Aren't the atmospheres on gas giants so thick and dense that we could make "Cloud Cities" that float on top of the thickest/densest parts of the atmosphere?
... it is still largely a talent based industry...
Of course, you are aware that the concept of "talent" is utter bullshit, right?
Yes, people have differences in "natural ability" but that accounts for less than 1% of the variability in performance. The vast majority of differences in performance are accounted for by practice, training and experience.
No, I'm not wrong, and just the fact that I, someone actually researching AI...
You realize you just contradicted yourself right? If your definition of AI is correct, then what you are researching doesn't count as AI because it doesn't exist yet, therefore you are NOT an AI researcher, and there is no "AI field" because there's no AI to study.
At best that would make you a proto- or pseudo- AI researcher.
On the other hand, if my definition is correct, then you can actually be called an AI researcher, but doing so proves my initial point. Just the fact that you call yourself an AI researcher belies the fact that you don't even have the conviction of your own beliefs.
I will agree there are a small number of people who research AI - but only consider "strong AI" to be true AI - however they're a pretty small minority and they qualify what they mean by stressing the true or strong bit in order not to confuse the other AI researchers as to what they're talking about.
P.S. did you have any posters, papers or talks at AAAI 2014? Perhaps I saw some of your stuff. What area are you working on?
Well, no, they don't, but I'll agree that some do.
I am sorry, but you are wrong. I was at the AAAI conference this year, and there were thousands of AI researchers there working on some pretty amazing stuff, but not one of the people I talked to was like "oh, yeah, we're not doing *real* AI, we're just faking it"
Whether you like it or not, things like neural networks, genetic algorithms, deep learning, data mining, decision trees, fuzzy logic etc... are ALL real AI. Simply because it doesn't fit your Hollywood and TV induced concept of what AI is, doesn't make them any less AI. To call them something else would be asinine, and basically amounts to telling a whole field of research that they aren't doing what they think they're doing. Do you also think that cars explode on impact?
What you are talking about is called "strong AI" or "artificial general intelligence" (AGI) - which is an entire subfield of AI.
You're the kind of person that would tell a pilot that they're not REALLY flying because they're strapped into a vehicle, and not outside in the air buck naked and flapping their arms, aren't you?
Not true. While I disagree with your "ask a human on the street" approach, if you DID ask a human on the street whether Deep Blue or Watson were AI, they would say "yes" because they've been reported in the media as being so.
If it isn't self-aware, it isn't AI. It's just a useful application.
The entire field of AI disagrees with you.
What you really mean is it's not AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) if it isn't self-aware.
AI is already here, and it's all around us: in your washing machine, in your dishwasher, in longshoreman cranes, in your car, in Google, in Facebook etc...
Both Deep Blue and Watson were essentially "just a look-up program" yet they are considered actual AI, just not the self-aware, generally intelligent kind.
The difference being that the ECoG system appears to simply lay the electrode mesh on top of your cortex, traditional direct neural links involve actually puncturing and penetrating neural tissue with many tiny pins.
Unless we're somehow going to regulate laser pointers like guns, it would be far more effective
LOL - yeah, because "gun regulation" in the US has proven *SO* effective at reducing gun crimes!
Training an army of ninja squirrels to steal laser pointers from kids would be cheaper and more effective...
ALL climatologists are idiots who don't know about the scientific method, the whole thing is being covered up by some pseudo-religious apocalyptic cult AND "Big Green" has more money than "Big Oil"?
Jesus H. Christ! We have to do something! We have to tell someone! This is scary HUGE!!!
Why hasn't this gotten out yet? Who's got a stranglehold on this? We need to stop them ASAP.
Wait, what was that click, are they listening to this?
Nevermind, I have NO idea what you're talking about, this AGW thing is *totes* real! (*wink* *wink*)
Ok, I give. You've clearly got this all figured out, climatology is obviously pseudoscience.
I'm curious though, since you've got better reasoning skills and insight than all the climatologists, how did they do it?
How did they get all the climatologists to think they're doing science when they're not, and to come to the consensus that AGW is real? I mean manipulating an entire field of academia is some pretty scary, nex level shit.
Are all climatologists just idiots? Is it some kind of conspiracy? Is it because "Big Green" is simply out-spending "Big Oil" to buy scientists' favour?
You have to help me out here, without your brilliant insights and superior reasoning, I don't think I'll be able to figure it out on my own - and I need to know! The uncertainty is frightening.
Oh man, shit shit shit. They got to you! How did they get to you? This is bad, very bad...
Think man! THINK! Shake it off. Gravity was already falsified by Einstein, those predictions fail on relativistic scale! Of course, instead of admitting that gravity was wrong, the left-wing "Gravitationist" establishment simply came up with a bunch of excuses as to why their predictions failed, and then changed their theory to match the data!
It's the same thing they're doing with AGW and astrology. Don't buy it man, snap out of it! They don't give a crap about truth, just pushing the "Gravitationist" agenda.
Hold tight man, you've opened my eyes, so I owe you one, I won't sit by and see you brainwashed by "them". I'll find you, I don't know how - but I will, and we'll get you the help you need, I just hope it's not too late.
Oh, crap! There's someone at the door! I think they've found me too! How did they get here so quick? Just hang on, don't give up, we're coming for you brother, we'll get you out of there! Gotta disappear now...
...gravity [has] necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement[s]...
Oh, yeah? Prove it.
Now that you have opened my eyes about this global "science" conspiracy, I cannot live in darkness anymore. The path you have laid for me is clear. Everything must be equally called in to question until I get personally satisfying answers.
...except about something like catastrophic anthropogenic global warming:)
Oh man, you are totally right! How could I have been so blind! We should be more skeptical about shit like evolution and gravity too! Down with close minded dogma!
LOL - how can you say that with a straight face? You must be trying to be funny. Admit it, you chuckled a bit as you typed that didn't you?
Re:I'm a cyclist too, and you're victim-blaming
on
How Safe Is Cycling?
·
· Score: 1
It's an example of how 95% of cyclists in my city and many others ride.
No. This statement is an example of how biased your perceptions and recollections are. As other people have already pointed out, in any study ever done on the subject, the results have been the same: the vast majority of bike-car collisions are caused by motorists, not cyclists.
The problem is that the way the human perceptual and attentional systems work is that we only notice, perceive and remember things which stand out or generate an emotional reaction. Just about everything else gets filtered out. We literally don't notice, attend to, or remember the instances which don't stand out or don't piss us off. So, either:
1) all studies done on the subject are wrong and you have some kind of superhuman cognitive abilities
OR
2) you are wrong and making stuff up
It's likely not intentional on your part - it very well could be that 95% of the cyclists you observe do behave in this manner, but this is only because you are literally failing to notice the vast majority of cyclists who don't behave recklessly or piss you off somehow.
Our perceptions and recollections are horribly biased, and even more so concerning "the Others" that are not part of our in-group. Correcting for this bias is the primary reason we have science. And the science on this says you are wrong. Unless you are a superhero, in which case you should probably be out fighting crime instead of wasting time on Slashdot.
Re:It would be safer if cyclists followed traffic
on
How Safe Is Cycling?
·
· Score: 1
We're reading the study quite differently. I think it's quite clear that the researchers were interested in neither legal culpability nor determining which party made the "worse" error in judgement. They quite clearly state that listing an accident as caused by one party or another is for classification purposes only.
I agree that we are reading it differently, and I admit your interpretation of the researchers' interests is a possible one - but it is far from clear. It certainly isn't clearly stated that the labels are for "classification purposes only" anywhere. Do you mean this quote?:
The categories are defined by the driver- or cyclist-actions that describe each event most succinctly. Categories named "Ride Out..." refer to the actions of a cyclist, while "Drive Out..." refers to the actions of a motorist. Although they may refer to the actions of only one party, these labels are not intended to assign fault.
Again the "assign fault" in the above quote means legal culpability. Possibly it means physical "cause" as well, but this is doubtful, as they are quite clear about making a specific distinction between "cause" and legal "fault" later on (when discussing cyclists riding on the sidewalk):
...While cyclists in such cases may therefore be deemed at fault in law, it is probably not correct to suggest that sidewalk cycling was the sole "cause" of these collisions. In many collisions of this type, it is quite likely that the motorist did not come to a complete stop before crossing the stop bar....
As you can see here, they are saying that while a cyclist riding on a sidewalk who gets struck by a car at an intersection might be found legally culpable they attribute the actual cause of the accident to the motorist's behaviour
Nowhere do they say the bins are arbitrary classifications. The bit about "...that describe each event most succinctly" indicates that the bins ARE related to the behaviours which precipitated the collision. Furthermore, their bin types are derived from (and meant to be comparable to) those of the Federal Highway Administration's (which you can find here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/96104/). The FHA's crash types are specifically defined as:
These crashes can be classified or "typed" by their precipitating actions, predisposing factors, and characteristic populations and/or location that can be targeted for intervention.
So, the type classifications they're using are very much meant to indicate which behaviour precipitated the collision (and who's behaviour needs to be corrected)
In the quotes I included above the researchers disclaim both fault and absolute cause.
I believe I have already adequately addressed your first quote, but your second quote: "Thus it cannot be said, for instance, that more cyclists than motorists caused collisions by disobeying traffic control." is taken entirely out of context. It's from a section dealing with other secondary contributing factors that may have played a role in addition to the main cause. The sentence you quoted is referring to their inability to make an accurate comparison of cyclist caused collisions due to disobeying traffic control vs motorist caused collisions due to disobeying traffic control - because secondary contributing factors were not recorded in all cases. Here's the same quote with the relevant preceding context:
...Note that, while some of these factors (weather conditions, etc.) are known in almost all cases, others (such as disobeying traffic control) appear to have been reported less consistently. Thus it cannot be said, for instance, that more cyclists than motorists caused collisions by disobeying traffic control.
In other words, the bikers that were hurt were stupid enough to assume that the motorist was in any way paying attention. You can hugely reduce the risk by making that assumption and acting accordingly, including beady ready to swerve out of a bike lane if a car weaves into it.
It may have technically been the motorist at "fault", but from my biking experience on real roads if you just assume cars have no idea you are there you will save yourself from many a near miss and/or accident. I'd rather be alive than smug.
I agree completely. I do precisely the same thing. I generally assumed that most motorists are criminally incompetent idiots. I know this is incorrect, and that the vast majority of motorists are good, law-abiding citizens and competent drivers who are aware of their surroundings. But when you're sharing the road with someone driving a 5 ton metal box at 3-4x your speed, assuming they're a moron can save your life.
Fair enough, my apologies for the misinterpretation.
The numbers I have seen do support your assertion that of ALL bike related injuries, most are related to the cyclist's behaviour, as most of them are simply falls that don't involve collisions with cars.
Re:It would be safer if cyclists followed traffic
on
How Safe Is Cycling?
·
· Score: 1
I have read the study, and I was aware of that caveat. However, you're misunderstanding the point - it was meant to address issues of legal culpability (e.g. fault vs. cause). Since the data were based on actual police reports, the researchers are basically disclaiming themselves from any claims of legal responsibility.
All you really need to do is look at "Table 3.2" in "Chapter 3: Key Findings" and sum the numbers for incidents caused by cyclists vs. those caused by motorists. The results are quite clear.
On the other hand, why should I be surprised that a cyclist doesn't bother to read the study they referenced, or that they automatically assume they're right regardless of what's actually in front of them? Such behavior matches perfectly with my observed actions of cyclists on the road!
I have nothing against motorists, but you certainly seem to have a bias against cyclists.
I could respond in kind, and assert that it certainly seems like it was you who didn't bother to actually look at the numbers or make a good faith effort to understand what was being said; and simply cherry picked a single comment out of context which appeared on first glance to support your preconceptions. I could also go on to make similar unwarranted assumptions about your behaviour, and claim that they match my observed actions of motorists on the road as well (they do in fact)
But you know what? It's not constructive, my own observations about motorists are likely biased in many ways (e.g. availability heuristic etc...). Making unwarranted assumptions about others based on biased preconceptions serves no one any good. So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did read the study and the numbers and simply misunderstood them.
In the future though, I would caution you to read things a bit more carefully before making unwarranted assumptions about another's behaviour or comprehension based solely on your own perceptions and preconceptions. It's always better to take a second look, and give them the benefit of the doubt.
To be clear, I wasn't criticizing your comments, just that study. I see it bandied about all the time by anti-helmet zealots, and few of them bother actually assessing it's merits, so it's become kind of a pet peeve for me:P
I've never owned a car and have been commuting by bike for 20+ years myself and I always wear a helmet. I've never done cross-country or long-distance biking, so I can't speak to that, but even just cycling in-city, I wouldn't wear a helmet if I didn't have to. They're hot, constricting and the straps chafe, but as you say, the benefits outweigh the annoyances, my brain is the most expensive thing I own! If there were any reliable empirical data showing that helmets are less safe, I would ditch mine in an instant.
I'm not sure about the overtaking thing though, in this study by the City of Toronto: http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/ "Motorist Overtaking" was the second most frequent cause of bike-car accidents (accounting for about ~12%), right after "Drive Out At Controlled Intersection" (by motorists - for cyclists it's called "Ride Out At Controlled Intersection"). I've seen stats for other major cities that corroborate the general finding (motorist behaviour causes the vast majority of incidents), but of course the specifics of types of incidents may vary by region.
Slashdot Mirror
Aren't the atmospheres on gas giants so thick and dense that we could make "Cloud Cities" that float on top of the thickest/densest parts of the atmosphere?
... it is still largely a talent based industry...
Of course, you are aware that the concept of "talent" is utter bullshit, right?
Yes, people have differences in "natural ability" but that accounts for less than 1% of the variability in performance. The vast majority of differences in performance are accounted for by practice, training and experience.
No, I'm not wrong, and just the fact that I, someone actually researching AI...
You realize you just contradicted yourself right? If your definition of AI is correct, then what you are researching doesn't count as AI because it doesn't exist yet, therefore you are NOT an AI researcher, and there is no "AI field" because there's no AI to study.
At best that would make you a proto- or pseudo- AI researcher.
On the other hand, if my definition is correct, then you can actually be called an AI researcher, but doing so proves my initial point. Just the fact that you call yourself an AI researcher belies the fact that you don't even have the conviction of your own beliefs.
I will agree there are a small number of people who research AI - but only consider "strong AI" to be true AI - however they're a pretty small minority and they qualify what they mean by stressing the true or strong bit in order not to confuse the other AI researchers as to what they're talking about.
P.S. did you have any posters, papers or talks at AAAI 2014? Perhaps I saw some of your stuff. What area are you working on?
LOL - true
Well, no, they don't, but I'll agree that some do.
I am sorry, but you are wrong. I was at the AAAI conference this year, and there were thousands of AI researchers there working on some pretty amazing stuff, but not one of the people I talked to was like "oh, yeah, we're not doing *real* AI, we're just faking it"
Whether you like it or not, things like neural networks, genetic algorithms, deep learning, data mining, decision trees, fuzzy logic etc... are ALL real AI. Simply because it doesn't fit your Hollywood and TV induced concept of what AI is, doesn't make them any less AI. To call them something else would be asinine, and basically amounts to telling a whole field of research that they aren't doing what they think they're doing. Do you also think that cars explode on impact?
What you are talking about is called "strong AI" or "artificial general intelligence" (AGI) - which is an entire subfield of AI.
You're the kind of person that would tell a pilot that they're not REALLY flying because they're strapped into a vehicle, and not outside in the air buck naked and flapping their arms, aren't you?
Only by AI researchers.
Not true. While I disagree with your "ask a human on the street" approach, if you DID ask a human on the street whether Deep Blue or Watson were AI, they would say "yes" because they've been reported in the media as being so.
we aren't currently spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to create Spiderman
I beg to differ:
http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...
UX expert: this new look won't scare users away, it'll let us serve more ads
Those are the same thing.
If it isn't self-aware, it isn't AI. It's just a useful application.
The entire field of AI disagrees with you.
What you really mean is it's not AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) if it isn't self-aware.
AI is already here, and it's all around us: in your washing machine, in your dishwasher, in longshoreman cranes, in your car, in Google, in Facebook etc...
Both Deep Blue and Watson were essentially "just a look-up program" yet they are considered actual AI, just not the self-aware, generally intelligent kind.
I, for one, am *shocked*. The CIA *lied*?!?
Shocked, I tell you.
The difference being that the ECoG system appears to simply lay the electrode mesh on top of your cortex, traditional direct neural links involve actually puncturing and penetrating neural tissue with many tiny pins.
Unless we're somehow going to regulate laser pointers like guns, it would be far more effective
LOL - yeah, because "gun regulation" in the US has proven *SO* effective at reducing gun crimes! Training an army of ninja squirrels to steal laser pointers from kids would be cheaper and more effective...
It's all THREE???
Wow. Just... wow. I had no idea.
ALL climatologists are idiots who don't know about the scientific method, the whole thing is being covered up by some pseudo-religious apocalyptic cult AND "Big Green" has more money than "Big Oil"?
Jesus H. Christ! We have to do something! We have to tell someone! This is scary HUGE!!!
Why hasn't this gotten out yet? Who's got a stranglehold on this? We need to stop them ASAP.
Wait, what was that click, are they listening to this?
Nevermind, I have NO idea what you're talking about, this AGW thing is *totes* real! (*wink* *wink*)
Ok, I give. You've clearly got this all figured out, climatology is obviously pseudoscience.
I'm curious though, since you've got better reasoning skills and insight than all the climatologists, how did they do it?
How did they get all the climatologists to think they're doing science when they're not, and to come to the consensus that AGW is real? I mean manipulating an entire field of academia is some pretty scary, nex level shit.
Are all climatologists just idiots? Is it some kind of conspiracy? Is it because "Big Green" is simply out-spending "Big Oil" to buy scientists' favour?
You have to help me out here, without your brilliant insights and superior reasoning, I don't think I'll be able to figure it out on my own - and I need to know! The uncertainty is frightening.
Oh man, shit shit shit. They got to you! How did they get to you? This is bad, very bad...
Think man! THINK! Shake it off. Gravity was already falsified by Einstein, those predictions fail on relativistic scale! Of course, instead of admitting that gravity was wrong, the left-wing "Gravitationist" establishment simply came up with a bunch of excuses as to why their predictions failed, and then changed their theory to match the data!
It's the same thing they're doing with AGW and astrology. Don't buy it man, snap out of it! They don't give a crap about truth, just pushing the "Gravitationist" agenda.
Hold tight man, you've opened my eyes, so I owe you one, I won't sit by and see you brainwashed by "them". I'll find you, I don't know how - but I will, and we'll get you the help you need, I just hope it's not too late.
Oh, crap! There's someone at the door! I think they've found me too! How did they get here so quick? Just hang on, don't give up, we're coming for you brother, we'll get you out of there! Gotta disappear now...
...gravity [has] necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement[s]...
Oh, yeah? Prove it.
Now that you have opened my eyes about this global "science" conspiracy, I cannot live in darkness anymore. The path you have laid for me is clear. Everything must be equally called in to question until I get personally satisfying answers.
That's a yes. Good joke.
...except about something like catastrophic anthropogenic global warming :)
Oh man, you are totally right! How could I have been so blind! We should be more skeptical about shit like evolution and gravity too! Down with close minded dogma!
...big solar and big wind...
LOL - how can you say that with a straight face? You must be trying to be funny. Admit it, you chuckled a bit as you typed that didn't you?
It's an example of how 95% of cyclists in my city and many others ride.
No. This statement is an example of how biased your perceptions and recollections are. As other people have already pointed out, in any study ever done on the subject, the results have been the same: the vast majority of bike-car collisions are caused by motorists, not cyclists.
The problem is that the way the human perceptual and attentional systems work is that we only notice, perceive and remember things which stand out or generate an emotional reaction. Just about everything else gets filtered out. We literally don't notice, attend to, or remember the instances which don't stand out or don't piss us off. So, either:
1) all studies done on the subject are wrong and you have some kind of superhuman cognitive abilities
OR
2) you are wrong and making stuff up
It's likely not intentional on your part - it very well could be that 95% of the cyclists you observe do behave in this manner, but this is only because you are literally failing to notice the vast majority of cyclists who don't behave recklessly or piss you off somehow.
Our perceptions and recollections are horribly biased, and even more so concerning "the Others" that are not part of our in-group. Correcting for this bias is the primary reason we have science. And the science on this says you are wrong. Unless you are a superhero, in which case you should probably be out fighting crime instead of wasting time on Slashdot.
We're reading the study quite differently. I think it's quite clear that the researchers were interested in neither legal culpability nor determining which party made the "worse" error in judgement. They quite clearly state that listing an accident as caused by one party or another is for classification purposes only.
I agree that we are reading it differently, and I admit your interpretation of the researchers' interests is a possible one - but it is far from clear. It certainly isn't clearly stated that the labels are for "classification purposes only" anywhere. Do you mean this quote?:
The categories are defined by the driver- or cyclist-actions that describe each event most succinctly. Categories named "Ride Out..." refer to the actions of a cyclist, while "Drive Out..." refers to the actions of a motorist. Although they may refer to the actions of only one party, these labels are not intended to assign fault.
Again the "assign fault" in the above quote means legal culpability. Possibly it means physical "cause" as well, but this is doubtful, as they are quite clear about making a specific distinction between "cause" and legal "fault" later on (when discussing cyclists riding on the sidewalk):
As you can see here, they are saying that while a cyclist riding on a sidewalk who gets struck by a car at an intersection might be found legally culpable they attribute the actual cause of the accident to the motorist's behaviour
Nowhere do they say the bins are arbitrary classifications. The bit about "...that describe each event most succinctly" indicates that the bins ARE related to the behaviours which precipitated the collision. Furthermore, their bin types are derived from (and meant to be comparable to) those of the Federal Highway Administration's (which you can find here: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/96104/). The FHA's crash types are specifically defined as:
These crashes can be classified or "typed" by their precipitating actions, predisposing factors, and characteristic populations and/or location that can be targeted for intervention.
So, the type classifications they're using are very much meant to indicate which behaviour precipitated the collision (and who's behaviour needs to be corrected)
In the quotes I included above the researchers disclaim both fault and absolute cause.
I believe I have already adequately addressed your first quote, but your second quote: "Thus it cannot be said, for instance, that more cyclists than motorists caused collisions by disobeying traffic control." is taken entirely out of context. It's from a section dealing with other secondary contributing factors that may have played a role in addition to the main cause. The sentence you quoted is referring to their inability to make an accurate comparison of cyclist caused collisions due to disobeying traffic control vs motorist caused collisions due to disobeying traffic control - because secondary contributing factors were not recorded in all cases. Here's the same quote with the relevant preceding context:
It's quite clear from that section that
In other words, the bikers that were hurt were stupid enough to assume that the motorist was in any way paying attention. You can hugely reduce the risk by making that assumption and acting accordingly, including beady ready to swerve out of a bike lane if a car weaves into it.
It may have technically been the motorist at "fault", but from my biking experience on real roads if you just assume cars have no idea you are there you will save yourself from many a near miss and/or accident. I'd rather be alive than smug.
I agree completely. I do precisely the same thing. I generally assumed that most motorists are criminally incompetent idiots. I know this is incorrect, and that the vast majority of motorists are good, law-abiding citizens and competent drivers who are aware of their surroundings. But when you're sharing the road with someone driving a 5 ton metal box at 3-4x your speed, assuming they're a moron can save your life.
Fair enough, my apologies for the misinterpretation.
The numbers I have seen do support your assertion that of ALL bike related injuries, most are related to the cyclist's behaviour, as most of them are simply falls that don't involve collisions with cars.
I have read the study, and I was aware of that caveat. However, you're misunderstanding the point - it was meant to address issues of legal culpability (e.g. fault vs. cause). Since the data were based on actual police reports, the researchers are basically disclaiming themselves from any claims of legal responsibility.
All you really need to do is look at "Table 3.2" in "Chapter 3: Key Findings" and sum the numbers for incidents caused by cyclists vs. those caused by motorists. The results are quite clear.
On the other hand, why should I be surprised that a cyclist doesn't bother to read the study they referenced, or that they automatically assume they're right regardless of what's actually in front of them? Such behavior matches perfectly with my observed actions of cyclists on the road!
I have nothing against motorists, but you certainly seem to have a bias against cyclists.
I could respond in kind, and assert that it certainly seems like it was you who didn't bother to actually look at the numbers or make a good faith effort to understand what was being said; and simply cherry picked a single comment out of context which appeared on first glance to support your preconceptions. I could also go on to make similar unwarranted assumptions about your behaviour, and claim that they match my observed actions of motorists on the road as well (they do in fact)
But you know what? It's not constructive, my own observations about motorists are likely biased in many ways (e.g. availability heuristic etc...). Making unwarranted assumptions about others based on biased preconceptions serves no one any good. So, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did read the study and the numbers and simply misunderstood them.
In the future though, I would caution you to read things a bit more carefully before making unwarranted assumptions about another's behaviour or comprehension based solely on your own perceptions and preconceptions. It's always better to take a second look, and give them the benefit of the doubt.
No problem!
To be clear, I wasn't criticizing your comments, just that study. I see it bandied about all the time by anti-helmet zealots, and few of them bother actually assessing it's merits, so it's become kind of a pet peeve for me :P
I've never owned a car and have been commuting by bike for 20+ years myself and I always wear a helmet. I've never done cross-country or long-distance biking, so I can't speak to that, but even just cycling in-city, I wouldn't wear a helmet if I didn't have to. They're hot, constricting and the straps chafe, but as you say, the benefits outweigh the annoyances, my brain is the most expensive thing I own! If there were any reliable empirical data showing that helmets are less safe, I would ditch mine in an instant.
I'm not sure about the overtaking thing though, in this study by the City of Toronto: http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/ "Motorist Overtaking" was the second most frequent cause of bike-car accidents (accounting for about ~12%), right after "Drive Out At Controlled Intersection" (by motorists - for cyclists it's called "Ride Out At Controlled Intersection"). I've seen stats for other major cities that corroborate the general finding (motorist behaviour causes the vast majority of incidents), but of course the specifics of types of incidents may vary by region.