N
Nobody Here
Guest
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nobody Here wrote:
>
>> Why would there be a subconcious effect in soneone who doesn't believe
>> a helmet makes any difference to a rider's safety at all?
>
> It's not very easy to say why, because it's, errrr, subconscious!
>
> To what extent do you /absolutely believe with no shadow of doubt
> whatsoever/ that a helmet makes no difference /at all/? I certainly
> don't believe that to a completely and absolute degree, rather I think
> it *probably* makes /more or less/ no difference. There's a lot of room
> for subconscious effect in there, especially given the complexity of the
> human mind.
Well in my mind it makes about as much difference as the colour of paint
on the bike or whether it has mudgards. It makes vanishingly less
difference than the age of the rider or the manner in which they're cycling
(in a fast/slow/wobbly/confident sense) or their position on the
ahndlebars or the proximity of anything that's potentially going to make
them more likely to change their position on the road (like a corner or
a junction, for example).
I do notice helmets, mainly because of the debate here, and the fact that
so many of them are badly fitted. The style of helmet wearing may alter
my perception of a cyclist - if it's badly fitted then I assume they're
a bit clueless, for example (if they're not clueless for wearing one in
the first place) and I might steer clearer. In fact, if anything, I
would tend towards the view that a helmetless rider, paticularly an adult,
is perhaps more safe, because they've had to make their own judgment
against the accepted wizdom and must have given the issue some thought,
and may therefore be careful about other aspects of their cycling.
Sadly that's probably not really the case - I suspect many don't wear
helmets for more trivial reasons - they can't be bothered, they think
it makes them look silly, their head gets too hot, whatever - and so
they're no safer (by my less than scientific measure) than anyone else.
The point is, though, that while I fully appreciate that the majority
of drivers might subconciously pass helmeted cyclists closer *because*
of their perception that helmet cyclists are somehow protected, surely
that's unlikely to be the case in the subset of drivers, like me, and I
presume many others here, who are both cyclists themselves and who
don't swallow the helmet accepted wizdom?
--
Nobby Anderson
> Nobody Here wrote:
>
>> Why would there be a subconcious effect in soneone who doesn't believe
>> a helmet makes any difference to a rider's safety at all?
>
> It's not very easy to say why, because it's, errrr, subconscious!
>
> To what extent do you /absolutely believe with no shadow of doubt
> whatsoever/ that a helmet makes no difference /at all/? I certainly
> don't believe that to a completely and absolute degree, rather I think
> it *probably* makes /more or less/ no difference. There's a lot of room
> for subconscious effect in there, especially given the complexity of the
> human mind.
Well in my mind it makes about as much difference as the colour of paint
on the bike or whether it has mudgards. It makes vanishingly less
difference than the age of the rider or the manner in which they're cycling
(in a fast/slow/wobbly/confident sense) or their position on the
ahndlebars or the proximity of anything that's potentially going to make
them more likely to change their position on the road (like a corner or
a junction, for example).
I do notice helmets, mainly because of the debate here, and the fact that
so many of them are badly fitted. The style of helmet wearing may alter
my perception of a cyclist - if it's badly fitted then I assume they're
a bit clueless, for example (if they're not clueless for wearing one in
the first place) and I might steer clearer. In fact, if anything, I
would tend towards the view that a helmetless rider, paticularly an adult,
is perhaps more safe, because they've had to make their own judgment
against the accepted wizdom and must have given the issue some thought,
and may therefore be careful about other aspects of their cycling.
Sadly that's probably not really the case - I suspect many don't wear
helmets for more trivial reasons - they can't be bothered, they think
it makes them look silly, their head gets too hot, whatever - and so
they're no safer (by my less than scientific measure) than anyone else.
The point is, though, that while I fully appreciate that the majority
of drivers might subconciously pass helmeted cyclists closer *because*
of their perception that helmet cyclists are somehow protected, surely
that's unlikely to be the case in the subset of drivers, like me, and I
presume many others here, who are both cyclists themselves and who
don't swallow the helmet accepted wizdom?
--
Nobby Anderson