or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Regional Cycling Forums › UK and Europe › Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oh dear - another helmet law proposal. - Page 6

post #76 of 102

Re: Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:10:54 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:

>
>> How can one then say that helmets are "extra protection"

>
> I have no idea! I didn't do that


On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:00:30 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:

> Alan Braggins wrote:
>
>> Risk compensation in action? Or evidence that, unlike the cycling population
>> as a whole, he does get an overall benefit from his helmet?

>
> Could quite possibly be both: he rides in a crash-likely manner because
> he likes to ride that way, and since he likes to ride that way it's
> worth wearing extra protection.
>
post #77 of 102

Re: Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:5nlrttFiui94U1@mid.individual.net...
>_ wrote:
>
>> Another (but more subtle) error there; one cannot choose the kind of
>> injury
>> one will have while cycling. The whole population figures are the best
>> indicator of "protection" - which, as we know, is essentially zero.

>
> That's not quite true... the whole population data is based on KSI
> reporting, so it shows you that the protection from a KSI is essentially
> zero. That's not the same thing as "no protection at all". That
> doesn't mean you can make substantiated claims about helmet low speed
> protection, but equally you can't properly say there is none. You don't
> have enough data to say that any protective effect is a fallacy.


Quite right Peter. As one of my lecturers used to say "lack of evidence is
not evidence of lack".

Whatever "lack" was. I thought it was some kind of Anglo-Saxon face
painting, but I'm prepared to admit that I may be wrong.

Unlike Bonehead and attendant fools.
post #78 of 102

Re: Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> > even on the edge of london here, there are streams of cars, a few buses
> > and a few bikes, while they being used as transport, the numbers are
> > still quite low compared to cars/buses/trains.

>
> That's true, but it says nothing about the relative numbers of
> transportational cyclists compared to Chain Gang roadies and MTBers.
> There are far more drivers, train passengers and buses than Chain Gang
> roadies as well.
>
> Pete.


a lot of people have bikes in sheds, not all are BSO. i think if all the
folk who have bikes attually used them for transport it would be quite a
sight. certinaly bike shops seem at least in built up areas do well.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
post #79 of 102

Re: Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:

> _ wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:10:54 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:
> >
> >>> How can one then say that helmets are "extra protection"
> >> I have no idea! I didn't do that

> >
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:00:30 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Braggins wrote:
> >>
> >>> Risk compensation in action? Or evidence that, unlike the cycling
> >>population > as a whole, he does get an overall benefit from his helmet?
> >>Could quite possibly be both: he rides in a crash-likely manner because
> >>he likes to ride that way, and since he likes to ride that way it's
> >>worth wearing extra protection.

>
> You'll note I said "possibly", as opposed to "certainly". "Protection"
> is, by definition, protective. EN 1078 hats aren't necessarily.
>
> Pete.


quite, simon had some protection via a cloth cap on one of his falls?
years ago i slid across the road luckly wearing a hat which saved my
face. or at least i persume it did.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
post #80 of 102

Re: Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> > a lot of people have bikes in sheds, not all are BSO. i think if all the
> > folk who have bikes attually used them for transport it would be quite a
> > sight. certinaly bike shops seem at least in built up areas do well.

>
> Again true, but again irrelevant to actual use of bikes on the ground: I
> think you'll find a lot of the bikes in sheds are MTBs, bought to go
> MTBing. Mine usually manages 1 or 2 trips a year, and that's 1 or 2
> more than at least a few.
>
> Pete.


well quite, but that doesn't change the fact that people buy the bikes
with the intention of using for a hobby, to get fit etc. people buy the
bikes to ride up hills, etc. not as transport. while people do use bikes
as transport, unless there is massive untapped market. what people want
to do is ride up and down hills be that via nobblies or thin blades. a
quick glance in a bike shop tells you that.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
post #81 of 102

Re: Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

On 17 Oct, 23:11, "burtthebike" <burttheb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Peter Clinch" <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:5nlrttFiui94U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> >_ wrote:

>
> >> Another (but more subtle) error there; one cannot choose the kind of
> >> injury
> >> one will have while cycling. The whole population figures are the best
> >> indicator of "protection" - which, as we know, is essentially zero.

>
> > That's not quite true... the whole population data is based on KSI
> > reporting, so it shows you that the protection from a KSI is essentially
> > zero. That's not the same thing as "no protection at all". That
> > doesn't mean you can make substantiated claims about helmet low speed
> > protection, but equally you can't properly say there is none. You don't
> > have enough data to say that any protective effect is a fallacy.

>
> Quite right Peter. As one of my lecturers used to say "lack of evidence is
> not evidence of lack".
>
> Whatever "lack" was. I thought it was some kind of Anglo-Saxon face
> painting, but I'm prepared to admit that I may be wrong.
>
> Unlike Bonehead and attendant fools.


Do you mean

"...lack of evidence of habitation is not evidence of a lack of
habitation."

Sniper8052
post #82 of 102

Re: Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

In article <1i668ae.1cdt45e2m1a34N%NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk>, Roger Merriman wrote:
>what people want
>to do is ride up and down hills be that via nobblies or thin blades.


Not around here (Cambridge) they don't. Highest concentration of cyclists
in the country, and fairly flat. '"Coincidence? I think not", said Bear.'
post #83 of 102

Re: Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

in message <slrnfhef9u.gbs.armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Alan Braggins
('armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk') wrote:

> In article <1i668ae.1cdt45e2m1a34N%NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk>, Roger
> Merriman wrote:
>>what people want
>>to do is ride up and down hills be that via nobblies or thin blades.

>
> Not around here (Cambridge) they don't. Highest concentration of cyclists
> in the country, and fairly flat. '"Coincidence? I think not", said Bear.'


Not wholly coincidence, but partly. I continue to be surprised by the
differences in cycling culture between different parts of Scotland. In
Edinburgh, as I've observed before, there are lots of cyclists, mainly
riding sensible and well maintained and equipped bikes, despite a lot of
steep hills and a decided lack of 'cycling infrastructure'.

In East Kilbride, where I currently work, the whole town is designed around
cycling infrastructure, which is almost entirely unused. What bikes you do
see in the urban area are almost exclusively BSOs, and lights are
decidedly rare.

There are some reasons why the EK cyclepaths are unused. The surfaces
aren't really good enough for a road race type bike, and the sightlines
particularly at cyclepath junctions aren't good enough for riding fast. So
the few other roadies I see, like me, use the roads.

But this isn't to say the cyclepaths are bad. They're not. They're quite
good. Certainly good enough for a utility bike with 32mm tyres. And, given
that they are unused, I can understand the local authority not wanting to
spend money on maintaining the surfaces.

Dumfries now has a rapidly growing network of high quality cyclepaths, with
mostly excellent surfaces, many on old railway lines so very flat. It has
two expensive new cycle-only bridges over the river, one just north and
one just south of the town centre. Despite this, the cyclepath network is
largely unused. There's a fair bit of cycling to work in the town - not as
much as in Edinburgh but far more than I've seen anywhere in the Glasgow
area. But 90% of cycle users in Dumfries ride unlit BSOs and cycle on the
pavement, while 10% ride road bikes and cycle on the road.

I think local cycling culture is far more important in whether people cycle
than either flatness or infrastructure. You need to get a critical mass of
cyclists, and then the prevalence of cycling starts to gather momentum.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that spending on infrastructure is a bad
investment.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; may contain traces of nuts, bolts or washers.
post #84 of 102

Re: Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 06:39:57 +0100, Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk>
wrote:

>I think local cycling culture is far more important in whether people cycle
>than either flatness or infrastructure.


Agreed. Your examples are wonderfully described and very persuasive.

IMHO, a /national/ cycling culture is also desirable and worth working
towards. The usual tools of taxes and laws can be used to promote (or
in the case of a MHL, destroy) such a goal. At the risk of becoming a
single-topic bore, a reminder that adopting European-style strict
liability laws would go some way towards making cycling a more valued
part of our national culture.
post #85 of 102

Re: Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

Rich wrote:
>
> Is everyone in Commonwealth and Eurotrash countries a bunch of pussies
> who believe the "nanny state" always knows best?
> You must be. Why else would you pay 2x as much for goods as Americans
> while giving away 70% of your income in taxes. You really ARE a bunch
> of old women by nature.


Yeah, yeah! and without the dumb yanks to win the war for us we would
all be speaking German.


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

'Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
post #86 of 102

Re: Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

In article <5ntotrFk4m44U1@mid.individual.net>,
don@fwhybrow.wanadoo.co.uk says...
> Rich wrote:
> >
> > Is everyone in Commonwealth and Eurotrash countries a bunch of pussies
> > who believe the "nanny state" always knows best?
> > You must be. Why else would you pay 2x as much for goods as Americans
> > while giving away 70% of your income in taxes. You really ARE a bunch
> > of old women by nature.

>
> Yeah, yeah! and without the dumb yanks to win the war for us we would
> all be speaking German.
>


We must have won another war then cos the Yanks are all speaking
English, albeit making a bad job of it ;-)

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell
post #87 of 102

Re: Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

In article <eugou4-08j.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>,
simon@jasmine.org.uk says...
>
> I'm increasingly of the opinion that spending on infrastructure is a bad
> investment.
>


The main Dutch programme to benchmark their provision for cyclists,
Cycle Balance, makes no assessment of any cycle facilities other than
cycle parking provision. They do not see them as relevant to getting
more people cycling or making cyclists' journeys better and safer. They
are far more concerned about things like surface quality.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell
post #88 of 102

Re: Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

"Tony Raven" <junk@raven-family.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.2183ce07e35b57b598979b@news.nildram.co.uk...
> In article <eugou4-08j.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk>,
> simon@jasmine.org.uk says...
>>
>> I'm increasingly of the opinion that spending on infrastructure is
>> a bad
>> investment.
>>

>
> The main Dutch programme to benchmark their provision for cyclists,
> Cycle Balance, makes no assessment of any cycle facilities other
> than
> cycle parking provision. They do not see them as relevant to
> getting
> more people cycling or making cyclists' journeys better and safer.
> They
> are far more concerned about things like surface quality.


[snip]

One interesting thing that I have never seen the Dutch refer to, but
which was mentioned in a CTC publication (1) was an objective of the
last Dutch Bike MasterPlan. This was to reduce cycling times to town
centres by 20%. Having such an objective makes no sense, unless
those drawing up the objectives considered that the bike facilities
had previously *increased* travel times by at least 25%, probably
more.

The Dutch post mortem on their plan (2) seems to make no mention of
this objective, let alone how well it was met.

Jeremy Parker

-----------------

(1) "More Bikes, Policy into Best Practice", CTC 1995, p 49, halfway
down 1st column

(2) "The Dutch Bicycle Master Plan, Description and evaluation in an
historical context", Dutch Directorate-General for Passenger
Transport, March 1999.
post #89 of 102

Re: Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

Hypothetically, if the MHL is introduced in say 5 years, what will we
do? Calmly accept it and obey the law like Aussie cyclists and UK
motorcyclists, or refuse to wear it and clog up the courts appealing
against fines and so on?

Would people on this site be prepared to face incarceration for
persistent non-helmet wearing? Will mass helmetless protests, eg
organised by ctc be held?

Just wond'ring aloud.

Perhaps KPI motivated plod would find the prospect of booking polite
middle class cyclists a godsend after the drunken white trash they
normally have to deal with. It would certainly be another great
opportumity for the authorities to harrass victims / innocent people
rather than dealing with the crims.
post #90 of 102

Re: Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

In article <1192978409.474859.306520@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
raisethe@yahoo.co.uk says...
> Hypothetically, if the MHL is introduced in say 5 years, what will we
> do? Calmly accept it and obey the law like Aussie cyclists and UK
> motorcyclists, or refuse to wear it and clog up the courts appealing
> against fines and so on?
>


I suspect it would go the way of the Canadian helmet laws and the
English mobile phone law - totally ignored and unenforced.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: UK and Europe
Cycling Forums › Forums › Regional Cycling Forums › UK and Europe › Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.