Helmet use statistics

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Alan Walker, Mar 2, 2004.

  1. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    2LAP <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > @ Dave Kahn.
    >
    > Coming to this news group from cyclingforums.com is like stepping from the rabit enclosure to the
    > lions cage at a Zoo. I think that the welcome would be a lot warmer the other way round.

    Unfortunately cyclingforums posters have a habit of blunderung into urc without checking what has
    gone before, and sometimes without realising that they're on Usenet.

    > Some people in this news group treat you like the son of the devil if you ever contemplated
    > turning up at a race or have a bike that doesn't run of chain saw oil!

    That's not true; a number of us race. It is, however, a general cycling forum, not a racing one.
    AFAIAC you can use whatever you like on your chain. The point about chainsaw oil, that you seem
    determined not to see, is that it is actually one of the best lubricants you can use. You seem to
    assume it's crap just because it's not a rip-off.

    > Believe it or not, there are lots of cyclists that don't care if helmets are compulsary or not and
    > just ride their bikes. For a new person visiting this news group it seems strange that a 'pro
    > cycling newsgroup' would have such a problem over helmets - hence all the posts about it.

    They should care because there is a private member's bill going before parliament shortly that,
    if passed, would do more to damage cycling in the UK than all the half-arsed cycling farcilities
    put together.

    --
    Dave...
     


  2. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    2LAP wrote:

    > Believe it or not, there are lots of cyclists that don't care if helmets are compulsary or not and
    > just ride their bikes.

    I believe it, certainly, but I don't personally feel that ignoring an issue is a good approach if
    you care about the consequences. I do care, so I do bang on about it at rather boring length, but if
    that's what it takes to make people notice (it eventually worked on me) then it's worth doing IMHO.
    First step is in getting people to realise there *are* consequences.

    > visiting this news group it seems strange that a 'pro cycling newsgroup' would have such a problem
    > over helmets

    Refer yourself to google to pick up the gist of why. Exec summary is everywhere that helmets have
    been made compulsory for general cycling there has been a significant drop in cycling numbers, which
    some of see as being "anti cycling". And since increased cycle use is generally held to be a safety
    win for the cyclists there already are, it affects people who would just ride on anyway.

    I don't have any problem with racing, btw, and I hope you haven't taken anything I've said as being
    particularly critical of racing or racers. It is simply the case that what goes for racing isn't
    necessarily relevant to cycling in general, so I question inferences to the contrary.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  3. Marc

    Marc Guest

    Dave Kahn <[email protected]> wrote:

    > > Coming to this news group from cyclingforums.com is like stepping from the rabit enclosure to
    > > the lions cage at a Zoo. I think that the welcome would be a lot warmer the other way round.
    >
    > Unfortunately cyclingforums posters have a habit of blunderung into urc without checking what has
    > gone before, and sometimes without realising that they're on Usenet.

    and to send over long lines to Usenet! :-(

    --
    Marc. Please note the above address is a spam trap, use marcc to reply Printing for clubs of all
    types http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk Stickers, banners & clothing, for clubs,teams, magazines
    and dealers.
     
  4. Marc

    Marc Guest

    2LAP <[email protected]> wrote:

    > > If you haven't been there already www.cyclehelmets.org tells you almost everything about the
    > > whole issue
    >
    >
    > Thanks Mark, I'll have a good look at the site.
    >
    > First impressions were they need some new pictures!!!

    Do you think that they could get 500,000 of taxpayers money to do it?

    --
    Marc. Please note the above address is a spam trap, use marcc to reply Printing for clubs of all
    types http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk Stickers, banners & clothing, for clubs,teams, magazines
    and dealers.
     
  5. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 10:02:18 GMT someone who may be 2LAP
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >First impressions were they need some new pictures!!!

    Why?

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

    David Hansen Guest

    On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 17:12:57 GMT someone who may be 2LAP
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >Believe it or not, there are lots of cyclists that don't care if helmets are compulsary or not and
    >just ride their bikes.

    There will be less of them if helmets are made compulsory, which is the objective of a publically
    funded lobby group. Unless you think that the UK is different from everywhere compulsion has been
    introduced of course.

    >For me (I've been riding 15 years) cycling has changes loads;

    I don't recall saying that it has not. However, there is still a difference between different sorts
    of cycling, just as there is between different sorts of walking and driving.

    >(I won't go on main routes as I fear for my life!).

    Have you read Cyclecraft?

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
    keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
     
  7. 2LAP

    2LAP New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,265
    Likes Received:
    0
    No.

    But its not my cycling that I'm worried about; its other peoples rush hour, picked the kids up from after school club, crap day at work, just got off the M6 style of driving!!!
     
  8. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:12:49 GMT someone who may be 2LAP
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    > > Have you read Cyclecraft?
    >
    >No.
    >
    >But its not my cycling that I'm worried about; its other peoples rush hour, picked the kids up from
    >after school club, crap day at work, just got off the M6 style of driving!!!

    That is why reading Cyclecraft is a good idea. Following the advice contained in it will allow you
    to minimise the chances of being injured by these people.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
    keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
     
  9. On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 22:18:20 +0000 (UTC), "PK"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
    >> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:16:27 +0000 (UTC), "PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> <[email protected]>:
    >>
    >>>> cycling to the shops is a heck of a lot safer than walking to the shops.
    >>
    >>> Can you justify that statement?
    >>
    >> DfT do it for him. See Road Casualties Great Britain and Transport Trends.
    >
    >no, those stats do not support that conclusion.
    >
    >pk

    Please explain.

    Reading off graph Trend 7.1b (a bit tricky reading off a graph, I admit):

    Two wheeled motor vehicles : 110 fatalities per billion km in 2002 Pedal Cycles : 30
    Pedestrians : 50

    I read that as saying that, mile for mile, it's considerably safer to cycle than walk.
     
  10. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    "[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 22:18:20 +0000 (UTC), "PK" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
    > >> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:16:27 +0000 (UTC), "PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> <[email protected]>:
    > >>
    > >>>> cycling to the shops is a heck of a lot safer than walking to the shops.
    > >>
    > >>> Can you justify that statement?
    > >>
    > >> DfT do it for him. See Road Casualties Great Britain and Transport Trends.
    > >
    > >no, those stats do not support that conclusion.
    > >
    > >pk
    >
    > Please explain.
    >
    > Reading off graph Trend 7.1b (a bit tricky reading off a graph, I admit):
    >
    > Two wheeled motor vehicles : 110 fatalities per billion km in 2002 Pedal Cycles : 30
    > Pedestrians : 50
    >
    > I read that as saying that, mile for mile, it's considerably safer to cycle than walk.

    He's confused. Per unit time, walking is probably safer due to being slower. However if the shops
    don't run away when you decide to go by bike, the distance for a shopping trip will be the same, so
    cycling there is safer than walking there. (You can of course erode this advantage by cycling to a
    further shop).

    cheers, clive
     
  11. On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:33:00 GMT, McBain_v1
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Alan Walker wrote:
    > > I suspect that similar wooly-headed thinking prevails amongst pro- helmet lobbies.
    >
    >
    >
    >I wear a helmet whenever I go cycling, either on my road bike or when I borrow my pal's mountain
    >bike, it's just part of the gear that I wear.
    >
    >I don't see many cyclists who do not wear helmets around my neck of the woods. Guess it boils down
    >to individual choice and a person's vanity. If you'd rather increase your chances of smashing your
    >skull to shards and swallowing your tongue then don't wear a helmet.

    MBUK and its ilk have a lot of responsibility for this type of nonsense outlook.

    You really have swallowed the lot, haven't you.
     
  12. "Mark Thompson" <[email protected] (change warm for
    hot)> wrote:

    | > I apologize that should be ... I have never ever met anyone that has suggested that helmets
    | > should not be worn
    |
    | I've seen one, maybe two on the group, though they may have changed their minds by now.

    Nope. FUD-caps the lot of 'em. Only for cycling amongst motorised vehicles though. Or potentially
    so, IYSWIM. However, my evidence for judging that driver risk compensation is worse than helmet
    effectiveness is really only anecdotal. The actual figures don't point either way since what's
    inside people's heads at accident-time isn't recorded.

    --
    Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK http://www.anweald.co.uk

    Eala Earendel engla beorhtast ofer middangeard monnum sended.
     
  13. Marc

    Marc Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, usenet- [email protected] says...
    > > Have you read Cyclecraft?
    >
    >
    > No.
    >
    Is there much more to be said?

    An advocate of "safety equipment " that hasn't bothered to find out how
     
  14. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    2LAP wrote:

    > But its not my cycling that I'm worried about; its other peoples rush hour, picked the kids up
    > from after school club, crap day at work, just got off the M6 style of driving!!!

    You're part of the interaction between yourself and the above people, and they have no interest in
    scratching their paint so they will take notice of you, *if* you're playing by the rules they
    understand. Nervous cyclists with relatively little traffic experience tend to play by different
    rules, generally based on fear. It's quite understandable, but it actually puts them in more
    danger in many cases (i.e., hugging the kerb or riding on pavements rather than riding well out
    into the road).

    Do yourself a favour and get a copy: worst case, you're a tenner down; best case, substantially
    improves your safety and enables you to enjoy cycling on roads more.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  15. Johnb

    Johnb Guest

    marc wrote:
    >
    > In article <[email protected]>, usenet- [email protected] says...
    > > > Have you read Cyclecraft?
    > >
    > >
    > > No.
    > >
    > Is there much more to be said?
    >
    > An advocate of "safety equipment " that hasn't bothered to find out how

    You know about the Pope's private life then?

    John B
     
  16. Ian G Batten

    Ian G Batten Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Gawnsoft <[email protected]> wrote:
    > While true, the classic risk compensation study did not record what was in folk's heads.
    >
    > It recorded their distance to a set stop line at the moment of applying the brakes, while wearing
    > seatbelts, and while not wearing setbelts.

    Huh? What does that tell you about risk compensation? It just tells you that you can brake harder
    while wearing a seatbelt, as you don't need to support your body against the deceleration.

    ian
     
  17. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:22:47 GMT, [email protected] (Patrick Herring)
    wrote (more or less):

    >However, my evidence for judging that driver risk compensation is worse than helmet effectiveness
    >is really only anecdotal. The actual figures don't point either way since what's inside people's
    >heads at accident-time isn't recorded.

    While true, the classic risk compensation study did not record what was in folk's heads.

    It recorded their distance to a set stop line at the moment of applying the brakes, while wearing
    seatbelts, and while not wearing setbelts.

    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
    Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  18. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 15:06:21 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
    <[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

    >In article <[email protected]>, Gawnsoft
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >> While true, the classic risk compensation study did not record what was in folk's heads.
    >>
    >> It recorded their distance to a set stop line at the moment of applying the brakes, while wearing
    >> seatbelts, and while not wearing setbelts.
    >
    >Huh? What does that tell you about risk compensation? It just tells you that you can brake harder
    >while wearing a seatbelt, as you don't need to support your body against the deceleration.

    No - it shows that people become later brakers when they put on a seatbelt.

    As you pointed out earlier, braking forces vary between 0.6g and 0.9g
    - and can in fact never exceed 1g at road-legal speeds. Few drivers are incapable of supporting
    themselves against 1g.

    (Btw, in the study seat-belt wearers more often did not stop in time compared to non-seat
    belt wearers).

    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
    Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  19. Ian G Batten

    Ian G Batten Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Gawnsoft <[email protected]> wrote:
    > No - it shows that people become later brakers when they put on a seatbelt.

    Of course. But the jump to risk compensation is a leap.

    > As you pointed out earlier, braking forces vary between 0.6g and 0.9g
    > - and can in fact never exceed 1g at road-legal speeds. Few drivers are incapable of supporting
    > themselves against 1g.

    Incapable, true. Prefer not to, perhaps.

    > (Btw, in the study seat-belt wearers more often did not stop in time compared to non-seat belt
    > wearers).

    When was this study done? It would be interesting to know how, for example, they randomised the
    participants. I would not be prepared to be in a car without a seat belt, full stop. I suspect
    people with that attitude are not homogenous with those that would.

    ian
     
  20. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 22:18:19 +0000 (UTC), "PK"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >> Hmm. Why would an anti-compulsion activist be paranoid I wonder?
    >Beacuse that is what you called yourself a little while ago, Guy!

    And? My argument stands: those who are anti compulsion have ample justification for paranoia,
    --
    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
Loading...
Loading...