cycling links

[Chris B.]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:01:52 GMT, Chris "X-No-Archive: yes" Phillipo
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I know that one of the politicians is
>quoted as saying he wants to get out and shake a person he sees riding
>without a helmet, well I get that feeling too, only when I see someone
>riding toward me on the wrong side of the road.

So you are no longer "urked" when you see "soemone" riding without a
helmet?

Message ID: [email protected]

--
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber-barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber-
baron's cruelty may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Jim wrote:

> Risk homeostasis is an
> interesting concept. I'll have to spend more time thinking about it.
> I don't know if it really exists.

Jim, last Sunday I drove my dad's 1943 Ford Jeep (complete with dashboard
mounted rifle) and my dad (who is 90 and doesn't drive any more) to a
PostVintage car meet. The vehicle cruises fairly comfortably at 50mph.
Brakes, compared to today's cars, are non-existant. I was conscious that I
left more than three times the space between myself and the car in front as
I do in my modern vehicle to feel the same level of safety.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Chris Phillipo wrote:

> You can't seriously be trying to argue that motorcycle helmets provide
> no benefit.

I believe they are designed to proect the wearer in a non-rotational impact
of no more than 23 km/h. (And they stop you swallowing Big Green Bugs).

Theo

 

[David Martin]

On 29/11/04 6:24 pm, in article [email protected],
"JLB" <[email protected]> wrote:

> There only needs to be one scenario where the helmet comes out better.
> If Bovisand does not work, look elsewhere. Broughty ferry near high
> tide, maybe.

That would be here
<url:http://www.compbio.dundee.ac.uk/~dmamartin/small_IMG_1775.jpg> then..

Yes that is Igor and Rachel..

...d

 

[Richard]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> I think the point was that "slim" doesn't realise that potential
> energy varies with speed squared.

ITYM kinetic energy, not potential energy. (gravitational) PE goes as
height.

R.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Eric® wrote:

> I don't understand why being overweight hasn't been banned yet - with
> these folks so concerned about our health & safety.

<cynic> The people making the laws include overweight people </cynic>

I note that many of the people calling for compulsory cycle helmets
don't ride a bike... Perhaps holding the bars doesn't allow them to
wring their hands properly?

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/

 

[Dave Larrington]

Jim wrote:

> There seems to be many assertions being made on what is probably
> anecdotal observations. I do agree that it is foolish to negate the
> benefits of a safety device, such as ABS. Risk homeostasis is an
> interesting concept. I'll have to spend more time thinking about it.

May I refer the Hon. Gentleman to "The Munich Taxicab Experiment" which is
not a Sherlock Holmes story but rather an analysis of accident rates
involving vehicles variously equipped with, an /not/ equipped with, ABS?

<URL: http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html>

IIRC similar results have been found in studies in the USA and Norway.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

 

[Dave Kahn]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> FWIW the "knee injury" paper is the Thompson Rivara Thompson one you
> quoted. Its not written in the paper and you have to do the check that
> any half competent analyst would do in a case control study.

<snip>

> Unfortunately they did not do that simple check but its easy enough to do
> it for yourself.

Of course, a cynic might be tempted to think that they did perform the
check but decided to forget about it when the answer came out
inconveniently for them. This would mean that they lack scientific
integrity. That's an ignoble thought so I prefer to think they were
merely incompetent.

--
Dave...

 

[Dave Kahn]

[email protected] (Roberta Hatch) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> >Yawn. Not the infamous Thompson, Rivara and Thompson old chestnut.
> >It has just about every error in the book from comparing
> >non-comparable groups
>
> In short, you don't like it, so it must not be legit. <yawn>

Other way round. It's not "legit" therefore he doesn't like it.

--
Dave...

 

[Eric®]

Peter Clinch wrote:

> <cynic> The people making the laws include overweight people </cynic>
>
> I note that many of the people calling for compulsory cycle helmets=20
> don't ride a bike... Perhaps holding the bars doesn't allow them to=20
> wring their hands properly?

There appears to be a certain amount of jealousy clouding this 'issue',
doesn't there?

Eric Schild

 

[Richard]

Chris Phillipo wrote:
>>>do you think all cyclists should be required to wear
>>>a hard shell full face helmet in order to get the full benifit? That I
>>>would have a problem with.
>>
>>Why? If it saves one life...think of the children...isn't your head
>>worth it?

> You think heat stroke is some how beneficial?

Methinks James was being a tad sarcastic.

R.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Chris Phillipo wrote:

> Show me the helmet that can take save a person from a 50mph impact and
> you might start making some sense.

So why do racing drivers wear them?

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]

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...

>>Why? If it saves one life...think of the children...isn't your head
>>worth it?

> You think heat stroke is some how beneficial?

No, though I think irony may be lost on you...

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/

 

[JohnB]

Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > Subject: Re: A different look at the helmet debate: was cycling links -
> > From: JohnB <[email protected]>
> > Newsgroups: alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent, aus.bicycle, ba.bicycles, bc.cycling, dc.biking, hr.rec.bicycles, nyc.bicycles, uk.rec.cycling
> >
> > Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > > >
> > > > ..and that still doesn't work given the number of head injuries
> > > > occupants suffer.
> >
> > > I'm assuming you have seen some statistic I haven't?
> >
> > Head injury as cause of death for:
> > Motor vehicle occupants is 40%;
> > Cyclists is 25%;
> > Pedestrians is 65%.
> > ref:"Death on the Streets" by Robert Davis chapter 11.
> >
> > So why not helmets for car occupants before cyclists?
> >
>
> Show me the helmet that can take save a person from a 50mph impact and
> you might start making some sense.

Why are they used in motor racing?

John B

 

[David Martin]

On 30/11/04 3:59 pm, in article [email protected],
"Chris Phillipo" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> It's worth wearing one for the protection from flying desbris like
> gravel alone. Why people think their sunglasses are going to protect
> them from a stone that will crack a windshield I don't know.

Because sunglasses are not fixed rigidly liek a windshield? So when a stone
impacts them the glasses have some 'give' that reduces the peak impact
force.

Then again my sunglasses are impact rated so will protect from flying gravel
(and have done so at 40mph on the bike.)

...d

 

[Peter Clinch]

Chris Phillipo wrote:

>>>Show me the helmet that can take save a person from a 50mph impact and
>>>you might start making some sense.

> My god how many times do we have to go over this. Racing drivers are
> restrained inside a steel cage buy a 5 point harness. The helmet is
> only for flying desbris and fire protection.

And would the flying debris be flying at speeds resembling 50 mph? And
if they hit the helmet, would that not be an impact?

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 Martin]

On 30/11/04 4:18 pm, in article [email protected],
"Chris Phillipo" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <BDD24D18.43E8%[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> Subject: Re: A different look at the helmet debate: was cycling links -
>> From: David Martin <[email protected]>
>> Newsgroups: alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent, aus.bicycle, ba.bicycles, bc.cycling,
>> dc.biking, hr.rec.bicycles, nyc.bicycles, uk.rec.cycling
>>
>> On 30/11/04 3:59 pm, in article [email protected],
>> "Chris Phillipo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It's worth wearing one for the protection from flying desbris like
>>> gravel alone. Why people think their sunglasses are going to protect
>>> them from a stone that will crack a windshield I don't know.
>>
>> Because sunglasses are not fixed rigidly liek a windshield? So when a stone
>> impacts them the glasses have some 'give' that reduces the peak impact
>> force.
>>
>> Then again my sunglasses are impact rated so will protect from flying gravel
>> (and have done so at 40mph on the bike.)
>>
>> ..d
>>
>>
>>
>
> Just because your glasses don't crack, that doens't mean they will
> protect you. If you got lucky, then more power to ya. The lucky part
> was probably finding a gravel truck on the highway that only goes 40mph.

I wasn't expecting my glasses to protect me from gravel that is still in a
truck travelling at 50mph. I have a reasonable expectation that impact rated
safety specs will protect me from a bit of gravel kicked up by a car tyre.
(I have seen a friend catch a piece of gravel with his bike tyre and it
smash the window of an overtaking car.)

...d

 

[Peter Clinch]

Chris Phillipo wrote:

> Are you being a chucklehead on purpose or do you actually not know how
> to properly quote?

It seemed the easiest way to do it while still showing who wrote what
and keeping the relevant sections. You wouldn't be avoiding the
question raised by resorting to needless arguments about smeantics, by
any chance?

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 Martin]

On 30/11/04 4:29 pm, in article [email protected],
"Chris Phillipo" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <BDD24F7A.43F3%[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>>> Because sunglasses are not fixed rigidly liek a windshield? So when a stone
>>>> impacts them the glasses have some 'give' that reduces the peak impact
>>>> force.
>>>>
>>>> Then again my sunglasses are impact rated so will protect from flying
>>>> gravel
>>>> (and have done so at 40mph on the bike.)
>>>>
>>>> ..d
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just because your glasses don't crack, that doens't mean they will
>>> protect you. If you got lucky, then more power to ya. The lucky part
>>> was probably finding a gravel truck on the highway that only goes 40mph.
>>
>> I wasn't expecting my glasses to protect me from gravel that is still in a
>> truck travelling at 50mph. I have a reasonable expectation that impact rated
>> safety specs will protect me from a bit of gravel kicked up by a car tyre.
>> (I have seen a friend catch a piece of gravel with his bike tyre and it
>> smash the window of an overtaking car.)
>>
>> ..d
>>
>
> Well I have seen a june bug take a guy next to me on a GSXR right off
> the road so I don't know what we are even arguing about here. That guy
> wears a full face helmet with visor now you can bet on that.

Don't get such things around here. The odd buzzard that takes a liking to
cyclists perhaps, and teh bikes I ride tend to be at a much slower speed
(you did notice the lack of the work 'motor' in any of the newsgroup names?)

...d

 

[Richard]

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> Well I have seen a june bug take a guy next to me on a GSXR right off
> the road so I don't know what we are even arguing about here. That guy
> wears a full face helmet with visor now you can bet on that.

<four yorkshiremen>

Pah, that's nothing. When I were lad we had ladybirds that'd wrestle you
t' ground, kick you int'balls, take yer loose change, and ride off on
yer bike laughing.