Helmet saved my life? Or attracted attack?



P

Peter Clinch

Guest
_ wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 20:50:24 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>> You've missed the point that cycle helmets need to be (a) as light
>> and well vented as possible to be comfortable, and (b) as
>> protective as possible.

>
> I don't think they need to be b) at all, seeing as cycling is well and
> truly safe without them.


Utility cycling, I'd agree it's safe enough without them, and for many
(but not necessarily all) recreational subforms.

However, in that case IMHO it makes more sense not to wear one, than one
that doesn't do anything, given the minor but finite discomfort, minor
but finite cost, and minor but finite faff of looking after it when
you're off the bike, and especially the implicit message of "hey look
everyone, cycling is so dangerous you need a crash helmet!

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/
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
The other view point, there is one you know aka Dewi... wrote on
18/05/2007 08:16 +0100:

>
> are you in favour then of making cyclists accountable?
>
> By being insured, tested and identifiable?
>
>


Yawn. Two years on and still plugging the same old chestnut.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:

> are you in favour then of making cyclists accountable?


They already are accountable, if anyone makes sufficient effort to hold
them to account.

> By being insured, tested and identifiable?


I take it from this question that you think murderers who are careless
enough to forget to carry forget a passport with them are not
accountable for their crimes?

Law breaking cyclists are accountable the way any other law breakers are
accountable. Beyond that, they create little damage so compulsory
insurance is ridiculous, they tend to harm nobody bar themselves and
start at around age 5, so compulsory testing is ridiculous, and the
government seem to want us all to be more identifiable even though
nobody has actually come up with much reason why.

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/
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:

> What woke me up really was, the same silly coments still being bandied
> around. I'm sure your not to think to understand, you can use
> statistics to say whatever you want.


You can /try/ to say whatever you want, but numerate people will
generally see straight through it if you're pulling a fast one. c.f.
Paul Smith for simple examples.

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/
 
M

Marc Brett

Guest
On 18 May 2007 00:16:25 -0700, "The other view point, there is one you
know..." <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 17 May, 20:43, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>>
>> > And what of the cyclists who flout the rules on the road?

>>
>> What aboutt them? I have no problem with them being nicked, though
>> I imagine it would make sense to take their chances of killing
>> people other than themselves into account.
>>
>> 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/

>
>are you in favour then of making cyclists accountable?
>
>By being insured, tested and identifiable?


When cyclists start killing over 3 kilopersons a year, I'd start to
consider this a very good idea.
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
The other view point, there is one you know... wrote on 18/05/2007 08:14
>
> PC isues, life issues and priorites elsewhere can't take the ID I had
> them with me so....
>


So that was the reason you suddenly appeared as Dewi in early May then
suddenly reappear on May 16 as "The other view point" to post on
helmets? Or were you simply trying incompetently to appear to be
someone else?


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:

> tell you what, i'll believe you when organised bike events change
> their rules to say, no need to wear a helmet ;-)


Plenty of organised events say this. For instance, taking the most
obvious one in my neighbourhood, http://www.pedalforscotland.org/

Small fry, admittedly, with /only/ 3,500 places for cyclists who are
specifically told in the terms and conditions that helmets are *not*
compulsory.

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/
 
C

Chris Malcolm

Guest
The other view point, there is one you know... <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 17 May, 23:14, _ <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 May 2007 20:50:24 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:
>>
>> > You've missed the point that cycle helmets need to be (a) as light
>> > and well vented as possible to be comfortable, and (b) as
>> > protective as possible.

>>
>> I don't think they need to be b) at all, seeing as cycling is well and
>> truly safe without them.


> tell you what, i'll believe you when organised bike events change
> their rules to say, no need to wear a helmet ;-)


You should have told us you were an authority follower! That makes
discussion pointless.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
Tony Raven wrote:

> So that was the reason you suddenly appeared as Dewi in early May then
> suddenly reappear on May 16 as "The other view point" to post on
> helmets? Or were you simply trying incompetently to appear to be
> someone else?


I am now reminded of a member of the Not Terribly Bright Club of GB &
NI's H&S arm called Dewi who was posting dire warnings on u.r.w of
people opting for practically certain strangulation if they did
something rash like keep anything on a lanyard around their neck when
they were out for a stroll.

ICBA to double check, but it doesn't seem too much of a coincidence that
posts of such foolishness in the face of actual facts should come from
someone with the same name...

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/
 
C

Chris Malcolm

Guest
Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> _ wrote:
>>
>> The major danger to cyclists is not falling off, but motorcars.


> No. Motorcars do little harm of their own accord. The major danger to
> cyclists, pedestrians /and/ motorists is *human* error whilst using the
> road.


>> The best way to reduce the already miniscule risk to which cyclists are
>> exposed would be to increase the penalties assessed against drivers of
>> motor vehicles involved in such collisions;


> Not at all. Few collisions result from criminal intent, so the increase
> of criminal penalties would be fruitless.


>> permanently revoking their
>> permission to drive would certainly get their attention.


> Possibly, if they were actually bothered whether they had one or not.
> Remember that a disproportionate number of collisions involve unlicensed
> drivers.


> The most effective way to reduce risk on the roads, whether it be to
> cyclists, pedestrians, or motorists, is to design into the "system"
> tolerance which will accommodate the inevitable human error.


When they introduced the default "blame the motorist unless there's
contrary evidence" for car/bike accidents in the Netherlands it had
the most unexpected effect of cutting the car/bike accident rate
roughly in half. Unexpected by the car drivers that is :)

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
M

Matt B

Guest
Marc Brett wrote:
> On 18 May 2007 00:16:25 -0700, "The other view point, there is one you
> know..." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> are you in favour then of making cyclists accountable?
>>
>> By being insured, tested and identifiable?

>
> When cyclists start killing over 3 kilopersons a year, I'd start to
> consider this a very good idea.


So, you think that involvement in over 3000 deaths per year is a
reasonable threshold for a vehicle type to require insurance, testing,
and registration.

Using that rule, the following vehicle types (with death involvement for
2005)[1] would not require to be "accountable" as described:

Bus/Coach (110)
Pedal cycle (157)
Light goods vehicle (272)
HGV (486)
Motorcycle (609)
Car (2631)

[1] RCGB 2005

--
Matt B
 
M

Matt B

Guest
Chris Malcolm wrote:
> Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> The most effective way to reduce risk on the roads, whether it be to
>> cyclists, pedestrians, or motorists, is to design into the "system"
>> tolerance which will accommodate the inevitable human error.

>
> When they introduced the default "blame the motorist unless there's
> contrary evidence" for car/bike accidents in the Netherlands


You'll have to do better than that because they do not "blame" a
motorist without evidence.

What they do have is a legal technicality, to do with motor insurance,
which allows injured "vulnerable" road users, casualties of a collision
involving a motor vehicle, to claim a certain guaranteed percentage of
compensation for personal injuries from the motorist's insurance
company. Fault, or blame, is /NOT/ considered. It is known as "risk
liability" - the user posing the most risk assumes a minimum percentage
liability.

> it had
> the most unexpected effect of cutting the car/bike accident rate
> roughly in half. Unexpected by the car drivers that is :)


Can you give a reference please.

--
Matt B
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, The
other view point, there is one you know...
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On 17 May, 23:14, _ <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 May 2007 20:50:24 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:
>>
>> > You've missed the point that cycle helmets need to be (a) as light
>> > and well vented as possible to be comfortable, and (b) as
>> > protective as possible.

>>
>> I don't think they need to be b) at all, seeing as cycling is well and
>> truly safe without them.

>
> tell you what, i'll believe you when organised bike events change
> their rules to say, no need to wear a helmet ;-)


I'm running an organised event next month, sanctioned and insured by
British Cycling, over 400Km on road and off including 90Km of technical
singletrack. There is no need to wear a helmet; British Cycling don't
insist on one, their insurers don't insist on one, and I as organiser
don't insist on one.

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

Tony Blair's epitaph, #1: Tony Blair lies here.
Tony Blair's epitaph, #2: Trust me.
 
R

Rob Morley

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Paul
Boyd
[email protected] says...
> Simon Brooke said the following on 17/05/2007 11:09:
>
> > They're worn for periods of under five minutes.

>
> ...apart from the bloke I used to see on my commute wearing one,
> complete with normal working clothes. A little odd, I thought!
>

Perhaps he already had an injury or weakness that justified it, quite
possibly one that precluded him from holding a driving license.
 
R

Rob Morley

Guest
In article <EoOdnWdygM[email protected]>, Tony Raven
[email protected]lid says...
<snip>
> Pretty incompetent nym morpher though to leave his name visible behind
> his new alias. Wonder what woke him up from his not posting here since
> 2005 slumber.
>

His shrink reduced his medication. :)
 
M

Marc Brett

Guest
On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:37:30 +0100, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>Marc Brett wrote:
>> On 18 May 2007 00:16:25 -0700, "The other view point, there is one you
>> know..." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> are you in favour then of making cyclists accountable?
>>>
>>> By being insured, tested and identifiable?

>>
>> When cyclists start killing over 3 kilopersons a year, I'd start to
>> consider this a very good idea.

>
>So, you think that involvement in over 3000 deaths per year is a
>reasonable threshold for a vehicle type to require insurance, testing,
>and registration.
>
>Using that rule, the following vehicle types (with death involvement for
>2005)[1] would not require to be "accountable" as described:
>
>Bus/Coach (110)
>Pedal cycle (157)
>Light goods vehicle (272)
>HGV (486)
>Motorcycle (609)
>Car (2631)
>
>[1] RCGB 2005



"Death involvement"? DEATH INVOLVEMENT!?!?! What the hell is that!

Crawl back under yer bridge, TB.
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
Marc Brett wrote:

> "Death involvement"? DEATH INVOLVEMENT!?!?! What the hell is that!


It's a way of trying to show bikes are Very Dangerous and cars aren't
without resorting to the glaringly obvious. Especially good is the
subdivision of motor vehicles to make them look much safer. "Well, only
a single 1.8 litre kit car with faux leopard-skin seat covers was
death-involved last year, so they should be exempt from all safety
legislation".

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/
 
R

Rob Morley

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
[email protected] says...

> It's a way of trying to show bikes are Very Dangerous and cars aren't
> without resorting to the glaringly obvious. Especially good is the
> subdivision of motor vehicles to make them look much safer. "Well, only
> a single 1.8 litre kit car with faux leopard-skin seat covers was
> death-involved last year, so they should be exempt from all safety
> legislation".
>

I wish they were - I'd get one in a flash. :)
 
M

Matt B

Guest
Marc Brett wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:37:30 +0100, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> Marc Brett wrote:
>>> On 18 May 2007 00:16:25 -0700, "The other view point, there is one you
>>> know..." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> are you in favour then of making cyclists accountable?
>>>>
>>>> By being insured, tested and identifiable?
>>> When cyclists start killing over 3 kilopersons a year, I'd start to
>>> consider this a very good idea.

>> So, you think that involvement in over 3000 deaths per year is a
>> reasonable threshold for a vehicle type to require insurance, testing,
>> and registration.
>>
>> Using that rule, the following vehicle types (with death involvement for
>> 2005)[1] would not require to be "accountable" as described:
>>
>> Bus/Coach (110)
>> Pedal cycle (157)
>> Light goods vehicle (272)
>> HGV (486)
>> Motorcycle (609)
>> Car (2631)
>>
>> [1] RCGB 2005

>
>
> "Death involvement"? DEATH INVOLVEMENT!?!?! What the hell is that!


Look at the reference. Table 25 - "Casualties in accidents involving
vehicles of different types". Buses and coaches were involved in
"accidents" resulting in 110 deaths. Cars were involved in "accidents"
resulting in 2631 deaths. No mention of blame, just involvement.

--
Matt B
 
M

Matt B

Guest
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Marc Brett wrote:
>
>> "Death involvement"? DEATH INVOLVEMENT!?!?! What the hell is that!

>
> It's a way of trying to show bikes are Very Dangerous and cars aren't
> without resorting to the glaringly obvious.


No, it's the way the stats are reported. Blame or "danger" is not
mentioned.

> Especially good is the
> subdivision of motor vehicles to make them look much safer.


There are many types of vehicle, and of vehicle driver/rider using our
roads. The table I refered to divides them into those categories for
some reason. The crude subdivision of casualty statistics by "motive
power" is hardly statistically valid - is it. A better measure would be
"per km travelled", or "per hour on the road", or "per interaction with
other road user".

> "Well, only
> a single 1.8 litre kit car with faux leopard-skin seat covers was
> death-involved last year, so they should be exempt from all safety
> legislation".


Exactly. How do you measure the risk. In car insurance, the age of the
driver is taken into account, and the power of the engine.

What makes one vehicle + user combo more of a risk that another? Is the
same "user" in the same environment and under the same circumstances
more likely to be _responsible_ for a crash if driving a bus than if,
say, riding a motorcycle or riding a push-bike?

--
Matt B