinarily blunt, one very sharp,
keeping the very sharp ones on a different knife holder, marking their
handles specially, and putting a big notice on the wall warning about
very sharp knives, how their handles were marked, explaining the basic
rules of knife safety, and recommending their avoidance by the
inexperienced.

*Nothing* worked to reduce the accident rate, so now I keep the
sharpest knives in a secret hiding place, and I don't let anyone else
use them.

The point is, if accidents are the unavoidable hazard of fate, how
come some other people have such a high knife accident rate compared
to me? Even though my exposure to sharp knives is enormously greater
than theirs?

I suspect that one reason is that I don't think cutting yourself with
a sharp knife is an accident. I think it's a combination of
carelessness and foolhardiness. I notice that one characteristic
shared by all those who have cut themselves with my knives is that
they sincerely believe that it was an accident, an unavoidable hazard
of fate. In fact I have sometimes been strongly criticised for
exposing people to such unavoidable hazards by sharpening my knives.

The point is that if you think accidents are unavoidable you will keep
having them. You might even go so far as to buy a Volvo to protect
yourself. Whereas if you think accidents are your fault for being
careless, then you will learn to avoid them.

It's much easier to learn how to do something if you think you *can*
learn it. If you think you can't learn it then very likely you
won't. You may remember noticing that at school.

 

The advantage of having a big brain, as Karl Popper pointed out, is
that one can use one's brain to construct imaginary cases and work out
what might happen in them. He expressed it rather more pithily as
"permitting our hypotheses die in our stead".

It's a free country and your choice. But if in fact you do have a
small brain rather than simply remediable ignorance I apologise for
mocking the afflicted.

 

But the geometry of cars is such that they can take advantage of

Yebbut aren't we talking about real-life situations rather than lab-based
ones, in which case you forgot to factor in the greater use motorcycles
make of brick walls, trees and other traffic as braking aids.

 

I've done that. And cursed myself roundly afterwards for not stopping
and sharpening the bloody thing, because I knew full well that I
should have done. No accident, then, but the predictable consequence
of impatience.

Guy

 

All we need now is some evidence that the average cager is capable of
understanding the possible consequences of their actions. Should be
along any century now...

Guy

 

Out of the few occasions I've cut myself with a knife, a majority have
been because the damn thing was not sharp enough - and by applying too
much pressure to try to get it to cut something, I've caused it to slip
and injure me.

Don't get me wrong - I agree with you that most accidents are avoidable,
but perhaps only at the price of being excessively risk-averse. Sometimes
the cost of avoidance outweighs the risk which when taken leads
to the accident. Like when you are starving hungry and need to cut
something and the only knife available is not as sharp as you'd like...

 

I've done that. And cursed myself roundly afterwards for not stopping

Or of holding the thing in such a way that it'll cut you if it slips?

 

Indeed. Since the braking characteristics of motorbikes making use of
these "stopping aids" are exceptionally high, what is really needed is
an improvement in the armour used to protect the rider. ;-)

Jon

 

Did that three years ago using a scalpel to cut off the bar tape.
The knife slipped and cut into my left thumb cutting tendons.
It led to a night in hospital and the whole lower forearm in plaster for
several weeks :-(

I still can't move the thumb to touch my palm.

John B

 

I don't think you mean real _life_ ...

 

So it's equally possibly the safest. Pretty pointless statement in the
first place.

 

Indeed, either what was written wasn't what was meant (indeed it didn't mean
anything other than to imply something without any evidence whatsoever) or
there was a claim that transporting a child in a trailer is particularly
dangerous.

So I was presuming that there was no point in posting a completely pointless
post and addressed the implication rather than the legalistic interpretation
of what was written.

My apologies. I forgot that this is Usenet and that hair splitting is only
allowed if it doesn't show the Nugentoid or Huge to be mistaken.

FWIW we can have some evidence: There was recently a thread in URC which
included reference to a child being killed in an unfortunate accident.

To the best of my knowledge no child has been killed or seriously injured in
an unpremeditated collision in a cycle trailer. Unlike transport in a car.
We therefore can conclude that the death rate in motorised vehicles is
higher and they are therefore more dangerous.

So yes, there is no possibility of transporting a child in a bike trailer to
be the *most* dangerous way to transport a child.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt in assuming they actually
have something worthwhile to contribute. Obviously not.

...d

 

Yebbut pedestrians don't count, as any fool kno...

 

The fact that official bodies are moving away from using the word
'accident', doesn't mean there's any logic to do so.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=accident

In case you're pressed for time, I'll quote some of it for you.

"An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or
harm: car accidents on icy roads.

An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to his promotion.

AND

"an unexpected usually sudden event that occurs without intent or volition
although sometimes_through_carelessness,_unawareness,_ignorance, or a
combination of causes and that produces an unfortunate result (as an injury)
for which the affected party may be entitled to relief under the law or to
compensation under an insurance policy"

In short, the word is perfectly appropriate whether it's preventable or not
even if it's the result of stupidity.

 

So what is unexpected about crashing when driving on an icy road?

The point is not whether it is technically correct to use the word
"accident" but whether its use bolsters a view of road safty which
builds in the assumption of large scale death and injury, rather than
one which builds in an aspiration to safety.

Guy

 

<bewildered>

That's not my definition, it's the dictionary definition!. I can't help it
if it doesn't match yours. So long as the incident isn't intentional, it can
be descibed as an accident.

Eh? Why? Since the definition covers incidents which are a result of
carelessness etc, why do we need to use a different word. As long as people
don't go around inventing their own definitions, we'll be OK.

Anyway, why is it better to use the word crash, which is entirely neutral
and doesn't imply fault? Surely, that makes them sound even more like events
which 'just happen'.

 

It's a pretty strange definition, which actualy goes to the heart of
the matter: what, indeed, is unexpected in this case?

Because... Oh, forget it. You're never going to understand the
point, presumably because I am not capable of putting it cogently
enough. You could try reading a copy of "Death On The Streets: Cars
and the mythology of road safety" by Bob Davis. Or almost anything on
the subject of road safety by Meyer Hillman.

Guy

 

I agree that making mention of icy roads isn't all that helpful but I'd
still assume that most people aren't expecting to have an accident even when
they do drive on icy roads - or they wouldn't venture out - and certainly
don't have them deliberately.

Lol. Sounds like a tactful way of calling me stupid? )

No, I do understand your point, it's just that I think it's based on a false
premise. I'm not making a point about road safety here; I'm making a point
about use of words and the pointlessness of using a different word to
descibe the same thing when the original word was perfectly appropriate and
correct.

 

Nice line in condescension you have there; not a very good line in leaving
context of previous posts, but I digress.

Other than your definition of what a dictionary is, (for which I'm grateful,
by the way, since I assumed that before the first dictionary was compiled,
language did not exist) I'm not sure what you're bringing to the party. If
dictionaries catalogue usage, and if that usage is widely accepted then what
exactly is the problem of using that word to describe, what it does, in
fact, describe?

To me, and I'm willing to bet most people, an accident is an unexpected,
unplanned, non-deliberate event, the result of which might be bad. The fact
that the safety lobby want to call these events 'crashes', does not make the
use of the word 'accident' wrong.