Hadron Quark wrote:
> eh? Just because the statistics say there are similar injury numbers it
> doesnt in any way equate the accident itself. And guess what : Ive never
> known a runner injured by anything other than self punishment (sprains
> etc) - Ive known lots of cyclists clipped by cars, hedges, spilled by
> drainage grates and gravel etc.
What, the hedges, grates and gravel just leapt out at them? If you're
clipped by a hedge, ride over a drainage grate or lose it on gravel then
there's nobody to blame but yourself: i.e., self punishment.
As for the cars, are you really suggesting that nobody out for a run has
ever been knocked down by a motor vehicle?
> Aha! You're coming from an angle I see. You're argument angle is
> ridiculous : with this logic you would defend murder since it was
> considered part of life until a legal system was invented to discourage
> it. They were invented for a reason you know.
Sports use and making money are both perfectly reasonable reasons for
cycle helmets to exist, and neither has any particular bearing on A to B
utility road cycling.
> When falling off a bike or hit by car when cycling its quite often the
> case that bits of the body are indeed caight by the falling bike : maybe
> I didnt describe it properly - I was hoping you could extrapolate. Ive
> certainly had a couple of nasty falls with cleats I didnt disengage when
> someone just walked out in front of me.
I know of /lots/ of people who've failed to disengage and then toppled
over, certainly including me. I don't recall any others of them saying
they were "nasty" (or that they hit their heads, for that matter).
> Are you just being obstinate?
No, I'm just dealing with reality: many/most cases of cyclists being
clipped by overtaking vehicles would not happen if the cyclist were
better positioned, but unfortunately the belief that hugging the kerb is
the safest place to be is even more widespread than the misapprehension
that helmets will Save Your Life.
> The clip of the wing mirror
> was an example of being hit by a passing automobile. Bikes by their
> nature tend to move around : especially in slipstreams - far more than a
> runner would.
No reason to be in a slipstream involuntarily, again down to positioning.
> In addition a runner should run into the traffic - not
> with it.
"Should" != "Does"
> A bike doesnt generally have that luxury. A bike has more
> momentum when travelling at 40kph down hill and hits a slippery surface
> etc etc etc I wont go on
And will typically skid a little and then continue. A runner's probably
more likely to lose their footing, ISTM.
> one. We live in the real world you see : not one where holding ones head
> high and giving clear arm signals causes the traffic to slow up and give
> you the right of way with a cheery wave.
It does that for me, which suggests you're doing something wrong.
> I'm yet to see anything,
> however, that suggests to me that a Helmet can be detrimental in anyway
> to safety.
The biggest study ever done on this with 8 million riders (Rodgers,
G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts of the
CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability,
1988, 11, 307-317.) concluded "that the bicycle-related fatality rate is
positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use"
So now you have.
> Forget all the nonsense about how ones head never hits the
> curb etc : if ones head DOES hit the curb, AT a place covered by the
> helmet then I can not, in my wildest dreams, see how the helmet can be
> anything other than beneficial.
So how come in every legislature that has increased helmet wearing
significantly through mandating their use, there is no apparent
improvement in serious head injuries? Never mind the "how", that is
what *has* happened.
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/
