Any question answered...

Does anyone in Canary Wharf have a Garmin that I can borrow this afternoon for 1 hour - I can have it back to them by home time this evening.

You've been told once.

on a custom frame, would a tapered or a 44mm headtube be more 'future proof'?

Has anyone used a pdf to word converter which doesn't do a rubbish job of keeping the formatting?

Yes, more fork are available in those sizes.

44mm with tapered fork = 10-ish mm added stack
tapered HT with tapered fork = no stack addition and sits nice and flush

tapered HT with straight fork = just no (looks ugly)

conclusion: 'future proof' doesent exist unless ugly so either decide forks or go 44mm.

A straight 44mm head tube would allow you the option of either using a straight 44mm fork or a tapered fork with a shim at the top, wouldn't it? Or is that a terrible idea.

@edscoble your answer isn't an answer.

Edit 'cos I'm chatting shit. So is 44mm the OD of a 1 1/8" headtube?
If so, would it be possible have a headtube for 1.5" steerer and run tapered forks with a shim at the top (and maybe a shim at the bottom for regular 1 1/8" steerer?).

Sorry, tapered is future proof as it is, don't think manufacturer gonna switch away from 1 1/8 anytime soon.

So is 44mm the OD of a 1 1/8" headtube?

No. 44mm ID head tube allows for either a zero stack 1⅛" headset or a conventional external cup 1½" headset. On a road bike, the more common arrangement is an EC44 lower and a ZS upper, to take a 1½" to 1⅛" tapered steerer. In theory it's also possible to accommodate any intermediate size too, e.g. 1⅜/1⅛ taper as seen on some Cervelos, 1½/1¼ taper as used by Giant, 1¼/1⅛ taper which is an option from some fork makers including 3T. It's as future proof as you can get while the market still hasn't settled on a universal steerer shape. Not all of the options will look pretty, and as @amey points out, using a ZS lower to accommodate a straight 1⅛" fork will change your frame geometry compared with the EC lower, and using an EC upper to accommodate steerers with top ends bigger than 1⅛" will add to your stack height, although that's easily overcome with different stems.

Is there a thread for the discussion of statistics?

usually

Is there a thread for the discussion of statistics?

What sort of discussion? Maths Buffs is probably the most likely existing thread to garner sensible answers if you want to talk technicalities.

Surprisingly, the football thread can throw up some gems.

Situation is as follows:

Chap A is making an assertion that the apparent effect of speed cameras to reduce accident rates and serverity of outcome is actually regression to the mean, rather than anything to do with people having to drive more slowly.

As far as I understand RTM this relies on the camera having been sited at a spot that had just experienced a spike in accidents - and the reduction observed after the camera install is due to the number of accidents trending down to the mean.

What I'm failing to see is how this could be used to explain a reduction in accidents at an accident blackspot post camera install - as the mean (if I am using the terms correctly) has been well above average accident rates for the UK for some time, hence it being known as an accident blackspot.

What am I missing?

What am I missing?

That a fairly short duration random spike in the accident rate can be sufficient to get a place a reputation as a black spot.

Therefore RTM explains all reductions in KSI's?

Matey-boy is saying that any study that compares the stats at the same site before and after camera installation is invalid due to RTM, and that the only way of proving that cameras work would be to pick two blackspots and put the cameras only at one, then tot up the crash stats after 5 years.

Whilst his approach would work (although I'd want both sites to be indentical, which is unlikely), I don't believe that comparing before/after figures is worthless.

That said, I've never really paid attention in mathematics class, as evidenced by my B at GCSE.

Therefore RTM explains all reductions in KSI's?

No, loads of other confounding factors are involved, making it difficult to ascribe effects to any particular intervention in a reliable way.

I'll just start making shit up then

I'll just start making shit up then

That's what governments do when making claims for the potential or realised effects of their interventions.

WWTD

Hmm, so you are saying I'm in the company of politicians. Well, such is life.

TBH the only reason I'm arguing with the chap is because he's referenced his position by extensively cherry picking from a bunch of different reports, all of which directly contradict his conclusion when you read them in full.

That and the Internet was (In my view) created largely to facilitate arguing.

Here is his site: http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/index.html

the Internet was (In my view) created largely to facilitate arguing

http://xkcd.com/406/

Cycling with a trailer.

What are the hints, tips and tricks I need to know?

1 Attachment

That and the Internet was (In my view) created largely to facilitate arguing.

Oh no it wasn't.