On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:43:48 GMT, [email hidden] (Patrick Herring)
wrote (more or less):
Quoted message said:<devil's-advocate> They haven't made it worse and have
arguably raised awareness of safety issues in cyclists,
else why would so many no longer cycle? There are many
people alive now who wouldn't have been had they not been
made aware of the dangers of cycling. </devil's-advocate>
Then again, given the fact that driver tolerance of cyclists
decreases as frequency of meeting cyclists on the road
decreases, perhaps there are fewer people alive than would
have been without the mandatory helmet law and the
consequent drop in cyclist numbers.
But both points are either moot, or self-cancelling, as
cyclist injuries remained fairly static despite a major
decrease in cyclist numbers.
Quoted message said:<d-a> Preventing just one is sufficient reason to compel
helmets. I'll wait until the jury's in on the other aspect,
which doesn't make sense anyway. </d-a>
If you prevent only one, and yet cause others*, it is far
from sufficient to prevent just one.
* such as due to:
- lowered driver tolerance due to less frequent interaction
with cyclists
- strangulation by cycle helmet strap
- increased brain-damaging injuries from forced rotations of
the skull due to increased in effective radius of the head
when wearing a helmet
- greater risk-taking by helmet-wearers due to the false
perception of increased safety in accidents involving
motor vehicles
Quoted message said:<d-a> But bikes are inherently unstable, compared to feet
and cars. You'll be telling me next that unicycles are as
easy to ride as bicycles.
<d d-a>Feet are inherently unstable - it takes a couple of
years for a human to learn to walk upright.
Cycles, on the other hand, provide gyroscopic
stabilisers.</d d-a>
Not as stable as four-wheeled vehicles admitedly, which will
stay upright even at zero m.p.h.
Quoted message said:Cyclists have no protection around them and travel amongst
fast vehicles, unlike pedestrians who have their own space,
so the risk is more present. Gotta be more dangerous than
all other modes of road-use. </d-a>
Pedestrians sometimes have their own space, and sometimes
have to share their space with cyclists, and sometimes have
to share their space with all other road-users.
Cyclists sometimes have their own space, sometimes have
to share their space with pedestrians, sometimes have to
share their space with the other non-pedestrian traffic,
and sometimes have to share their space with all other
road-users.
So no real difference.
Given a lot of cycling happens in urban contexts, where
bicycles can complete journeys faster than cars, why do you
feel that bikes are not 'fast vehicles'? :-)
Quoted message said:
| Ultimately, if there was a universally obeyed helemt law
| which delivered the Government's predictions for serious
| injury savings without causing risk compensatory
| behaviour or reducing the levels of cycling (and that is
| two very big ifs), it could reduce the child road
| fatality toll by around 1%. Home zones, traffic calming
| and other measures aimed at reducing danger at source
| have far greater potential to reduce risk, and as a side
| benefit they encourage active travel.
<d-a> Sounds like we should do both.
Except for the fact that the helmet law is unlikely to be
universally obeyed, is unlikely to provide the serious
injury savings, and is likely to reduce cyclist numbers,
then why do it?
Quoted message said:Anyway the more people see helmets as
normal the more it won't put people off.
Seeing helmets as 'normal' doesn't necessary mean they
become seen as other than awkward or annoying to wear, carry
about off-cycle, or store at destinations.
Quoted message said:People ought to be made more aware of obesity generally so
a little thing like helmets won't stop them. </d-a>
Judging by the rapid decline in physical activity levels in
our society along with huge amounts of media coverage for
awareness-raising about the dangers of obesity, /any/ little
thing will stop cycling. Or walking.
Quoted message said:
I'm trying to point out that in Reason v Fear the latter
has much the best track record of winning,
All too true.
Quoted message said:particularly when Reason is mostly talking about
something not existing. It's one thing to win the
argument in a committee meeting, another to win it around
the water-cooler.
Of course, raising false fears to to scare folk into
adopting problematic non-solutions to the fear-mongering
'problem' is utterly reprehensible.
Such as 'Cycling is so dangerous you need to wear a helmet
to be allowed to do it'
Better not to let that sort of false myth breed to become
regular water-cooler 'wisdom'
Quoted message said:I suppose I'm suggesting that as well as your sterling
efforts in getting the facts under the noses of those that
need them, there is another way of arguing the case: I
think we need banner headline sound-bites here.
I agree.
Quoted message said:For example, my own view, that helmets are on balance more
dangerous than not in urban traffic, due to driver risk
compensation,
And cyclist risk-compensation.
And the tendency for helmets not to be worn properly by a
significant proportion of the helmet-wearing populace
(tilted jauntily backwards off the forehead)
And potential for increased incidence of rotational injury.
And the fact they don't protect against impacts of >12mph
And they increase the chance of striking the head during
incidents**
etc., etc.
** I can see this being a problem, but only in the sort of
incidents that fall within a bike helmets design
parameters, so I'm not greatly concerned about this one.
Any motor-vehicle incident is unlikely to be one in which
the reflexive curl in of a head has any major role in
protecting the head.
Quoted message said:would be expressed by "Because you might think you can
get away with it", or "So you /know/ you'd kill me",
or similar.
I see a range of t-shirts in the offing: "No helmet?" on
the front, slogan du jour on the back.
The problem is pithiness, I fear.
'No helmet? No problem - I'm not riding down a
mountain just now'
All in all, I think checking out devil's advocacy is a good
move. Luckily, the devil's advocacy I've seen to date is
dismissable by reason.
Unluckily, as you point out, reason is not always enough
once arguments are being created from emotion rather than
from facts.
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗
