On Oct 15, 10:34 pm, "Coyoteboy" <
[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >http://www.ctcyorkshirehumber.org.uk/campaigns/velo.htm
>
> > Sniper8052
>
> Again it starts out with an agenda and cites plenty of old works, as well as
> plenty from aus. I'll read through it more thoroughly but it appears, on the
> surface, to be using the same flawed papers I've seen cited by other works.
> Either way, the vast majority of accidents I see and have participated in 
> have been "fall from height" accidents or "bounce along the floor"
> accidents, not impacts with stationary or moving solid objects at 45
> degrees+ to the direction of motion.
Do you not think that whole population figures for an entire country,
such as the UK, might be a more relevant statistic to use than your
limited set of experiences when trying to decide how helmet laws would
affect the UK?
>On road this may be less the case, but
> it is still an important fact. You cannot design a protection system for
> all types of impact, but you can design one that covers the most common
> types of impact - life threatening head injuries are uncommon (helmeted or
> unhelmeted) but non-superficial head injuries are common, and helmets
> protect against these. As I say, I've ripped the side and front off helmets
> with head impacts with the floor, there was no /noticable/ rotational nature
> in the motion of my head, but there certainly was a direct impact and a
> scraping along the floor which removed the damaged sections after the
> impact. Maybe i have a thick neck that helps prevent head rotation, who
> knows.
I'm sure that in an impact strong enough to destroy a helmet it would
be hard put for you to notice anything much. Either that or your
helmet is so fragile that it really wasn't doing much.
>
> The problem is that there are too many variables at test to conclude
> anything from staged lab tests - they dont make sense in the real world.
> Likewise one country to the next doesnt tally due to differing road use
> rules and attitudes, let alone the difference between on and off-road use,
> the quality of the roads presenting more or less hazards of a particular
> type and the type and average age of vehicles used on those roads at that
> time.
Do you have *ANY* scientific training at all or are you just happy to
spout pseudo intellectual rubbish about how we cannot know anything
unless we actually do the experiment? ANd rubbish papers without
actually providing a critique as to why you consider them flawed
(except that you don't agree with them).
Last time I checked, the laws of physics apply equally to all
countries. People ride off road in similar ways. Kids ride round the
park in the same way.
You claim (with no evidence cited to support such a claim) that
traffic is somehow different and this difference renders any findings
invalid. That is an erroneous connection. Firstly differences in
traffic can be corrected for by comparison with other VRU groups. This
is essential in any longitudinal study. Secondly, those effects can be
examined in terms of casualty rates and with careful dissection of the
data we can estimate the most likely effect of changing helmet wearing
policy.
If you are going to rubbish every study as flawed then you had better
come up with some better evidence for your position that we should
kill off youth utility cycling in UK than whilst doing some extreme
sport style cycling you broke a few helmets.
So, where is your evidence that we need to ban kids under 14 from
riding bikes without a helmet?
...d
