"Death wish" (contains h***** content)

DavidR said:

stuck in the jam somewhere between Marble Arch and Hyde
Park. A woman (probably between 25-35) in a long skirt came pedalling
by.

Quoted message said:

One of my fellow passengers (an occasional mountain biker) said "That
woman must have a death wish. And she's not even wearing a helmet!"

I tried to put her right with a "it wouldn't make any difference".

Quoted message said:

Another passenger (who occasionally rides to work wearing said
polystyrene cover) said "Really?".

Quoted message said:

I added "Not in accidents with
motor vehicles".

(multiple snips!)

What speed were you all doing in the afore mentioned jam?

pk

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I added "Not in accidents with
motor vehicles".

(multiple snips!)

What speed were you all doing in the afore mentioned jam?

Quite. They do work very well at protecting the top of the head from minor
injuries.

The real point which, judging by the comments received by Radio 4's
Thinking Allowed, really needs to be rammed home is that CYCLING IS SAFE
ENOUGH NOT TO NEED PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT - mile for mile it's safer than
walking, and you're less likely to hit your head when cycling too![1]

[1] Tho can't find a ref for that last point.

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:42:06 +0000 (UTC), Mark Thompson

pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I added "Not in accidents with
motor vehicles".

(multiple snips!)

What speed were you all doing in the afore mentioned jam?

Quite. They do work very well at protecting the top of the head from minor
injuries.

The real point which, judging by the comments received by Radio 4's
Thinking Allowed, really needs to be rammed home is that CYCLING IS SAFE
ENOUGH NOT TO NEED PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT - mile for mile it's safer than
walking, and you're less likely to hit your head when cycling too![1]

I think its a wider issue, when children aren't allowed to experience
risk and learn from it (for example, climb trees, walk home from
school on their own or all the other things that were the norm 20+
years ago) isn't it an inevitable situation that everythinig has to be
wrapped up in polystyrene?

Personally I'm not really pro or against h*mets, normally I don't wear
one, but if I was iin the siituation where I though it might help
(such as off roading down a loose gravel path) I would.

My belief is (on road) if you are
- aware
- anticipating
- visible
- controlling the traffic
- considerate

that that is 100 times better than wearing a bit of polystyrene... and
this is what should be shouted out loud.. not that everyone should
wear a h*met and everything will be ok.

Just my thoughts (and the first time I've replied to a h*met thread)
Mark

Adam Lea said:

Shouldn't the comparison be hour for hour rather than mile for mile? After
all cycling one mile is about 4x faster than walking one mile so the safety
aspect might be biased because of the reduced exposure in the cycling case.

That's a question that will always be debated, for comparison between
any two modes of transport. As far as I'm concerned, if you are
comparing two modes of *transport* then the mile for mile comparison is
more valid. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the hour for hour
comparison is irrelevant.

For leisure activities, hour for hour might be more valid.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

DavidR said:

I was in London earlier in the week. There were 4 other people in the
car with me stuck in the jam somewhere between Marble Arch and Hyde
Park. A woman (probably between 25-35) in a long skirt came pedalling
by.

My thought was "braver than me" but then, being a visitor I am not
familiar with London ways.

One of my fellow passengers (an occasional mountain biker) said "That
woman must have a death wish. And she's not even wearing a hemet!"

I tried to put her right with a "it wouldn't make any difference".
Another passenger (who occasionally rides to work wearing said
polystyrene cover) said "Really?". I added "Not in accidents with
motor vehicles".

A proclamation from our manager (who fancies himself as a
driver - he's ok but not always observant enough and is a persistant
OLO[*]) that "it won't prevent an accident but it would protect the
head" with silence from my colleagues putting an end to the
conversation. With an hour's journey still ahead it wasn't worth
stoking further impatience
over the state of the traffic.

[*] BMW driver. Er... sorry, Outside Lane Owner.

I didn't see a single pavement cyclist btw. I did see a minor
situation where a rider overtaking stationary cars nearly shared road
space with a pedestrian crossing between them. There was no heated
exchange. Do you think I should post this observation to uk.t to see
if their heads would explode from such logical impossibility?

Stopped at a red light with my mates today when a couple of mtb'ers rode
through 2 red sets.
Must get meself one of those bikes, I sed.
--

Martin Bulmer

In article <[email hidden]>
Adam Lea <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Just a couple of quick questions - when comparing walking to cycling
accidents to assess relative risk are the walking accidents biased towards
the elderly, who tend to be more unsteady on their feet? What would happen
if you were to do the comparison over different age groups?

Younger people walk further/faster, old people have bus passes and
aren't rushing to work ...

Quoted message said:

Shouldn't the comparison be hour for hour rather than mile for mile? After
all cycling one mile is about 4x faster than walking one mile so the safety
aspect might be biased because of the reduced exposure in the cycling case.

If you're comparing modes of transport then surely the only fair
comparison is on the same journey?

Danny Colyer said:

That's a question that will always be debated, for comparison between
any two modes of transport. As far as I'm concerned, if you are
comparing two modes of *transport* then the mile for mile comparison is
more valid. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the hour for hour
comparison is irrelevant.

On a similar note, but taking it more non-cycling related, the mile for
mile comparison is one that is used by the airline industry to show how
safe flying is. However a plane flight is often several orders of
magnitude longer than a walk down to the shops or a cycle ride across
town and it's not very easy to tap the pilot on the shoulder and say
"the statistical risk of continuing on this flight has got too great
for my liking, can you drop me off here please?" (unless you want
jumped on and forcibly restrained by over-sensitive vigilante fellow
passengers). When looked at on per journey basis, flying doesn't look
as safe as the per mile figures suggest.

Graeme

in message <[email hidden]>, Adam Lea

(') said:

"Mark Thompson"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote
in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The real point which, judging by the comments received by Radio 4's
Thinking Allowed, really needs to be rammed home is that CYCLING IS
SAFE ENOUGH NOT TO NEED PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT - mile for mile it's
safer than walking, and you're less likely to hit your head when
cycling too![1]

[1] Tho can't find a ref for that last point.

I think on your last point you may be wrong. If you're not wrong, it's
news to me. I believe the risk of head injury is not significantly
different.

Quoted message said:

Just a couple of quick questions - when comparing walking to cycling
accidents to assess relative risk are the walking accidents biased
towards the elderly, who tend to be more unsteady on their feet? What
would happen if you were to do the comparison over different age
groups?

Don't know. It's a whole population statistic.

Quoted message said:

Shouldn't the comparison be hour for hour rather than mile for mile?
After all cycling one mile is about 4x faster than walking one mile so
the safety aspect might be biased because of the reduced exposure in
the cycling case.

If you compare hour for hour, then walking is safer than cycling. But,
interestingly, if you compare hour for hour, then cycling is safer than
driving. Whichever way you look at it, cycling is pretty safe.

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

;; when in the [censored], the wise man plants courgettes

Quoted message said:

On a similar note, but taking it more non-cycling related, the mile for
mile comparison is one that is used by the airline industry to show how
safe flying is. However a plane flight is often several orders of
magnitude longer than a walk down to the shops or a cycle ride across
town and it's not very easy to tap the pilot on the shoulder and say
"the statistical risk of continuing on this flight has got too great
for my liking, can you drop me off here please?" (unless you want
jumped on and forcibly restrained by over-sensitive vigilante fellow
passengers). When looked at on per journey basis, flying doesn't look
as safe as the per mile figures suggest.

People will rarely say 'oooh, flying is safer, perhaps I'll catch a plane
instead of walk'. I'd consider a per trip thingy to be more useful for
planes, as the danger is concentrated at the take off and landing stage so
I expect there isn't too much difference between a 100 mile and a 1000 mile
journey.

Simon Brooke ([email hidden]) wrote:
: in message <[email hidden]>, Adam Lea
: ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

: > Shouldn't the comparison be hour for hour rather than mile for mile?
: > After all cycling one mile is about 4x faster than walking one mile so
: > the safety aspect might be biased because of the reduced exposure in
: > the cycling case.

: If you compare hour for hour, then walking is safer than cycling. But,
: interestingly, if you compare hour for hour, then cycling is safer than
: driving. Whichever way you look at it, cycling is pretty safe.

Agree; and I think it is good to know both. Which one you want to look
at will depend on why you care about the stats. When I decide whether I
walk 5 miles to work or cycle, I will know that cycling is actually
safer. When someone is worried about a spouse commuting half an hour
each way by bicycle, ask them whether they would be just as worried if
the spouse were commuting half an hour by car, and point out that it's
the same risk.

We also shouldn't forget the other side of the equation, that is, what
are the benefits of each mode of transport. I would assume that driving
at relatively low speed in London is quite a bit safer per km than
cycling, but so what? Cycling is good for general health, is much more
fun for me, costs less money, is faster (for inner-city distances).

I'm tired of some (no-one in this thread, general rant) pretending that
safety is an absolute value without trade-offs.

m.

Quoted message said:

My belief is (on road) if you are
- aware
- anticipating
- visible
- controlling the traffic
- considerate
that that is 100 times better than wearing a bit of polystyrene... and
this is what should be shouted out loud.. not that everyone should
wear a h*met and everything will be ok.

It doesn't matter how good you think you are - it only takes one idiot
to have an accident with you. Have a car pass you too closely, or come
shooting over a hump-backed bridge into the back of you (this has
happened to a friend of a friend who is now paraplegic). Wearing a
helmet will help reduce the damage to your head. Is your head worth
protecting?

Simon Kempster

Quoted message said:

It doesn't matter how good you think you are - it only takes one idiot
to have an accident with you. Have a car pass you too closely, or come
shooting over a hump-backed bridge into the back of you (this has
happened to a friend of a friend who is now paraplegic). Wearing a
helmet will help reduce the damage to your head. Is your head worth
protecting?

Why don't you protect the head when walking as a pedestrian? I believe the
risks are similar, with walking coming out slightly worse.

A cycle helmet is not particularly good at protecting you from the kind of
impacts you seem concerned about. I suggest wearing a full face motorbike
helmet - is your head worth protecting?

Mark Thompson
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com>typed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It doesn't matter how good you think you are - it only takes one idiot
to have an accident with you. Have a car pass you too closely, or come
shooting over a hump-backed bridge into the back of you (this has
happened to a friend of a friend who is now paraplegic). Wearing a
helmet will help reduce the damage to your head. Is your head worth
protecting?

Quoted message said:

Why don't you protect the head when walking as a pedestrian? I believe the
risks are similar, with walking coming out slightly worse.

Quoted message said:

A cycle helmet is not particularly good at protecting you from the kind of
impacts you seem concerned about. I suggest wearing a full face motorbike
helmet - is your head worth protecting?

Is your neck worth risking further?

You are probably more likely to have the sort of accident that leaves
you paraplegic if you wear a h*lm*t.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

Have a car pass you too closely, or come
shooting over a hump-backed bridge into the back of you (this has
happened to a friend of a friend who is now paraplegic). Wearing a
helmet will help reduce the damage to your head.

Errr... no, actually, it won't; not in either of those two circumstances
(and even the manufacturers don't claim that it will). If you're wearing
a helmet because you think you may fall off and bump your head, fine,
carry on. If you're wearing a helmet because you think it will help you
if a car hits you, check the research.

Hint: people who wear helmets are very slightly more, not slightly less,
likely to be killed or seriously injured per kilometer cycled.

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

;; Human history becomes more and more a race between
;; education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My belief is (on road) if you are
- aware
- anticipating
- visible
- controlling the traffic
- considerate
that that is 100 times better than wearing a bit of polystyrene...
and this is what should be shouted out loud.. not that everyone
should wear a h*met and everything will be ok.

It doesn't matter how good you think you are - it only takes one idiot
to have an accident with you. Have a car pass you too closely, or
come shooting over a hump-backed bridge into the back of you (this has
happened to a friend of a friend who is now paraplegic). Wearing a
helmet will help reduce the damage to your head. Is your head worth
protecting?

Are you new here?

My first out loud laugh in a h****t thread!

Graeme Dods wrote:
Snip:

Quoted message said:

However a plane flight is often several orders of
magnitude longer than a walk down to the shops or a cycle ride across
town and it's not very easy to tap the pilot on the shoulder and say
"the statistical risk of continuing on this flight has got too great
for my liking, can you drop me off here please?" (unless you want
jumped on and forcibly restrained by over-sensitive vigilante fellow
passengers).

End snip

In article <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My belief is (on road) if you are
- aware
- anticipating
- visible
- controlling the traffic
- considerate
that that is 100 times better than wearing a bit of polystyrene... and
this is what should be shouted out loud.. not that everyone should
wear a h*met and everything will be ok.

It doesn't matter how good you think you are - it only takes one idiot
to have an accident with you. Have a car pass you too closely, or come
shooting over a hump-backed bridge into the back of you (this has
happened to a friend of a friend who is now paraplegic). Wearing a
helmet will help reduce the damage to your head.

It has been shown that in some cases wearing a helmet actually increases
the risk of serious brain injury or fatality. Pretty much the only time
a helmet is guaranteed to give protection is in a situation that
wouldn't result in lasting serious injury anyway.

Marianne Promberger wrote on 17/07/2006 09:34 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I'm tired of some (no-one in this thread, general rant) pretending that
safety is an absolute value without trade-offs.

The message is that its as safe as a whole range of other things you do
every day such as walking and driving. The per mile/per hour/per
journey debate just distracts people away from the fact that cycling is
very safe. As others have pointed out, you don't think whether you
would fly, drive or walk to New York from the UK nor do you think about
flying from Kings Cross to Waterloo but you might think whether to walk,
cycle or drive the distance from home to work or the shops. Whichever
way you work it out though the answer is that cycling is safe.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

[email hidden] wrote on 17/07/2006 10:02 +0100:

Quoted message said:

It doesn't matter how good you think you are - it only takes one idiot
to have an accident with you. Have a car pass you too closely, or come
shooting over a hump-backed bridge into the back of you (this has
happened to a friend of a friend who is now paraplegic). Wearing a
helmet will help reduce the damage to your head. Is your head worth
protecting?

It doesn't matter how good you think you are - it only takes one
meteorite to hit your head. Living in an underground bunker will reduce
the damage to your head. Is your head worth protecting?

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci