A Cycle Helmet saved this lady's life.

[Pip]

Ian thought it would be good to say:

> Actually a helmet may have resulted in some degree of controlled deceleration of the skull
> resulting in less damage.

Possible, but something the doctors seemed to thing would not have been the case. I see your point
and have considered it in the past. Still don't wear a helmet, though.

Pip

 

[Steve R.]

Peter B wrote in message ...
> But had the ped been knocked over by the bike and banged his head with the same result would you
> suggest all peds should wear helmets?

Peds generally don't fall on their heads, they belly-flop or whatever, although some have been brain-
damaged by falling awkwardly against a hard surface.

A cyclist on the other hand, generally falls from a greater height at a greater speed and is often
catapulted over the bars, with their hands sometimes still holding onto the bike to retain some
control. That's why they often fall head-first and so are more vulnerable to head-injuries.

 

[Peter B]

"Steve R." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:G%[email protected]...
> Peter B wrote in message ...
> > But had the ped been knocked over by the bike and banged his head with
the
> > same result would you suggest all peds should wear helmets?
>
> Peds generally don't fall on their heads, they belly-flop or whatever,
although some
> have been brain-damaged by falling awkwardly against a hard surface.
>
> A cyclist on the other hand, generally falls from a greater height at a
greater speed
> and is often catapulted over the bars, with their hands sometimes still
holding onto
> the bike to retain some control. That's why they often fall head-first and
so are
> more vulnerable to head-injuries.

You researched this thoroughly then?

Pete

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:44:19 GMT, Steve R.
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Colin Blackburn wrote in message ...
>> By occupying the lane a driver may persuaded to not overtake where it would be unsafe to do so.
>
> But what gives you the right to be the judge of where it's safe to overtake. Surlely it's up to
> the driver to judge the *safe* place.

Do you deny me the right to protect myself from injury or death?

>> I have been in positions where it is clearly dangerous to overtake yet some drivers have tried to
>> squeeze past me.
>
> In that case they have deemed it to be *safe*. Your position of *obstruction* on the road has only
> made it less safe :~(

I am referring to times when I was in the secondary position, ie towards the kerb. If you consider a
cyclist even in this position to be an obstruction then there is little point you being on the road
as either a cyclist or a driver.

Colin
--

 

[Peter B]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Two drivers were sentenced this week for killing two 13 year old girls
while
> racing through the streets of Grimsby. Presumably they deemed what they
were
> doing as safe or they wouldn't have done it. In fact by your logic no
action
> of any driver can be unsafe.

I saw this news item and my thoughts were that the system has failed but nobody was screaming for it
to be reviewed as they would if, f'rinstance, if social workers were seen to have failed. The main
culprit had a string of previous driving convictions and yet was still out there and as dangerous as
any schizophrenic incorrectly released.

Pete

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Steve R." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > The cyclist is not obstructing traffic, the cyclist /is/ traffic.

> Sorry I didn't word that correctly, but just for example if I'm on my
bicycle,
> motorcycle or driving my car and I am becoming an *obstruction* by driving
slower
> than the *flow* of other traffic, I deliberately make a point of moving to
the left
> (in the gutter if you like) to allow other traffic to pass more easily.
It's just
> common courtesy.

I know what you're getting at, but...

You should only do that when it will not endanger you. If there isn't room for them to pass safely,
don't do it. There are a couple of lay-bys and a side-turning I regularly pull into to let following
traffic pass, but cowering in the gutter is *always* wrong.

> Agreed, but it doesn't make *you* the judge of safe/unsafe either. You
have to give
> drivers some credit, as after all most have been through a fairly rigorous
test :~)

I don't need to be the judge. I ride at a distance form the kerb that ensures my safety. The
judgement of motorists is irrelevant to this. If there is a long line of traffic behind me, I do
like the good book says and pull over to let them pass, I *do not* move into the gutter and let them
squeeze through when it's not safe.

My obligation not to hold them up is considerably less than their obligation not to endanger me, not
that you'd believe that from some of the comments of the anti-cyclist brigade. They also have an
obligation not to hold me up. When we get to the next traffic jam very few of them fulfill that
obligation. I bet you a pound they lose more hours a day to congestion than to slow-moving cyclists.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Tony Raven]

Steve R. wrote:
>
> But by being *obstructive* you are possibly making yourself *more* endangered :~)
>
> That isn't protecting yourself :~(

My experience is that by riding where I do I get the least problems from drivers and I class that
as protecting myself. I have observed that riding in the gutter gives me many more problems. As
Peter said, drivers try to squeeze past when there isn't really room and all sorts of other
manoevers. Riding where I do I rarely obstruct people and when I do I wave a thank you when they do
eventually pass.

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

PK wrote:
>
> Flawed logic!
>
> the no doubt knew it was dangerous - hence the thrill of doing it - but did not care about the
> danger they caused to others.
>
> there is a difference between that, and a flawed judgement of "safe to overtake"
>

So please explain how I tell when the driver trying to overtake has deemed it as safe and when the
driver behind doesn't care about the danger he is causing to me? Non-telepaths are curious to know.

Tony

 

[Simon Brooke]

"Steve R." <[email protected]> writes:

> Just zis Guy, you know wrote in message ...
> > The cyclist is not obstructing traffic, the cyclist /is/ traffic.
>
> Sorry I didn't word that correctly, but just for example if I'm on my bicycle, motorcycle or
> driving my car and I am becoming an *obstruction* by driving slower than the *flow* of other
> traffic, I deliberately make a point of moving to the left (in the gutter if you like) to allow
> other traffic to pass more easily. It's just common courtesy.

It may be 'common courtesy' when you're surrounded by a ton of metal, but when you're on a bicycle
it's called 'suicide'.

> > Just because the driver deems it safe does not make it so.
>
> Agreed, but it doesn't make *you* the judge of safe/unsafe either. You have to give drivers some
> credit, as after all most have been through a fairly rigorous test :~)

No, you just obey the law and hold your position in the lane. In the left most lane if there are
more than one, except when you're turning right, but in the lane most definitely. I'm not judging
anyone. They can overtake when they want to, but not by taking my lane position.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'graveyards are full of indispensable people'

 

[Simon Brooke]

"Steve R." <[email protected]> writes:

> Tony Raven wrote in message ...
> > I have every right to protect myself from the actions of others which I believe endanger me.
>
> But by being *obstructive* you are possibly making yourself *more* endangered :~)

No-one is being obstructive if they are cycling legally in traffic. And for heaven's sake get rid of
those bloody smileys, this is _not_ funny. It's people's _lives_ you're suggesting they should risk
so you can get to your destination 0.00002 seconds sooner.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'graveyards are full of indispensable people'

 

[Peter B]

"Steve R." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> You have to give drivers some credit, as after all most have been through
a fairly rigorous test :~)

Ye Gods! How have you lived so long!

I've been driving for 33 years but my Dads advice to treat everyone else on the road as an idiot
predates that even and has been proven more times than I'd like.

Pete

 

[Peter B]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Re motor traffic being delayed:
> I bet you a pound they lose more hours a day to congestion than to slow-moving cyclists.

They, and me, will almost certainly lose more time being delayed by inconsiderately parked motor
vehicles than cyclists.

Pete

 

[Patrick Herring]

"MSeries" <[email protected]> wrote:

| Steve R. wrote:
| > I know there's still some doubters amongst you,
|
| Look Steve, we all have the choice to use a helmet, we all know these stories exist and some of us
| choose to use helmets some of the time. There was a thread a month or two ago asking 'who has
| never used a helmet ?' From memory I don't think anyone said they had never used a helmet.

I did, as did several others IIRC.

| You are clearly keen on using them, some folk prefer the choice. No one here is anti helmet as far
| as I can tell, just get annoyed at folk calling us stupid when we choose not to use one or
| believing we are naive because we don't accept what is written in newspapers.

I'm pro-choice but also anti-helmet for road cycling; I think the risk compensation factor makes
them dangerous.

--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK http://www.anweald.co.uk

 

[Patrick Herring]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote: ...
| The staunchest proponents of helmets, such as BeHit, absolutely refute the idea of risk
| compensation despite the evidence for its existence

Ahem, "deny", I think. Confusing denial and refutation is a common journalistic solicism,
<Margot>you hear it even on the BBC these days</Margot>.

--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK http://www.anweald.co.uk

 

[Steve R.]

Peter B wrote in message ...
> You researched this thoroughly then?

Have you not watched TV lately?

Plenty of instances of cyclists falling off bikes and falling heavily.

 

[Patrick Herring]

David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

| On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:08:01 -0000 someone who may be "Richard Goodman"
| <[email protected]> wrote this:-
|
| >Ok, so only 8% of RTA head-top injuries were to cyclists. That still means cyclists suffered head-
| >top injuries.
|
| Yes. However, in safety there is always a limited budget and one must decide where to spend the
| funds so that they get the greatest results. The figures demonstrate quite clearly where helmets
| will produce the greatest results, which is for car travellers and pedestrians.

Eh, I hope not. That'll just make 'em drive faster and step in to the road without looking
more often.

--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK http://www.anweald.co.uk

 

[Simon Brooke]

"Steve R." <[email protected]> writes:

> Peter B wrote in message ...
> > You researched this thoroughly then?
>
> Have you not watched TV lately?
>
> Plenty of instances of cyclists falling off bikes and falling heavily.

You should learn the difference between drama (probably scripted by people wholly ignorant of
bicycles) and real life.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'graveyards are full of indispensable people'

 

[Andrew Sweetman]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote ...
> The advantage of cycling in the line of the inside wheels of cars is that
you
> are where they expect to see other vehicles. They tend to notice you
better,
> treat you more like a vehicle to be passed, not something out of the way
on
> the left and it leaves sufficient space that they can still overtake you easily if it is safe
> to do so.
>

a subsidiary advantage is that there's very rarely any bits of glass etc on this line, so you go a
lot further between punctures.

Andrew

 

[Andymorris]

Steve R. wrote:
> Al wrote in message ...
>
>> I will return to cycling when I am physically able, I will not be buying a helmet.
>
> That decision not to 'buy' a helmet proves that you must have had a bump on the head, as it's
> affected your ability to think logically and to 'care' for you well-being.
>

Don't be so stupid
--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

 

[Dave Kahn]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:22:31 GMT, "Steve R."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Al wrote in message ...

>> I will return to cycling when I am physically able, I will not be buying a helmet.
>
>That decision not to 'buy' a helmet proves that you must have had a bump on the head, as it's
>affected your ability to think logically and to 'care' for you well-being.

So presumably everyone else who disagrees with your views on helmets is brain damaged too?

--
Dave...