A blonde wig is safer than a helmet according to:



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:

> 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).


While it may make no difference to your *conscious* mind, you don't know
if it makes any to your *sub-conscious* mind because, by definition,
that operates below a level you are conscious of. So you don't know.
c.f. risk compensation.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
In message <[email protected]>
Nobody Here <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.


Target fixation?

It's a well known phenomena that people tend to unconsciously steer
towards something that they are fixating on. In skiing you have to learn
to concentrate on the gaps between the objects, not the objects (e.g.
trees), if you wish to improve your ability to get between them.

So if you are really paying so much attention to the helmet and how it
is worn, rather than to the space on the road besides the cyclist and
whether there is sufficient room, perhaps you are subconsciously drawn
towards them.

Mike
--
M.R. Clark PhD
Cambridge University, Department of Pathology
Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1QP
Tel +44 (0)1223 333705
 
Mike Clark wrote:

> It's a well known phenomena that people tend to unconsciously steer
> towards something that they are fixating on. In skiing


and cycling and skating and paddling and sailing etc. etc.

Not that surprising, if you think how much /conscious/ effort goes in to
steering a bike (generally around none AFAICT)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nobody Here wrote:
>
>> 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).

>
> While it may make no difference to your *conscious* mind, you don't know
> if it makes any to your *sub-conscious* mind because, by definition,
> that operates below a level you are conscious of. So you don't know.
> c.f. risk compensation.


Ok. Whatever. Every single one of us must act in the same way
subconciously because, err, well, I'm not sure why you think that, but
never mind. It's of course inconceivable that the concious mind
might have any influence over the unconcious. Shrug.

--
Nobby Anderson
 
Mike Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> Nobody Here <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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.

>
> Target fixation?
>
> It's a well known phenomena that people tend to unconsciously steer
> towards something that they are fixating on. In skiing you have to learn
> to concentrate on the gaps between the objects, not the objects (e.g.
> trees), if you wish to improve your ability to get between them.
>
> So if you are really paying so much attention to the helmet and how it
> is worn, rather than to the space on the road besides the cyclist and
> whether there is sufficient room, perhaps you are subconsciously drawn
> towards them.


How many more reasons can you come up with as to why I *must* steer
closer to a helmeted rider? This is absolutely ludicrous. None of
you have addressed the points I've made about cyclists and helmet
skeptics being a subset of drivers who may have a different perception
of helmet users to the global population of drivers. All any of you
seem to be able to fixate on the assumption that if on average over
all drivers people pass closer to helmeted cyclists it somehow
follows that all road users do. Completely clueless.

--
Nobby Anderson
 
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mike Clark wrote:
>
>> It's a well known phenomena that people tend to unconsciously steer
>> towards something that they are fixating on. In skiing

>
> and cycling and skating and paddling and sailing etc. etc.
>
> Not that surprising, if you think how much /conscious/ effort goes in to
> steering a bike (generally around none AFAICT)


Yeah, that'll be it, then. No wait a minute, the static charges
induced on bike types by contact with the road surface create
a magnetic field as they rotate which suck my car into them.
Inevitable, really, and if you're wearing a helmet that's a bit
of insulating foam that stops them discharging into the air
so the charge, and hence the field, is greater.

--
Nobby Anderson
 
Nobody Here wrote:

> Ok. Whatever. Every single one of us must act in the same way
> subconciously


No. I'm not saying we must act the same, I'm saying you can't tell how
/you/ act subconsciously, and thus you can't tell if it's different from
someone else.

> never mind. It's of course inconceivable that the concious mind
> might have any influence over the unconcious. Shrug.


No, but you don't *know* the extent.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Nobody Here wrote:

> How many more reasons can you come up with as to why I *must* steer
> closer to a helmeted rider?


Not what is being said, it is a /possible/ reason why you *might*.

> None of
> you have addressed the points I've made about cyclists and helmet
> skeptics being a subset of drivers who may have a different perception
> of helmet users to the global population of drivers. All any of you
> seem to be able to fixate on the assumption that if on average over
> all drivers people pass closer to helmeted cyclists it somehow
> follows that all road users do. Completely clueless.


No, simply the case that you cannot rule out the possibility just
because of other knowledge you might have. You're reading far more into
what's being said than is actually there.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
In message <[email protected]>
Nobody Here <[email protected]> wrote:

> Mike Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In message <[email protected]>
> > Nobody Here <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.

> >
> > Target fixation?
> >
> > It's a well known phenomena that people tend to unconsciously steer
> > towards something that they are fixating on. In skiing you have to learn
> > to concentrate on the gaps between the objects, not the objects (e.g.
> > trees), if you wish to improve your ability to get between them.
> >
> > So if you are really paying so much attention to the helmet and how it
> > is worn, rather than to the space on the road besides the cyclist and
> > whether there is sufficient room, perhaps you are subconsciously drawn
> > towards them.

>
> How many more reasons can you come up with as to why I *must* steer
> closer to a helmeted rider?


Can you not read? Where do I say must? Note the question mark after
fixation?


> This is absolutely ludicrous. None of you have addressed the points
> I've made about cyclists and helmet skeptics being a subset of drivers
> who may have a different perception of helmet users to the global
> population of drivers. All any of you seem to be able to fixate on
> the assumption that if on average over all drivers people pass closer
> to helmeted cyclists it somehow follows that all road users do.
> Completely clueless.
>


Target fixation as an explanation might be different from your
arguments about the observers perception of helmet risks.

The reason I mentioned that target fixation might come into play is
because you gave a series of statements about how you paid particular
attention to the riders helmet, how it was worn, whether it was a
suitable fit, and their riding style. If that kind of attention doesn't
run a risk of target fixation coming in to play I'd be surprised.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
 
Quoting Mike Clark <[email protected]>:
> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>It's a very similar case. When everyone thinks they're different to the
>>averages, most of them must be wrong.

>Surely it depends on the distribution of members of the set?


Yes, yes, Mike, I know. YKWIM. :)
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:eek:konomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace
 
Quoting Nobody Here <[email protected]>:
>Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>>While it may make no difference to your *conscious* mind, you don't know
>>if it makes any to your *sub-conscious* mind because, by definition,
>>that operates below a level you are conscious of. So you don't know.
>>c.f. risk compensation.

>Ok. Whatever. Every single one of us must act in the same way
>subconciously because, err, well, I'm not sure why you think that, but
>never mind.


_You_ are the one who is arguing that we can know for sure how someone's
subconscious acts. All we are saying is given the average behaviour, it's
not sensible for you to assume you are a special unique snowflake without
any actual evidence.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:eek:konomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace
 
Quoting Nobody Here <[email protected]>:
>Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Mike Clark wrote:
>>>It's a well known phenomena that people tend to unconsciously steer

^ ahem
>>>towards something that they are fixating on. In skiing

>> and cycling and skating and paddling and sailing etc. etc.
>>Not that surprising, if you think how much /conscious/ effort goes in to
>>steering a bike (generally around none AFAICT)

>Yeah, that'll be it, then. No wait a minute, the static charges
>induced on bike types by contact with the road surface create
>a magnetic field as they rotate which suck my car into them.


When you don't have an argument, it's always a good idea to smokescreen.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:eek:konomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace
 
Quoting Nobody Here <[email protected]>:
>How many more reasons can you come up with as to why I *must* steer
>closer to a helmeted rider?


No-one's saying that, actually. You are the one saying you definitely do
not (with no evidence).

>of helmet users to the global population of drivers. All any of you
>seem to be able to fixate on the assumption that if on average over
>all drivers people pass closer to helmeted cyclists it somehow
>follows that all road users do.


That is of course not true. Try actually comprehending the argument, not
just frothing. What we are saying is that, lacking any definite
information about a given road user - and for all your bluster, you have
no actual reason to imagine you are special - the odds are that they are
not exceptional.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:eek:konomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace
 
Quoting Nobody Here <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Quoting Nobody Here <[email protected]>:
>>>Ok, so even though I acknowledge that there are factors that certainly
>>>do influence my passing distance, it's entirely impossible that helmet
>>>use is *not* one of them?

>>Who wouldn't acknowledge that there are some factors that influence their
>>passing distance? You're not special here.


Dodged this point, I see.

>>This is the lottery argument. If I have a lottery ticket and proclaim that
>>I definitely must have won, you'd be quite right to point out I'm deluded
>>even though there is a small possibility that I am right.

>No, of course, you're quite right, I'm deluded. Silly me. On average,
>motorists pass closer to helmeted cyclists so of course I must.


Try actually understanding the argument, not just blethering.

On average motorists pass closer to helmeted cyclists.
There is no reason to suppose you are special.
Your conviction that you are special doesn't count; almost any motorist,
if asked, would be convinced they don't pass helmeted cyclists any closer.
Therefore the odds are that you pass closer to helmeted cyclists. It is
possible that you do not but there is no particular reason to think that
is so.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:eek:konomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace
 
congokid <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Nobody
> Here <[email protected]> writes
>
>>I do notice helmets, mainly because of the debate here, and the fact that
>>so many of them are badly fitted.

>
> If you can notice that while driving a car, perhaps you are driving a
> bit close.


Oh, thanks for that, never thought of it that way. Golly, the amount of
enlightenment I've had here! You're so .... ummm .... perceptive. Well
except, obviously, when it comes to being able to see an helmet more than
a few yards away. Undoubtedly I see them in my subconcious.

--
Nobby Anderson
 
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:28 Mike the unimaginative wrote:
>
> Tim Forcer wrote:
>>
>> Can't find it on Google groups. Any chance of thread title or date or
>> summat?

>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?R349221CD
>
> September 9th Uk.rec.cycling
> Flexible orange reflectors/flags


Ta muchly.

--
Tim Forcer [email protected]
The University of Southampton, UK

The University is not responsible for my opinions