Cycle helmets and speed cameras - the common denominator?

[Matt B]

Reading the arguments against cycle helmets so eloquently presented by the
poster "Just zis Guy, you know?" in the concurrent thread "Helmets -
again!", I see an uncanny resemblance to the "speed camera" debate.

Adapt any of the following quotes from the aforementioned other thread to
refer to speed cameras rather than cycle helmets and you'll see there is a
common cause.

"What many of us object to is clueless zealotry.

"I find that challenging the clueless zealotry is a
worthwhile act.

"... what proportion of serious injuries do you think
helmets prevent, which study does that figure come from, and can you
name a jurisdiction which has managed to achieve changes in head
injury rates in line with that prediction?

"And does it worry you that there is a large group outside of cycling
who are trying to encourage people to take this "basic precaution" by
lying about the danger of cycling, the protective capabilities of
helmets, ...

"Do you not feel just a twinge of concern that helmets are being touted
as a road safety device, ...

"Does it not discomfit you in the least that in order to push this
product the pro-helmet lobby have raised helmet use to the pre-eminent
position in public bike safety consciousness, ...

"Do you not feel it is a cause of slight concern that more money is
spent on the promotion of helmets than on the promotion of training,
which actually prevents collisions in the first place?

Cyclists and motorists could unite to promote _real_ road safety in
preference to the use of the binary tests being touted as the (over
simplified) panacea.

--
Matt B

 

[Clive George]

"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Cyclists and motorists could unite

You're confused. Micheal Schumacher is a cyclist. Even Jeremy Clarkson is a
cyclist. Guy is a motorist. I don't think the divide as you present it
exists.

clive

 

[Matt B]

"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Cyclists and motorists could unite
>
> You're confused. Micheal Schumacher is a cyclist. Even Jeremy Clarkson is
> a cyclist. Guy is a motorist. I don't think the divide as you present it
> exists.

I didn't intend to suggest a divide existed, but that the road safety issues
of both modes could be presented as a united effort.

Do you see the parallels in the helmet/camera debates?

--
Matt B

 

[Clive George]

"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Cyclists and motorists could unite
>>
>> You're confused. Micheal Schumacher is a cyclist. Even Jeremy Clarkson is
>> a cyclist. Guy is a motorist. I don't think the divide as you present it
>> exists.
>
> I didn't intend to suggest a divide existed, but that the road safety
> issues of both modes could be presented as a united effort.

You mean, without mentioning either helmets or cameras?

> Do you see the parallels in the helmet/camera debates?

Not really, no. One is about enforcement of a law, the other is about
useless safety equipment.

clive

 

[Matt B]

"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> Cyclists and motorists could unite
>>>
>>> You're confused. Micheal Schumacher is a cyclist. Even Jeremy Clarkson
>>> is a cyclist. Guy is a motorist. I don't think the divide as you present
>>> it exists.
>>
>> I didn't intend to suggest a divide existed, but that the road safety
>> issues of both modes could be presented as a united effort.
>
> You mean, without mentioning either helmets or cameras?

No, I mean presenting both as examples of poor safety initiatives motivated
by a need to be seen to be doing _something_ (anything), and appealing to
mass public (spun) opinion, rather than based on evidence and research.

>> Do you see the parallels in the helmet/camera debates?
>
> Not really, no. One is about enforcement of a law, the other is about
> useless safety equipment.

Do we have to wait for helmets to become compulsorary before you see a
parallel?

--
Matt B

 

[Peter Clinch]

Matt B wrote:

> No, I mean presenting both as examples of poor safety initiatives motivated
> by a need to be seen to be doing _something_ (anything), and appealing to
> mass public (spun) opinion, rather than based on evidence and research.

Though there is good evidence that excessive speed causes accidents that
in turn cause serious injuries and fatalities, while there isn't any
good evidence I've seen that cycle helmets prevent such serious injuries.

Where is your evidence that speed cameras have caused net harm to public
health. That helmets have is indicated by the reductions in cycling in
Australia coupled with no improvement to the safety of those remaining.

AFAICT most of the opposition to cycle helmet compulsion is based on it
being no use, where most of the opposition to speed cameras is based on
them preventing the people who don't like them from speeding with
relative impunity. Not really too similar.

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/

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:02:24 +0100 someone who may be "Matt B"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>No, I mean presenting both as examples of poor safety initiatives motivated
>by a need to be seen to be doing _something_ (anything), and appealing to
>mass public (spun) opinion, rather than based on evidence and research.

Your presentation is wrong.

Crime detection cameras are based on research carried out by the
Road Research Laboratory that has not been convincingly challenged.

Speed limits were *not* introduced by officials and party
politicians wanting to be seen to be "doing something". They were
introduced as the result of the public wanting them to be
introduced. The public also want crime detection cameras and have,
in places, campaigned for them.

This is all very different to plastic hats for cyclists.

If officials and party politicians were serious about reducing
transport deaths and injuries they would first make plastic hats for
pedestrians and car occupants compulsory. In absolute and relative
terms this would do more for "road safety" as defined by officials.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Clive George]

"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>> I didn't intend to suggest a divide existed, but that the road safety
>>> issues of both modes could be presented as a united effort.
>>
>> You mean, without mentioning either helmets or cameras?
>
> No, I mean presenting both as examples of poor safety initiatives
> motivated by a need to be seen to be doing _something_ (anything), and
> appealing to mass public (spun) opinion, rather than based on evidence and
> research.

How do you propose presenting this? Some sort of pressure group? Single
issue pressure groups work best, so there's no point in trying to combine
the two, even if you could find somebody who believed what you did.

>>> Do you see the parallels in the helmet/camera debates?
>>
>> Not really, no. One is about enforcement of a law, the other is about
>> useless safety equipment.
>
> Do we have to wait for helmets to become compulsorary before you see a
> parallel?

What, you mean one has evidence that supports their use and one doesn't?
That looks orthogonal to me.

clive

 

[Matt B]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> No, I mean presenting both as examples of poor safety initiatives
>> motivated by a need to be seen to be doing _something_ (anything), and
>> appealing to mass public (spun) opinion, rather than based on evidence
>> and research.
>
> Though there is good evidence that excessive speed causes accidents that
> in turn cause serious injuries and fatalities,

You may be correct there, but is there any evidence that _speed cameras_ are
reducing the number of serious "accidents"? Remember that they cannot
detect "excessive speed" itself, they only detect "speeding", so the only
"excessive speed" that they can detect is that which is also above the speed
limit.

> while there isn't any good evidence I've seen that cycle helmets prevent
> such serious injuries.
>
> Where is your evidence that speed cameras have caused net harm to public
> health.

There are documented cases of them causing accidents.

> That helmets have is indicated by the reductions in cycling in Australia
> coupled with no improvement to the safety of those remaining.
>
> AFAICT most of the opposition to cycle helmet compulsion is based on it
> being no use, where most of the opposition to speed cameras is based on
> them preventing the people who don't like them from speeding with relative
> impunity.

Eh? You seem to have swallowed the spin. IMHO reducing casualties should
be the aim, not suggesting that automatically detecting speed limit
infringements on less than 1% of the country's roads will make any
significant difference.

> Not really too similar.

--
Matt B

"It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be
always right by having no ideas at all."
Edward de Bono.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Matt B wrote:

> You may be correct there, but is there any evidence that _speed cameras_ are
> reducing the number of serious "accidents"? Remember that they cannot
> detect "excessive speed" itself, they only detect "speeding", so the only
> "excessive speed" that they can detect is that which is also above the speed
> limit.

But the speed limit is set for reasonably reasonable reasons. The fact
is that any given vehicle in a typical situation will be more likely to
be in a prang if it's exceeding the speed limit than if it isn't, and
that prang will have greater consequences as a result.

> Eh? You seem to have swallowed the spin. IMHO reducing casualties should
> be the aim, not suggesting that automatically detecting speed limit
> infringements on less than 1% of the country's roads will make any
> significant difference.

If it gets people obeying the speed laws then ultimately the cameras
will be pointless so will have no place.

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/

 

[Matt B]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> You may be correct there, but is there any evidence that _speed cameras_
>> are reducing the number of serious "accidents"? Remember that they
>> cannot detect "excessive speed" itself, they only detect "speeding", so
>> the only "excessive speed" that they can detect is that which is also
>> above the speed limit.
>
> But the speed limit is set for reasonably reasonable reasons.

That's as maybe. The idea that "preventing head injuries is desirable" is
also reasonably grounded.

> The fact is that any given vehicle in a typical situation will be more
> likely to be in a prang if it's exceeding the speed limit than if it
> isn't,

Do you have evidence to support that?

> and that prang will have greater consequences as a result.

Simple physics you might think, but given that most accidents occur below
the posted speed limit how can speed cameras help?

>> Eh? You seem to have swallowed the spin. IMHO reducing casualties
>> should be the aim, not suggesting that automatically detecting speed
>> limit infringements on less than 1% of the country's roads will make any
>> significant difference.
>
> If it gets people obeying the speed laws then ultimately the cameras will
> be pointless so will have no place.

Maybe, but will the incidence of serious accidents be less?

--
Matt B

"It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be
always right by having no ideas at all."
Edward de Bono

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:38:44 +0100, "Clive George"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You're confused. Micheal Schumacher is a cyclist. Even Jeremy Clarkson is a
>cyclist. Guy is a motorist. I don't think the divide as you present it
>exists.

David Coulthard is a cyclist, too.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/David_Coulthard

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Matt B]

"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:02:24 +0100 someone who may be "Matt B"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>No, I mean presenting both as examples of poor safety initiatives
>>motivated
>>by a need to be seen to be doing _something_ (anything), and appealing to
>>mass public (spun) opinion, rather than based on evidence and research.
>
> Your presentation is wrong.

Which presentation?

> Crime detection cameras are based on research carried out by the
> Road Research Laboratory

The research was retrospective, so they were hardly based on it. It was
commissioned to try to justify them.

> that has not been convincingly challenged.

Your personal opinion. Similar opinions exist with regard to the opposition
to cycle helmets.

> Speed limits were *not* introduced by officials and party
> politicians wanting to be seen to be "doing something". They were
> introduced as the result of the public wanting them to be
> introduced.

_Some_ of the public may believe the assertions of the government, and some
speed cameras may have been erected because of political pressure (to win
votes). Many members of the public and many organisations also believe the
view that cycle helmets are essential.

> The public also want crime detection cameras and have,
> in places, campaigned for them.

Why do they want them? Is it because they have reviewed all the available
research and commentary? No, it's because they _think_ they are the answer
to a specific local problem.

> This is all very different to plastic hats for cyclists.
>
> If officials and party politicians were serious about reducing
> transport deaths and injuries they would first make plastic hats for
> pedestrians and car occupants compulsory. In absolute and relative
> terms this would do more for "road safety" as defined by officials.

LOL.

--
Matt B

"It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be
always right by having no ideas at all."
Edward de Bono

 

[Matt B]

"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>> I didn't intend to suggest a divide existed, but that the road safety
>>>> issues of both modes could be presented as a united effort.
>>>
>>> You mean, without mentioning either helmets or cameras?
>>
>> No, I mean presenting both as examples of poor safety initiatives
>> motivated by a need to be seen to be doing _something_ (anything), and
>> appealing to mass public (spun) opinion, rather than based on evidence
>> and research.
>
> How do you propose presenting this? Some sort of pressure group? Single
> issue pressure groups work best,

Road safety?

> so there's no point in trying to combine the two, even if you could find
> somebody who believed what you did.
>
>>>> Do you see the parallels in the helmet/camera debates?
>>>
>>> Not really, no. One is about enforcement of a law, the other is about
>>> useless safety equipment.
>>
>> Do we have to wait for helmets to become compulsorary before you see a
>> parallel?
>
> What, you mean one has evidence that supports their use

Hardly "evidence", and it is strongly criticised and contradicted by other
evidence.

> and one doesn't?

Or you don't accept it.

> That looks orthogonal to me.

It's back to prejudices.

--
Matt B

"It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be
always right by having no ideas at all."
Edward de Bono

 

[Peter Clinch]

Matt B wrote:

> Simple physics you might think, but given that most accidents occur below
> the posted speed limit how can speed cameras help?

They won't help in such examples, but nobody's saying they do. OTOH, do
you really think it's fair to suppose that had those vehicles been
breaking the speed limit things may well not have been any worse?

> Maybe, but will the incidence of serious accidents be less?

Quite possibly, yes, especially if VSLs are implemented and adhered to.

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/

 

[Clive George]

"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>> How do you propose presenting this? Some sort of pressure group? Single
>> issue pressure groups work best,
>
> Road safety?

Such groups already exist. Obviously you're free to go and start another one
if you wish - do feel free to tell us when it's ready.

clive

 

[Matt B]

"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> How do you propose presenting this? Some sort of pressure group? Single
>>> issue pressure groups work best,
>>
>> Road safety?
>
> Such groups already exist.

Precisely. Yet we still get pressure to wear helmets and we still ignore
innapropriate and excessive speed in favour of catching speeders.

> Obviously you're free to go and start another one if you wish

Why should I want to?

> - do feel free to tell us when it's ready.

Thanks ;-)

--
Matt B

"It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be
always right by having no ideas at all."
Edward de Bono

 

[David Martin]

Matt B wrote:

> Precisely. Yet we still get pressure to wear helmets and we still ignore
> innapropriate and excessive speed in favour of catching speeders.

I think you will find that should be written:

Yet we still get pressure to wear helmets and we still ignore some
innapropriate and excessive speed and catch some speeders in favour of
ignoring all inappropriate and excessive speed.


Is it just me or is there a correlation between the anti-speed camera
mindset and the 'your fault for not wearing a helmet' crowd?

...d

 

[Clive George]

"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>> Obviously you're free to go and start another one if you wish
>
> Why should I want to?

You're the one complaining about it - for once in your life, stop whining on
usenet and actually go and do something.

Or are does your interest go no further than trying to argue on newsgroups?

clive

 

[Matt B]

"David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Precisely. Yet we still get pressure to wear helmets and we still ignore
>> innapropriate and excessive speed in favour of catching speeders.
>
> I think you will find that should be written:
>
> Yet we still get pressure to wear helmets

OK.

> and we still ignore some
> innapropriate and excessive speed and catch some speeders in favour of
> ignoring all inappropriate and excessive speed.

Eh? Speed cameras only target "speeding", whether it is dangerous or not,
they _cannot_ target inappropriate speed, which is _always_ dangerous.

> Is it just me or is there a correlation between the anti-speed camera
> mindset and the 'your fault for not wearing a helmet' crowd?

It's just you - you are giving the impression of being someone who has
totally missed the point.

--
Matt B

"It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be
always right by having no ideas at all."
Edward de Bono