Helmet saved my life? Or attracted attack?



A

Andrew Chadwick

Guest
On 2007-05-18 07:18 +0000, The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
> On 17 May, 23:14, _ <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> > [...]

>> 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 ;-)


The NAVCC (http://www.navcc.co.uk/) list plenty of organised cycle
events up and down the country, including the yearly first-sunday-
in-july one round my neck of the woods. You don't see many helmets in
evidence on these IIRC: perhaps because a fall from an Ordinary would
be well outside the design parameters of most of the things.

Also, the CTC do not insist, and IME if a local organiser suggests you
wear one, you may still ride.

--
Andrew Chadwick
 
D

dkahn400

Guest
On May 18, 8:29 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.


Err, to protect us against terrorism, err... to protect us against
identity theft, err....

--
Dave...
 
D

David Damerell

Guest
<[email protected]>:
>tell you what, i'll believe you when organised bike events change
>their rules to say, no need to wear a helmet ;-)


<http://www.aukweb.net/index2.htm>. That's, what, five so far?
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:eek:konomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace
 
T

The other view point, there is one you know...

Guest
On 18 May, 10:10, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.


Be interested to know roughly how many will wear a helmet or don't,
even if its just for the technical bit, please keep 'us' (me)
informed, ta.
 
P

Peter Clinch

Guest
David Damerell wrote:
> <[email protected]>:
>> tell you what, i'll believe you when organised bike events change
>> their rules to say, no need to wear a helmet ;-)

>
> <http://www.aukweb.net/index2.htm>. That's, what, five so far?


Though that's simply not trying very hard, of course. for example, at
the moment the local cycling charity I'm a volunteer for is doing weekly
organised rides round on a Thursday evening, and the organiser has
pointed out that hats are not compulsory. There must be one helluva lot
of such small, but still organised, cycling events over the country.

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/
 
D

Don Whybrow

Guest
The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
> On 18 May, 10:10, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> 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.

>
> Be interested to know roughly how many will wear a helmet or don't,
> even if its just for the technical bit, please keep 'us' (me)
> informed, ta.
>


Well I for one will be taking part and will not be wearing a helmet. Of
the other 3 in my team, they will probably all wear helmets. The 2 that
are covering the off-road stuff because a) they want to and b) it might
actually be of use. The other chap that is sharing the road sections
with me will probably wear one as that is a) what he is used to when he
takes part in UCI events b) he wants to and c) until a month ago was a
firm believer in the magic properties of polystyrene. He is /just/
starting to question them and I am in no mind to push him.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"This is all very interesting, and I daresay you already see me
frothing at the mouth in a fit; but no, I am not; I am just
winking happy thoughts into a little tiddle cup." (Nabokov,
Lolita)
 
D

Don Whybrow

Guest
Peter Clinch wrote:
> David Damerell wrote:
>> <[email protected]>:
>>> tell you what, i'll believe you when organised bike events change
>>> their rules to say, no need to wear a helmet ;-)

>>
>> <http://www.aukweb.net/index2.htm>. That's, what, five so far?

>
> Though that's simply not trying very hard, of course. for example, at
> the moment the local cycling charity I'm a volunteer for is doing weekly
> organised rides round on a Thursday evening, and the organiser has
> pointed out that hats are not compulsory. There must be one helluva lot
> of such small, but still organised, cycling events over the country.


All TryCycling, CTC & Sustrans rides around Edinburgh, AFAIK, do not
require plastic hats and when I rode the Edinburgh to St Andrews LEPRA
ride last year they were not either.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

My veal cutlet tried to beat the **** out of my cup of coffee...
the coffee just wasn't strong enough to defend himself. (Tom
Waits)
 
E

Ekul Namsob

Guest
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.


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


Many are insured as a lot of home contents insurance includes relevant
legal cover. Many are identifiable as they have fingerprints and
uncovered heads.

Should pedestrians be insured, tested and identifiable?

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, Don Whybrow
('[email protected]') wrote:

> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>> On 18 May, 10:10, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.

>>
>> Be interested to know roughly how many will wear a helmet or don't,
>> even if its just for the technical bit, please keep 'us' (me)
>> informed, ta.

>
> Well I for one will be taking part and will not be wearing a helmet. Of
> the other 3 in my team, they will probably all wear helmets. The 2 that
> are covering the off-road stuff because a) they want to and b) it might
> actually be of use.


Actually, there is one point in the route notes for the event in which I
say:

"CAUTION: Beware skull-and-crossbones marked section signed 'Hissing
Sid'. Flowing singletrack with many extremely difficult rock sections.
Helmet strongly advised."

I've ridden it without a helmet, of course. But it's the sort of place
where falls onto rock are very likely, and a helmet would on balance be
useful[1]. The only problem is that you come to it after having ridden
about twenty miles of open fire road, and personally I find riding that
distance in a helmet horribly uncomfortable.

In practice, based on previous years experience, I think most people will
wear helmets for the off-road sections, and about half will for the road
sections.

[1] I've never yet ridden Hissing Sid without falling off. Mind you, in
probably thousands of falls from mountain bikes I've never hit my head,
either.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Copyright (c) Simon Brooke; All rights reserved. Permission is
granted to transfer this message via UUCP or NNTP and to store it
for the purpose of archiving or further transfer. Permission is
explicitly denied to use this message as part of a 'Web Forum', or
to transfer it by HTTP.
 
T

The other view point, there is one you know...

Guest
On 18 May, 21:01, [email protected] (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:
> 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.

> > are you in favour then of making cyclists accountable?

>
> > By being insured, tested and identifiable?

>
> Many are insured as a lot of home contents insurance includes relevant
> legal cover. Many are identifiable as they have fingerprints and
> uncovered heads.
>
> Should pedestrians be insured, tested and identifiable?
>
> Cheers,
> Luke
>


Rubbish, are they heck identifiable, not in the way a motorist is...
 
P

Peter Clinch

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

> Rubbish, are they heck identifiable, not in the way a motorist is...


It's very easy for a motorist to conceal their identity /if they
want to/. "Oh, I can easily identify my assailant! He (or maybe
she...) was driving a /silver Ford Focus/ with obscured number
plates and tinted windows". Clearly enough for an immediate
prosecution!

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/
 
I

Ian Smith

Guest
On 19 May 2007, <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 18 May, 21:01, [email protected] (Ekul
> Namsob) wrote:
> >
> > Many are insured as a lot of home contents insurance includes relevant
> > legal cover. Many are identifiable as they have fingerprints and
> > uncovered heads.

>
> Rubbish, are they heck identifiable, not in the way a motorist is...


So, how do you identify a motorist?
Do they have a serial number tattooed on their forehead?
A unique pattern of markings on their back?

Please tell.

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

The other view point, there is one you know...

Guest
On 19 May, 09:04, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19 May 2007, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 18 May, 21:01, [email protected] (Ekul
> > Namsob) wrote:

>
> > > Many are insured as a lot of home contents insurance includes relevant
> > > legal cover. Many are identifiable as they have fingerprints and
> > > uncovered heads.

>
> > Rubbish, are they heck identifiable, not in the way a motorist is...

>
> So, how do you identify a motorist?
> Do they have a serial number tattooed on their forehead?
> A unique pattern of markings on their back?
>
> Please tell.
>
> regards, Ian SMith
> --
> |\ /| no .sig
> |o o|
> |/ \|


If you need me to tell you, then your not really here for beer are you?
 
T

The other view point, there is one you know...

Guest
On 19 May, 09:01, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>
> > Rubbish, are they heck identifiable, not in the way a motorist is...

>
> It's very easy for a motorist to conceal their identity /if they
> want to/. "Oh, I can easily identify my assailant! He (or maybe
> she...) was driving a /silver Ford Focus/ with obscured number
> plates and tinted windows". Clearly enough for an immediate
> prosecution!
>
> 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/


There is a well tried and tested way to identify motorists, how far
they take the 'investigation' will determine by the offence, interest
in the incident.

Now, if a cyclist were to commit an offence, and the police were
asking for witnesses, what could one say; bike, two wheels, wearing
tight yellow jacket, listening to ipod or had ear plugs
in...........not a lot to go on is it?
 
A

Alistair Gunn

Guest
The other view point, there is one you know... twisted the electrons to say:
> There is a well tried and tested way to identify motorists, how far
> they take the 'investigation' will determine by the offence, interest
> in the incident.


So how do you track down who was driving a car that had obscured/fake
plates and tinted windows?

> Now, if a cyclist were to commit an offence, and the police were
> asking for witnesses, what could one say;


Male/female, ethnic origin, old/young/child, long/short/no hair (and
colour thereof), slim/fat, tall/short, presence/absence of facial hair,
presence/absence of glasses. Clothing (which I'll grant that you did
sort of mention).

Description of the bike might prove useful, but given that (IME) the
worst cyclists are those on #50 BSO it probably won't be.

> not a lot to go on is it?


Seems to be quite a lot to go on if you ask me ... You're not TrollB in
disguise are you?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
The other view point, there is one you know... wrote on 19/05/2007 13:15
+0100:
>
> There is a well tried and tested way to identify motorists, how far
> they take the 'investigation' will determine by the offence, interest
> in the incident.


They couldn't identify whether it was Christine or Neil Hamilton despite
the difference in hair style. The Hampshire Police couldn't identify
who it was either. And the driver who assaulted a recent poster here
could not be identified.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/celebdaq/news/news/2003/11/26/22228.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2014539.stm
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2uthpl



--
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:

> There is a well tried and tested way to identify motorists, how far
> they take the 'investigation' will determine by the offence, interest
> in the incident.


It is clearly imperfect. Last time I wanted to clearly identify a
car was when some yoofs went by and one of the jokers in the back
opened the door as he went past, just to give me a scare. It
worked too...
I saw a police car within 5 minutes, flagged it down and reported
the incident. Orange Citroen Saxo, plate SP02...something, with
between 2 and 4 probably male occupants. It wasn't enough, of course.

> Now, if a cyclist were to commit an offence, and the police were
> asking for witnesses, what could one say; bike, two wheels


Oh, I forgot to say that Citroen had 4 wheels, that would have
helped too, would it?

> wearing tight yellow jacket


That's more than I could tell you about the folk I wanted tracked down.

> listening to ipod or had ear plugs
> in...........not a lot to go on is it?


Not really, but at least as useful as I managed to get in the Real
Life Example given above. And they weren't even going out of their
way to hide themselves, and I was still able to have a good look at
them (quite possible that wouldn't be the case had I been knocked off).

There is no shortage of hit and runs where the motor vehicle
concerned, and its driver, cannot be positively identified. Think
about it for a few minutes and you'll realise that motorists aren't
as easily identified as you are suggesting.

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/
 
I

Ian Smith

Guest
On 19 May 2007, <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19 May, 09:04, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 19 May 2007, <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On 18 May, 21:01, [email protected] (Ekul
> > > Namsob) wrote:

> >
> > > > Many are insured as a lot of home contents insurance includes relevant
> > > > legal cover. Many are identifiable as they have fingerprints and
> > > > uncovered heads.

> >
> > > Rubbish, are they heck identifiable, not in the way a motorist is...

> >
> > So, how do you identify a motorist?
> > Do they have a serial number tattooed on their forehead?
> > A unique pattern of markings on their back?

>
> If you need me to tell you, then your not really here for beer are you?


I know no way to identify a motorist that does not apply identically
to a cyclist.

I have no idea what the latter part of your sentence is supposed to
mean. I'm not here for beer, I'm here for rational conversation. If
(as seems to be the case) you're unable to provide that, I won't
bother you any more.

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

John Kane

Guest
On May 19, 8:15 am, "The other view point, there is one you know..."
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19 May, 09:01, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:

>
> > > Rubbish, are they heck identifiable, not in the way a motorist is...

>
> > It's very easy for a motorist to conceal their identity /if they
> > want to/. "Oh, I can easily identify my assailant! He (or maybe
> > she...) was driving a /silver Ford Focus/ with obscured number
> > plates and tinted windows". Clearly enough for an immediate
> > prosecution!

>
> > 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/

>
> There is a well tried and tested way to identify motorists, how far
> they take the 'investigation' will determine by the offence, interest
> in the incident.
>
> Now, if a cyclist were to commit an offence, and the police were
> asking for witnesses, what could one say; bike, two wheels, wearing
> tight yellow jacket, listening to ipod or had ear plugs
> in...........not a lot to go on is it?


Well given that I have no interest at all in cars except to dodge
them, my description of a car would be "green, Ontario licence, looked
like a male driver",

Bicycle okay,: "Male rider in street clothes, shoulder length black
hair and mustache may have had goatee , riding what looked like a
Supercycle or equivalent BSO , had stereo speaker balanced on front
handlebars. Tall, probably 6 ft and quite thin. (This is from my
phone call to security about a suspicious person seen outside a
university residence at 5:30 am).

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada