Helmet Wankers

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Tom Kunich, Feb 2, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bernie

    Bernie Guest

    Tom Keats wrote:

    >In article <E1%[email protected]>, "S. Anderson"
    ><[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >>What's more stable on icy roads, motorcycle or motorcycle with sidecar?
    >>
    >
    >Does the sidecar have a person or a sack of horse feed in it?
    >
    >Anyhow, the motorcycle alone is going to be the more controllable.
    >
    >A sidecar adds a whole bunch of alien issues to deal with. Even when just trying to ride a straight
    >line. It's amazing, how much that extra stuff on the side induces lane-drift. From what I've seen,
    >attaching a sidecar practically means having to learn to ride all over again.
    >
    >(I've never driven a motorcycle, but I've been the scared-shitless guinea pig in a new sidehack.)
    >
    >
    >cheers, Tom
    >
    My sister and bro in law have an ancient Moto Guzzi roadster that used t have a sidecar. She
    (passenger) called the sidecar a "coffin". Bernie
     


  2. Tim Woodall

    Tim Woodall Guest

    On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:24:41 GMT,
    John Doe <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Where will it stop. Will in 10 years people want to drive 4-5T trucks to keep that one step ahead
    > for overkill on a passenger vehicle
    >

    Nah. This is the engine I NEED in my SUV.

    http://www.k4viz.com/12-Cylinder.html (I believe there is a 14 cylinder version available as well -
    not mentioned on this page though)

    It's also very efficient - thermal efficiency exceeds 50% at maximum economy so obviously A VERY
    GOOD THING.

    Slightly difficult manoeuvering around central London though :-(

    Tim.

    --
    God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

    http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/
     
  3. Graeme

    Graeme Guest

    Tim Woodall <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > Slightly difficult manoeuvering around central London though :-(
    >

    At that size, sod manoeuvering, let other vehicles/buildings/geological features move out
    of the way!

    Graeme
     
  4. S. Anderson

    S. Anderson Guest

    "Benjamin Lewis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > This merely means that two-wheeled vehicles have a higher initial learning curve. Unless the
    > centre of gravity is quite low, cornering on a tricycle can be dangerous for even the most skilled
    > users, at speeds that are quite safe on two-wheeled vehicles.

    That's exactly what I'm saying. It takes more skill to learn to ride a motorcycle and more time.
    During that long learning process, people figure out that if you try to go around a corner on ice
    you will fall down. That turning quickly on a three-wheel ATV will cause it to overturn generally
    isn't discovered by the first time rider, who otherwise sees no difficulty. The platform is entirely
    stable while sitting on it without moving, it must be stable while driving too. You know, if you are
    unable to figure out how your vehicle behaves, perhaps you shouldn't be driving it in the first
    place! (not you specifically..) The response was "the ATV is inherently unstable and should be
    banned", not "people need to operate the vehicle within its safe operating parameters".

    Cheers,

    Scott..
     
  5. S. Anderson

    S. Anderson Guest

    "Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <E1%[email protected]>, Does the sidecar have a person or a
    > sack of horse feed in it?
    >
    > Anyhow, the motorcycle alone is going to be the more controllable.
    >

    Tom,

    I give you 10 miles of frozen lake to cross. You can choose a sidecar motorcycle or a regular
    motorcycle. Which one do you think would be easier to navigate across the frozen lake for the first
    time user?? Assume that falling off the motorcycle in any way is equivalent to a trike crash. I HAVE
    ridden a motorcycle and believe me, with regular tires, the sidecar will make your life a LOT
    easier!! ;-) I know what you're saying. Yeah, to an experienced user (the key here is "experienced")
    the motorcycle sans sidecar is obviously more appealing for almost all cases. Once you learn how to
    ride a 2-wheel vehicle like a motorcycle, you can use the design to your advantage in many ways. To
    someone who has never ridden a 2 wheel vehicle, it would be a daunting learning curve and they more
    than likely would fall off several times. Give them a sidecar, I can almost gurantee they won't fall
    off as much. To me, people who can't figure out that three-wheel ATV's can tip over remind me of why
    we have labels on floor varnish that say "Do not drink".

    Cheers,

    Scott..
     
  6. S. Anderson

    S. Anderson Guest

  7. Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> writes:

    >In aus.bicycle on Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:42:13 +0000 (UTC) Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> Have you come across the study of the Kent police drivers/riders? I read discussions of it in
    >> Motorcycle Sport some decades ago, but have never found the original. Trained police
    >> motorcyclists were compared to trained police car drivers -- trained means those who had done the
    >> police advanced training courses. The accident rate of the motorcyclists per mile was, contrary
    >> to expectations, significantly *less* than that of drivers. But when they compared serious injury
    >> rates per mile, they were the same. Or so I recall of the discussion. If true it's a nice
    >> example.

    >I doubt it has anything at all to do with risk compensation.

    Contrary to the opinion of the author of the study.

    >IN NSW, the crash rates of motorcycles are the same as those of cars, but the injury rate is much
    >higher, maybe even 10x, I can't recall the figure, but it's bloody high.

    As is the case in the UK.

    >It's that lack of steel cage - if you crash a bike, your chances of getting hurt are fairly large.

    That's the commonsense view. But the commonsense view ignores two very important considerations
    which might influence these figures.

    1) The populations of car drivers and motorcyclists are very different. Motorcyclists are much more
    likely to be young men with very much less road experience -- a category which is known to have a
    much higher accident risk.

    2) The mix of journeys is very different. Motorcycles spent much more travel time in high risk
    environments than cars.

    So the author of the study decided to examine a case where the drivers and riders were of the same
    age and experience, and did the same mix of journey types and mileage.

    >So the riders were crashing less than expected - expectations being they'd crash at least the same
    >amount. And probably being hurt less than expected, as the expected injury rate is much much higher
    >than cars, and they got it down to same as. Meaning the bike crashes were happening at slower
    >speeds and more controlled circumstances.

    Nearly right. In fact the motorcycle crashes tended to be more seriously injurious of the riders.
    The interesting point is that somehow this greater risk of injury in crashes balanced out the lesser
    incidence of crashes to produce the *same* risk of injury per mile.

    Was this just an extraordinary co-incidence?

    The suggestion of the author was that *if* risk compensation occurs, we should expect it to be most
    clearly demonstrated in the most experienced and capable people, because those are the people whose
    appreciation of the risks and of their own capabilities would be the most realistic.

    That's why he chose specially trained police drivers and riders, those who've graduated from the
    special advanced training courses.

    His suggestion was that these experienced capable drivers and riders had a certain level of injury
    risk which they felt comfortable with, and adjusted their behaviour on motorcycles or cars in such a
    way as to compensate for the very different characteristics and vulnerabilities of these different
    vehicles, so that they ended up, realistically, taking the same level of risk. Risk compensation.

    Of course that study didn't *prove* risk compensation, it simply either exemplified it well or was a
    remarkable coincidence. You need to pile up some more, and fail to find counter-examples, to
    strengthen the case.

    >What that set of stats shows is not anything about risk compensation, but that training, especially
    >of vulnerable groups, is a damn good idea.

    How do you explain the *same* level of injury risk? Co-incidence?

    The other interesting point is that it knocks over that very well known piece of common sense
    knowledge about motorcycles, which is that they are "obviously inherently dangerous". So they would
    be if they were driven by car drivers who imagined them to be cars. But people aren't so stupid.
    They learn the dangerous points and adapt to them, just as they slow down in rain or fog or when
    they've discovered their brakes aren't working properly.

    This also has consequences for bicycling. It's the perception of the habitual car driver and novice
    cyclist that cycling is horribly dangerous. So it is, in the sense that you are very vulnerable
    indeed compared to a car driver. But that very perception causes you to behave differently. It takes
    some time to learn the vulnerabilities and appropriate skills.

    >In NSW, the introduction of the 250cc limit for learner riders led to a reduction in injury crashes
    >of about 3%. The introduction of rider training produced a reduction of over 20%.

    Which is contrary the conventional wisdom about the inherent dangerousness of motorcycles, and that
    powerful motorcycles are so ridiculously inherently dangerous that they should be banned. In fact it
    doesn't take motorcyclists long to learn that there are plenty of common circumstances in which
    powerful motorcycles (e.g. >= 500cc) are a lot safer than smaller ones.

    >Risk compensation comes in many forms. While bods wearing leathers ride their bikes in ways they
    >probably wouldn't if wearing shorts and t-shirt, bods wearing shorts and t-shirt ride that way too
    >if they've been doing the squid thing for a while.

    The squid thing is a folly of inexperience and showing off which doesn't last. It rarely lasts
    longer than the first serious loss of flesh.

    >If you do "foolish" things and don't get hurt, then the risk level of that activity drops in your
    >estimation.

    A strictly temporary phenomenon.

    >So to make car drivers more wary and careful, have to ensure they crash now and then....

    That doesn't work. Look at all those folk who now drive Volvos and giant SUVs because "the standard
    of driving these days is so bad that folk keep crashing into me!" What improved protection against
    injury has done for car drivers is to reduce their accident rate at the cost of increasing their
    rate of injury of more vulnerable road users.

    What would you expect to happen if you based a health care industry on paying the doctors and
    medicine manufacturers when people were ill?

    Exactly.

    We have to start bringing elementary psychology into these questions. People aren't mindless robots,
    they experience and adapt all the time.
    --
    Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
  8. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >
    > 1) The populations of car drivers and motorcyclists are very different. Motorcyclists are much
    > more likely to be young men with very much less road experience -- a category which is known to
    > have a much higher accident risk.
    >

    It used to be that the prime source of donor eyes for corneal transplants was teenage motorcycle
    riders. I gather it has now changed to 40 something motorbike riders reflecting the trend for them
    to go out and buy the powerful bike they could not afford in their youth.

    Tony
     
  9. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:24:41 GMT, John Doe <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > Where will it stop. Will in 10 years people want to drive 4-5T trucks to keep that one step
    > > ahead for overkill on a passenger vehicle
    > >
    >
    > Nah. This is the engine I NEED in my SUV.
    >
    > http://www.k4viz.com/12-Cylinder.html (I believe there is a 14 cylinder version available as well
    > - not mentioned on this page though)
    >
    > It's also very efficient - thermal efficiency exceeds 50% at maximum economy so obviously A VERY
    > GOOD THING.

    I was going to call BS on this by saying that only the biggest marine diesel engines are that
    efficient, until I went to the page and discovered that this *is* one of those engines. That's right
    up there with a large combined-cycle natural gas-fired power plant (which will hit about 60% IIRC).

    > Slightly difficult manoeuvering around central London though :-(

    I'll bet it doesn't accelerate very well, either! Imaging what kind of step-up gears you would need,
    since the engine only turns about 100 rpm!

    --
    Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

    REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
     
  10. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <d%[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > "W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > Interesting assertion, but a subtle effect (not sure how you define "significant"), can be far
    > > from negligible on a whole population.
    >
    > True, but remember that these are not the victims of accidents to which helmet laws are directed.
    >
    > > I thought the whole "risk compensation" business was about such subtle changes to behaviour.
    > > e.g. people with seatbelts and ABS do not drive
    > like
    > > loonies, just very slightly less safely.
    >
    > But bicyclists with helmets will descend hills at 60 mph (96 kph) when they would NEVER do that
    > without a helmet. My experience is that the difference in chance taking is rather large on
    > bicycles.

    I find that very odd. If you hit a rock or tree at 60mph, it's not going to matter one bit whether
    you have that helmet on or not. At 20 or 25, it probably would because the helmet will absorb a
    significant portion of the impact energy. It might protect you from a nasty scalp abrasion as you
    slide head first on the pavement, but that's not normally fatal or permanently damaging anyway.

    I've found that I don't ride noticeably different with a helmet than without.

    --
    Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

    REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
     
  11. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:24:41 GMT, "John Doe" <[email protected]>
    wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    >You are dead right. Couldnt agree more. Cars are a plague on our society. Wouldnt need to wear a
    >helmet on my bike if it were not for that filth. Especially those damn tanks that seem to be
    >popular now. Why is that? Is it because they think their ever growing arses look big in a small
    >car? Do people go into a car yard now and say "This car makes my arse look too big. You got
    >anything in a 3 ton range?" Where will it stop. Will in 10 years people want to drive 4-5T trucks
    >to keep that one step ahead for overkill on a passenger vehicle

    Plenty of satire, no irony. Seems fair to me.

    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
     
  12. Tim Woodall

    Tim Woodall Guest

    On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:29:10 -0500,
    David Kerber <[email protected]_ids.net> wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    >>
    >> http://www.k4viz.com/12-Cylinder.html (I believe there is a 14 cylinder version available as well
    >> - not mentioned on this page though)
    >>
    >
    >> Slightly difficult manoeuvering around central London though :-(
    >
    > I'll bet it doesn't accelerate very well, either! Imaging what kind of step-up gears you would
    > need, since the engine only turns about 100 rpm!
    >
    >
    Depends on how big your wheels are :)

    Tim.

    --
    God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

    http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/
     
  13. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:15:06 -0500, David Kerber
    <[email protected]_ids.net> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >If you hit a rock or tree at 60mph, it's not going to matter one bit whether you have that helmet
    >on or not. At 20 or 25, it probably would because the helmet will absorb a significant portion of
    >the impact energy.

    Up to a point, Lord Copper. Actually a helmet will absorb the energy of a fall onto a flat surface
    from a standing start at about 5'4" height.

    >I've found that I don't ride noticeably different with a helmet than without.

    Keyword: noticeably - i.e. you don't notice. Which is precisely the point. I ride much more
    cautiously without a helmet on my drop-bar bike, and am much more nervous at speed on my drop-bar
    bike than on my recumbent.

    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
     
  14. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 16:20:51 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris
    Malcolm) wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    >What would you expect to happen if you based a health care industry on paying the doctors and
    >medicine manufacturers when people were ill? Exactly.

    Satire of the highest quality :) I nominate this for post of the week.

    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
     
  15. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 03:19:40 GMT, Dane Jackson <[email protected]> wrote
    in message <[email protected]>:

    > no-one who actually posts to these threads is likely to change their minds. If they've worked up
    > enough of an opinion to post, more than likely they've already drunk the kool-aid. The people's
    > minds you are influencing are the innocent^Wuninvolved lurking bystanders.

    A valid point - but are you *absolutely sure* you want to give the helmet activists among us this
    encouragement? ;-)

    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
     
  16. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

    ...

    > God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

    So are you an EE or a Physicist?

    --
    Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

    REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
     
  17. David Kerber

    David Kerber Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]osoft.com says...
    > On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:15:06 -0500, David Kerber <[email protected]_ids.net> wrote in message
    > <[email protected]>:
    >
    > >If you hit a rock or tree at 60mph, it's not going to matter one bit whether you have that helmet
    > >on or not. At 20 or 25, it probably would because the helmet will absorb a significant portion of
    > >the impact energy.
    >
    > Up to a point, Lord Copper. Actually a helmet will absorb the energy of a fall onto a flat surface
    > from a standing start at about 5'4" height.

    Exactly. And that leaves that much less energy to be transmitted to my skull. It won't absorb it
    all, but it will absorb whatever it can, reducing what hits my scull.

    >
    > >I've found that I don't ride noticeably different with a helmet than without.
    >
    > Keyword: noticeably - i.e. you don't notice. Which is precisely the point. I ride much more
    > cautiously without a helmet on my drop-bar bike, and am much more nervous at speed on my drop-bar
    > bike than on my recumbent.

    Not everybody is that way, though. It just sounds like I'm a more cautious rider than you are,
    whether I have my helmet on or not.

    --
    Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

    REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
     
  18. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 22:26:08 -0500, "S. Anderson"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >I always think about the three wheel ATV in situations like this. They were banned in some places
    >because they were "inherently unstable and dangerous". I always liked to point out that if you let
    >go of a motorcycle, it would fall over all by itself..how much more "unstable" can you get?

    Now that really did make me laugh out loud! Damn, that's just so true!

    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
     
  19. Rick Onanian

    Rick Onanian Guest

    <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote:
    >Rick Onanian wrote:
    >> They have never had any effect. There is no point. I spent way too much time trying to figure
    >> that out through participation last year.
    >
    >Then I'd say you didn't spend enough time reading and studying the factual data.
    >
    >It's like anything else. If you think you already know everything, you won't learn. If you don't do
    >the homework and studying, you won't learn.

    Frank, you are truly a low pressure vortex, trying to suck me into the tornado. I won't do it! What,
    rehash the same crap we already did? I read and studied, and made my decision for me; and stuck to
    me belief that my decision should only affect _me_. What more could you want from me, and _why_?

    >If that describes you, then truly, for you the discussion has no point. Go watch TV.

    I refuse to watch tv. I went for a bike ride today, weather be damned!

    Don't tell somebody on a bicycling newsfroup to go watch tv. Tell them to go for a bike ride, or go
    buy a trainer! If your free-time-usage judgement is that skewed, I question your helmet judgement
    too...<G> (It's a joke! It's a joke! Stop!)
    --
    Rick Onanian
     
  20. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 16:36:22 -0500, David Kerber
    <[email protected]_ids.net> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >> Up to a point, Lord Copper. Actually a helmet will absorb the energy of a fall onto a flat
    >> surface from a standing start at about 5'4" height.

    >Exactly. And that leaves that much less energy to be transmitted to my skull. It won't absorb it
    >all, but it will absorb whatever it can, reducing what hits my scull.

    And at the same time aplifying the rotational component which is the most common cause of
    brain injury.

    >> Keyword: noticeably - i.e. you don't notice. Which is precisely the point. I ride much more
    >> cautiously without a helmet on my drop-bar bike, and am much more nervous at speed on my drop-bar
    >> bike than on my recumbent.

    >Not everybody is that way, though. It just sounds like I'm a more cautious rider than you are,
    >whether I have my helmet on or not.

    Or the difference is small in your case. It only needs to be small.

    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...