Compulsory helmets again!

Patrick Herring said:

Quoted message said:

My helmet will not stop me getting killed if a large motor vehicle hits me at anything
above 30MPH.

They're designed for 12-15mph max.

As most tandem owners know, bicycle tyres can be used well above their designed maximum pressure.
Its known as design safety margin. Just because it says 12-15mph max doesn't mean it won't work at
anything higher.

Tony

Patrick Herring said:

How about the willingness of the driver to take more risks, believing as they might that the
cyclist has the main vulnerability covered in the case of a collision with them?

I have to say if I analyse my own perceptions as a driver I tend to see a car as a car, not another
driver, but a cyclist I see as a person, helmeted or not. If I hit a car I'll see a body panel
crumple, if I hit a cyclist I'll see a person crumple. I don't want to see the latter happen and it
would not make me feel better that the person hitting my windscreen had a helmet - I still see a
person hitting my windscreen. Maybe I'm atypical but I don't think so.

Tony

James Hodson said:

I cannot make myself believe that the willingness of the rider to take more risk (as per Guy's
argument) is the sole reason.

To be fair, James, I don't say that this is the sole reason. Actually I think that nobody knows all
the reasons, and the DfT urgently needs to find out more.

--
Guy chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗ "Sic hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter
educatus et nimis propinquus ades"

Tony Raven said:

I have to say if I analyse my own perceptions as a driver I tend to see a car as a car, not
another driver, but a cyclist I see as a person, helmeted or not. If I hit a car I'll see a body
panel crumple, if I hit a cyclist I'll see a person crumple. I don't want to see the latter happen
and it would not make me feel better that the person hitting my windscreen had a helmet - I still
see a person hitting my windscreen. Maybe I'm atypical but I don't think so.

I think you are possibly atypical. A goodly number of drivers would appear from their behaviour to
view cyclists as an obstruction to be passed at all costs. In as much as they consider the cyclist's
vulnerability it is in terms of resenting any extra cvare the driver might have to take in order to
mitigate the fact that the cyclist has chosen to venture into car territory without adequate
protection (i.e. one steel box).

Call me a cynic...

--
Guy chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗ "Sic hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter
educatus et nimis propinquus ades"

PK said:

Simon Brooke wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, the evidence we have suggests that wearing a helmet on the road is probably
_more_ (not less) dangerous than not wearing a helmet on the road. For myself, I am not
sufficiently convinced about the strengh of that evidence, so I wouldn't try to persuade anyone
else not to (although I don't myself). But I think it would be wildly irresponsible to advise
people _to_ wear one.

Quoted message said:

Can you point me to that evidence?

Quoted message said:

Specifically, evidence which shows that if I choose to wear a helmet but make no other changes to
my cycling behaviour I am at more risk of head injury?

The only way such evidence could be found would be by inventing a helmet which was invisible,
weightless, etc., so that the people being tested didn't know whether they were wearing one or not.

Since that's impossible, we have to put up with testing folk who *know* they're wearing helmets, and
any behavioural changes that go along with that.
--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's
Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK ["]http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

James Hodson said:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:22:46 -0000, "Danny Colyer" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I take that back. I've reread the paragraph for about the 10th time and suddenly it becomes clear.

It's not particularly well written, but nor is it ambiguous.

Quoted message said:

Yup. Danny, did you initially think that head injuries to motorists increased by 20%? I know I did.

Quoted message said:

Whatever... This does beg the question: why does the wearing of a helmet make a cyclist-motorist
collision more dangerous for the cyclist? I cannot make myself believe that the willingness of the
rider to take more risk (as per Guy's argument) is the sole reason.

It doesn't beg the question in the slightest. It could well be argued that it *raises* the question.
Issues of safety and likelihood of injury are notoriously complicated and often contain apparently
counter-intuitive results. It seems to be a rather difficult area which for some reason attracts a
lot of third-rate investigators who believe that "common sense" will make up for their scientific
shortcomings.
--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's
Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK ["]http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Tony Raven said:

I have to say if I analyse my own perceptions as a driver I tend to see a car as a car, not
another driver, but a cyclist I see as a person, helmeted or not.

Well, it's patently obvious that most drivers do not.

Evidence:

I was hit by a car and physical pushed off teh road (yes, literally physically pushed off). Car did
not stop. Would driver physically push pedestrian out of way? I suggest not.

Many, many motorists evidently consider a bike to be a stationary object with no dimensions. Since
people manage to walk through eg shops without ricocheting off objects and otehr people, they are
clearly aware that people have size, so they equally clearly do not regard cyclists as people.

The case of Mr fat nutter and the child in trailer. Mr fat nutter's excuse for reversing over the
cyclist and child-in-trailer was that he hadn't realised teh trailer was something that might
contain a child. That is, the fact that the cyclist was also a human being that might be injured by
being hit with a coupel of tons of metalhad obviously escaped his notice.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote:

| Patrick Herring wrote:
| >
| > How about the willingness of the driver to take more risks, believing as they might that the
| > cyclist has the main vulnerability covered in the case of a collision with them?
|
| I have to say if I analyse my own perceptions as a driver I tend to see a car as a car, not
| another driver, but a cyclist I see as a person, helmeted or not. If I hit a car I'll see a body
| panel crumple, if I hit a cyclist I'll see a person crumple. I don't want to see the latter happen
| and it would not make me feel better that the person hitting my windscreen had a helmet - I still
| see a person hitting my windscreen. Maybe I'm atypical but I don't think so.

This is exactly the sort of question the DTR should fund research into.

The odd nutter aside I'm convinced that motorists don't want to cause death or injury and do see
cyclists as people as you describe (and I agree with how other drivers tend to appear). The context
I'm aware of as a cyclist and as a driver is what things influence road behaviour and what kinds of
behaviour can lead to situations where you effectively cause things you don't want to happen. It's
not at all difficult to find yourself driving too fast to avoid causing an "accident", should other
road users do the unanticipated. So I suppose I'm claiming that there is an effect from cycle
helmets which reduces the safety margin drivers expect to observe, and that reduction can lead them
into situations they wouldn't have wanted to be in had their sense of danger been better informed or
judged. This is all a bit imponderable, though it is the way I bet.

--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK anweald.co.ukanweald.co.ukOpen ↗

Mark Thompson said:

The Netherlands saw a 30% increase in cycle use between 1980 and 1990 together with a one-third
reduction in cycle fatalities, amounting to a 42% reduction in the fatality rate. The City of York
has reduced cycle casualties at the same time as increasing cycle use[iii].

And these places are, if I remember correctly[1], ones in which a network of genuinely useful
(mostly) car free cycle routes exist.

1 - It's been a long time since I was last in York...

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

you know? said:

What is it that you like in Danny's wardrobe then? Enquiring minds need to know!

No comment: gotta go up and tidy my room now.

James

--
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you" is not a satisfactory excuse.

you know? said:

You are Jacob and I claim my £5

Rejected for two reasons: My room is still a mess and my super is not quite ready. BTW, FWIW & OTT,
I live Down by the Sea.

Really OTT now: I've heard the musical by Queen - We Will Rock You - being really pooh-poohed by
everyone and sundry, mainly because of its storyline. I have not seen the show but, to me, the
subject matter does sound rather more than a little similar to Rush's 2112.

James

--
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you" is not a satisfactory excuse.

"James Hodson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is it that you like in Danny's wardrobe then? Enquiring minds need

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

know!

Quoted message said:

No comment: gotta go up and tidy my room now.

You are Jacob and I claim my £5

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

James Hodson said:

Really OTT now: I've heard the musical by Queen - We Will Rock You - being really pooh-poohed by
everyone and sundry, mainly because of its storyline.

Nah, most people [censored] it off because it takes a bunch of perfectly good Queen songs and puts them
into a ludicrous context dreamed up by Ben Elton (spits...)

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

In article said:

It doesn't beg the question in the slightest. It could well be argued that it *raises* the
question.

That seems to be standard usage for "begs the question" these days. It's relatively rare to see it
used in the (original/correct) "assumes the thing you are trying to prove" sense.

"Dave Larrington" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nah, most people [censored] it off because it takes a bunch of perfectly good Queen songs and puts them
into a ludicrous context dreamed up by Ben Elton (spits...)

Ooh! Satire!

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

(Alan Braggins) said:

In article said:

It doesn't beg the question in the slightest. It could well be argued that it *raises* the
question.

That seems to be standard usage for "begs the question" these days. It's relatively rare to see it
used in the (original/correct) "assumes the thing you are trying to prove" sense.

Hi Alan

I don't think I have ever seen "begs the question" used to mean anything other than "raises the
question". However, I'm quite prepared to take your word as to its proper usage. I've learnt
something new today.

Cheers James

--
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you" is not a satisfactory excuse.