Re: The antidote



C

Clive George

Guest
"Brian Robertson" <brian@[nospam].com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you really
> should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising git, but as someone
> with the near death experiences to prove it.


You're an uk.transport poster, not uk.rec.cycling, aren't you? (*) Have a
read of the archives of the latter group on the subject - you'll probably
hate it, but it might prepare you a little for what to expect when you write
stuff like the above.

(* alternatively, you're new round here aren't you?)

cheers,
clive
 
Clive George wrote:
> "Brian Robertson" <brian@[nospam].com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you
>> really should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising git, but
>> as someone with the near death experiences to prove it.

>
> You're an uk.transport poster, not uk.rec.cycling, aren't you? (*) Have
> a read of the archives of the latter group on the subject - you'll
> probably hate it, but it might prepare you a little for what to expect
> when you write stuff like the above.
>
> (* alternatively, you're new round here aren't you?)
>
> cheers,
> clive


People are entitled to their opinions and I to mine. I wouldn't support
any move to force people to wear helmets, so it's all down to choice
really, isn't it? Based upon our own experiences we make our choices.

Brian.
 
Brian Robertson wrote:
> Clive George wrote:
>> "Brian Robertson" <brian@[nospam].com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you
>>> really should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising git,
>>> but as someone with the near death experiences to prove it.

>>
>> You're an uk.transport poster, not uk.rec.cycling, aren't you? (*)
>> Have a read of the archives of the latter group on the subject -
>> you'll probably hate it, but it might prepare you a little for what
>> to expect when you write stuff like the above.
>>
>> (* alternatively, you're new round here aren't you?)
>>
>> cheers,
>> clive

>
> People are entitled to their opinions and I to mine. I wouldn't
> support any move to force people to wear helmets, so it's all down to
> choice really, isn't it? Based upon our own experiences we make our
> choices.


Before they became compulsory, I expect many people had a similar view on
motorcycle helmets and car seatbelts. Then the do-gooders thought they knew
best and inflicted them on everyone.
 
"Brian Robertson" <brian@[nospam].com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive George wrote:
>> "Brian Robertson" <brian@[nospam].com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you really
>>> should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising git, but as
>>> someone with the near death experiences to prove it.

>>
>> You're an uk.transport poster, not uk.rec.cycling, aren't you? (*) Have a
>> read of the archives of the latter group on the subject - you'll probably
>> hate it, but it might prepare you a little for what to expect when you
>> write stuff like the above.
>>
>> (* alternatively, you're new round here aren't you?)

>
> People are entitled to their opinions and I to mine. I wouldn't support
> any move to force people to wear helmets, so it's all down to choice
> really, isn't it? Based upon our own experiences we make our choices.


Personally I consider the experiences of others when making my choices too.
But my point stands - you've, perhaps unwittingly, made a very contentious
statement. It might be an idea to check up on these things if you're not
trying to start an argument.

And you did say DavidR should wear a helmet - you were seeking to impose
your choice upon him.

cheers,
clive
 
Brimstone wrote:
> Brian Robertson wrote:
>> Clive George wrote:
>>> "Brian Robertson" <brian@[nospam].com> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you
>>>> really should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising git,
>>>> but as someone with the near death experiences to prove it.
>>> You're an uk.transport poster, not uk.rec.cycling, aren't you? (*)
>>> Have a read of the archives of the latter group on the subject -
>>> you'll probably hate it, but it might prepare you a little for what
>>> to expect when you write stuff like the above.
>>>
>>> (* alternatively, you're new round here aren't you?)
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> clive

>> People are entitled to their opinions and I to mine. I wouldn't
>> support any move to force people to wear helmets, so it's all down to
>> choice really, isn't it? Based upon our own experiences we make our
>> choices.

>
> Before they became compulsory, I expect many people had a similar view on
> motorcycle helmets and car seatbelts. Then the do-gooders thought they knew
> best and inflicted them on everyone.
>
>


Different thing, isn't it. You can't and never will be able to regulate
cycling in that way, thank God! Personally, with motorbikes I would be
pro-choice as well, but that's my opinion on most things.

Brian.
 
Clive George wrote:
> "Brian Robertson" <brian@[nospam].com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Clive George wrote:
>>> "Brian Robertson" <brian@[nospam].com> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you
>>>> really should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising git,
>>>> but as someone with the near death experiences to prove it.
>>>
>>> You're an uk.transport poster, not uk.rec.cycling, aren't you? (*)
>>> Have a read of the archives of the latter group on the subject -
>>> you'll probably hate it, but it might prepare you a little for what
>>> to expect when you write stuff like the above.
>>>
>>> (* alternatively, you're new round here aren't you?)

>>
>> People are entitled to their opinions and I to mine. I wouldn't
>> support any move to force people to wear helmets, so it's all down to
>> choice really, isn't it? Based upon our own experiences we make our
>> choices.

>
> Personally I consider the experiences of others when making my choices
> too. But my point stands - you've, perhaps unwittingly, made a very
> contentious statement. It might be an idea to check up on these things
> if you're not trying to start an argument.
>
> And you did say DavidR should wear a helmet - you were seeking to impose
> your choice upon him.
>
> cheers,
> clive


Yes, I apologise for my choice of words.

Brian.
 
Adrian wrote:
> Clive George ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
> like they were saying :
>
>> "Brian Robertson" <brian@[nospam].com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...

>
>> You're an uk.transport poster, not uk.rec.cycling, aren't you? (*)

>
> You're welcome to him. Please, feel free.
>
>> (* alternatively, you're new round here aren't you?)

>
> Not new enough.


Love you too, mate lol

Brian.
 
Clive George ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

> "Brian Robertson" <brian@[nospam].com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...


> You're an uk.transport poster, not uk.rec.cycling, aren't you? (*)


You're welcome to him. Please, feel free.

> (* alternatively, you're new round here aren't you?)


Not new enough.
 
Brian Robertson wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Brian Robertson wrote:
>>> Clive George wrote:
>>>> "Brian Robertson" <brian@[nospam].com> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you
>>>>> really should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising git,
>>>>> but as someone with the near death experiences to prove it.
>>>> You're an uk.transport poster, not uk.rec.cycling, aren't you? (*)
>>>> Have a read of the archives of the latter group on the subject -
>>>> you'll probably hate it, but it might prepare you a little for what
>>>> to expect when you write stuff like the above.
>>>>
>>>> (* alternatively, you're new round here aren't you?)
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> clive
>>> People are entitled to their opinions and I to mine. I wouldn't
>>> support any move to force people to wear helmets, so it's all down
>>> to choice really, isn't it? Based upon our own experiences we make
>>> our choices.

>>
>> Before they became compulsory, I expect many people had a similar
>> view on motorcycle helmets and car seatbelts. Then the do-gooders
>> thought they knew best and inflicted them on everyone.
>>
>>

>
> Different thing, isn't it.


Why?

> You can't and never will be able to
> regulate cycling in that way


Why not?

>, thank God!


Which one?

> Personally, with motorbikes
> I would be pro-choice as well


Why?
 
Brimstone wrote:
> Brian Robertson wrote:
>
>>Clive George wrote:
>>
>>>"Brian Robertson" <brian@[nospam].com> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you
>>>>really should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising git,
>>>>but as someone with the near death experiences to prove it.
>>>
>>>You're an uk.transport poster, not uk.rec.cycling, aren't you? (*)
>>>Have a read of the archives of the latter group on the subject -
>>>you'll probably hate it, but it might prepare you a little for what
>>>to expect when you write stuff like the above.
>>>
>>>(* alternatively, you're new round here aren't you?)
>>>
>>>cheers,
>>>clive

>>
>>People are entitled to their opinions and I to mine. I wouldn't
>>support any move to force people to wear helmets, so it's all down to
>>choice really, isn't it? Based upon our own experiences we make our
>>choices.

>
>
> Before they became compulsory, I expect many people had a similar view on
> motorcycle helmets and car seatbelts. Then the do-gooders thought they knew
> best and inflicted them on everyone.


I can remember riding a motor-bike without a helmet in the 1960s. I
appreciate why the law was changed, but that's easy to say because I
was never affected by it.

Similarly, it was only the (1983) change in the law on seatbelts that
made me wear one. It's becoming history now (almost 25 years), but
back then, a passenger who belted up was sometimes seen as lacking
confidence in the driver in a very obvious way, whilst a driver
belting up could be perceived as preparing for an accident and make a
passenger nervous!
 
Brimstone wrote:
> Brian Robertson wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> Brian Robertson wrote:
>>>> Clive George wrote:
>>>>> "Brian Robertson" <brian@[nospam].com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you
>>>>>> really should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising git,
>>>>>> but as someone with the near death experiences to prove it.
>>>>> You're an uk.transport poster, not uk.rec.cycling, aren't you? (*)
>>>>> Have a read of the archives of the latter group on the subject -
>>>>> you'll probably hate it, but it might prepare you a little for what
>>>>> to expect when you write stuff like the above.
>>>>>
>>>>> (* alternatively, you're new round here aren't you?)
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers,
>>>>> clive
>>>> People are entitled to their opinions and I to mine. I wouldn't
>>>> support any move to force people to wear helmets, so it's all down
>>>> to choice really, isn't it? Based upon our own experiences we make
>>>> our choices.
>>> Before they became compulsory, I expect many people had a similar
>>> view on motorcycle helmets and car seatbelts. Then the do-gooders
>>> thought they knew best and inflicted them on everyone.
>>>
>>>

>> Different thing, isn't it.

>
> Why?
>
>> You can't and never will be able to
>> regulate cycling in that way

>
> Why not?
>
>> , thank God!

>
> Which one?
>
>> Personally, with motorbikes
>> I would be pro-choice as well

>
> Why?
>
>


I think you are a sensible person in lots of ways and we could agree on
a lot. However, if you can't understand why an exercise that is
enjoyed by people as soon as they can walk can't be regulated.........

You are just trying to trip me up. You aren't interested in debate.

Brian.
 
Brian Robertson wrote:
>>> You can't and never will be able to
>>> regulate cycling in that way

>> Why not?

>
> I think you are a sensible person in lots of ways and we could agree on
> a lot. However, if you can't understand why an exercise that is
> enjoyed by people as soon as they can walk can't be regulated.........


I can't either. In fact it already is regulated in many ways: it's
illegal to enjoy this activity on pavements, without lights at night,
without pedal reflectors, without effective brakes, while moving
contrary to the traffic flow, ... there are a whole raft of rules which
you can find out about by consulting the Highway Code, or go directly to
the source and check out for example the Pedal Cycles (Construction and
Use) Regulations 1983 (Statutory Instrument 1983 No. 1176) and the
Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989



-dan
 
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Similarly, it was only the (1983) change in the law on seatbelts that made
> me wear one. It's becoming history now (almost 25 years), but back then, a
> passenger who belted up was sometimes seen as lacking confidence in the
> driver in a very obvious way, whilst a driver belting up could be
> perceived as preparing for an accident and make a passenger nervous!


I can remember my friend's dad in the 1970s being very scathing about seat
belts, particularly after (he said) *not* wearing a seat belt saved him from
being squished when someone T-boned him and because he wasn't wearing a seat
belt he was able to move across to the passenger seat before it happened -
it was a car with a bench set in the front: couldn't do it in a modern car!

However my dad drummed into my sister and me that we must always wear our
seat belts if we sat in the front. And mum and dad enforced this rigidly: on
one occasion I took my belt off because I didn't like feeling constrained by
it (it was an old-style non-inertia belt) and dad stopped immediately and
read the riot act: "I don't set off again until you put it on or get in the
back seat".

Mum's car was a different matter: a 1960 Morris Minor with shiny leather
seats, no seat belts and no latch to stop the front seats from tipping up
(it was a 2-door car). On one occasion, I was sitting in the front and my
sister was behind me in the back. Mum had to stop quickly. I braced myself
and I'd probably have been OK except that my sister shot forward, pushing
the backrest of the seat forward and catapulting me out of my seat into the
very hard, unforgiving metal dashboard. Ouch!!! After that, Dad enquired
about getting seat belts fitted but found that the door pillars and floor
pan weren't strong enough to take the mountings.

Compared with my friends at school, I think we were probably fairly rare in
the 70s in wearing seat belts.

The change in the law in 1983, and the later one making it compulsory to
wear seat belts in the back, had no effect on me: I was already always
wearing one. To this day, I do it automatically as soon as I get in a car,
and I feel "undressed" without a seat belt on.


Turning to cycle helmets: I never used to wear one when I had my first bike
in the 70s and 80s, but then I don't remember seeing them in the shops or
seeing anyone wearing on. When I bought my new bike a few years ago and took
up cycling again, I bought one as a matter of course, especially after the
friend who was with me when I bought the bike had recently come off her bike
(fortunately at low speed) and her helmet had protected her. It would never
occur to me not to wear a helmet - indeed one day I set off without putting
mine on, realised that something wasn't right, turned round at the end of
the road and came back for it.

Having said that, the article quoted earlier in this thread makes
interesting reading. Maybe the case for wearing a cycle helmet is less
clear-cut than for a motorbike helmet (which tends to be larger, thicker and
covers the full head/jaw, not just the top of the head), and certainly the
case for wearing a seat belt, with the risk of flying through the windscreen
without one, is pretty clear-cut.

My gut feeling is that any form of protection is better than none, though
maybe the degree of protection is less than I might expect.

I wonder how long it will be before someone suggests that all cyclists
should wear motorbike leathers to protect them from nasty abrasions if they
come off the bike and scrape along the road! As I'm going down a steep hill,
I sometimes think what the road surface could do to me if I were to hit a
pothole and come off. But cycling in a teeshirt and shorts in hot weather is
much cooler than wearing even long trousers and a long-sleeved shirt, never
mind leathers.
 
In message <[email protected]>
"Mortimer" <[email protected]> wrote:

> It would never
> occur to me not to wear a helmet - indeed one day I set off without putting
> mine on, realised that something wasn't right, turned round at the end of
> the road and came back for it.


I realised I hadn't fastened the strap yesterday - the horror!

I read in "Cyclecraft" about looking for your knees as you fall, and
that is something I wish I had known about years ago.

Do most bike accidents / incidents involve another vehicle?


--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]m wrote:
>
>Do most bike accidents / incidents involve another vehicle?


Depends what/how you count. Minor incidents with no serious injury are
more likely to be single vehicle and less likely to be reported.
 
Brian Robertson wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Brian Robertson wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> Brian Robertson wrote:
>>>>> Clive George wrote:
>>>>>> "Brian Robertson" <brian@[nospam].com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't know if anyone else has said this on the thread, but you
>>>>>>> really should wear a helmet. I mean that not as a patronising
>>>>>>> git, but as someone with the near death experiences to prove it.
>>>>>> You're an uk.transport poster, not uk.rec.cycling, aren't you?
>>>>>> (*) Have a read of the archives of the latter group on the
>>>>>> subject - you'll probably hate it, but it might prepare you a
>>>>>> little for what to expect when you write stuff like the above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (* alternatively, you're new round here aren't you?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cheers,
>>>>>> clive
>>>>> People are entitled to their opinions and I to mine. I wouldn't
>>>>> support any move to force people to wear helmets, so it's all down
>>>>> to choice really, isn't it? Based upon our own experiences we make
>>>>> our choices.
>>>> Before they became compulsory, I expect many people had a similar
>>>> view on motorcycle helmets and car seatbelts. Then the do-gooders
>>>> thought they knew best and inflicted them on everyone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Different thing, isn't it.

>>
>> Why?
>>
>>> You can't and never will be able to
>>> regulate cycling in that way

>>
>> Why not?
>>
>>> , thank God!

>>
>> Which one?
>>
>>> Personally, with motorbikes
>>> I would be pro-choice as well

>>
>> Why?
>>
>>

>
> I think you are a sensible person in lots of ways and we could agree
> on a lot. However, if you can't understand why an exercise that is
> enjoyed by people as soon as they can walk can't be regulated.........
>
> You are just trying to trip me up. You aren't interested in debate.


No, I'm trying to find out what causes you to hold those views.
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> My gut feeling is that any form of protection is better than none, though
> maybe the degree of protection is less than I might expect.
>


That's where common sense breaks down. The only effect of seat belts,
as found in the Isles Report which the Government of the day
commissioned and then buried without publishing it, was that the net
effect of seat belts was no change in car occupant deaths and an
increase in pedestrian and cyclist deaths. This is well covered in the
book Risk by UCL professor, John Adams.

The net effect of helmet compulsion where it has been tried has been a
drop in the numbers cycling which is greater than the drop in head
injured cyclists, so an increase in head injury rates. This is thought
to be partly due to risk compensation as discussed by Adams (Hagel found
helmet wearing child cyclists were riding faster and had more damage to
their bikes in accidents than helmetless ones).

The same effect is seen elsewhere. For example a study of Munich taxi
drivers found that in otherwise identical cars, those with ABS fitted
drove faster, braked harder and had more accidents than those without -
and drivers were randomised to cars day to day so its not just the more
aggressive drivers choosing ABS.

So gut feeling in this whole area is not a reliable guide to what you
should do. Having said that, like you I have worn a seat belt from
childhood and I now have no legal choice so the whole matter is moot but
I don't wear a helmet now cycling and I don't want to be forced to by
the numerous attempts to get them made mandatory in law.

Which is why I react strongly to those who say its common sense you
should wear one.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell
 
"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> The same effect is seen elsewhere. For example a study of Munich taxi
> drivers found that in otherwise identical cars, those with ABS fitted
> drove faster, braked harder and had more accidents than those without -
> and drivers were randomised to cars day to day so its not just the more
> aggressive drivers choosing ABS.


Yes, I've heard that as well: that cyclists and drivers take greater risks
because they know that they have greater protection. I wonder if I fall into
that category? I'd like to think that I value my car or bike, as well as the
lives of other people that I might hit, to still take the same degree of
precaution as if I wasn't wearing a seat belt, but I wonder if this really
is the case?

> Which is why I react strongly to those who say its common sense you
> should wear one.


I think it is common sense that you should use the available protection. The
problem is that other factors such as risk compensation come into play and
therefore the results are not as would be predicted by straightforward
common sense.
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> My gut feeling is that any form of protection is better than none,
>> though maybe the degree of protection is less than I might expect.
>>

>
> That's where common sense breaks down. The only effect of seat belts,
> as found in the Isles Report which the Government of the day
> commissioned and then buried without publishing it, was that the net
> effect of seat belts was no change in car occupant deaths and an
> increase in pedestrian and cyclist deaths. This is well covered in
> the book Risk by UCL professor, John Adams.
>
> The net effect of helmet compulsion where it has been tried has been a
> drop in the numbers cycling which is greater than the drop in head
> injured cyclists, so an increase in head injury rates. This is
> thought to be partly due to risk compensation as discussed by Adams
> (Hagel found helmet wearing child cyclists were riding faster and had
> more damage to their bikes in accidents than helmetless ones).
>
> The same effect is seen elsewhere. For example a study of Munich taxi
> drivers found that in otherwise identical cars, those with ABS fitted
> drove faster, braked harder and had more accidents than those without
> - and drivers were randomised to cars day to day so its not just the
> more aggressive drivers choosing ABS.
>
> So gut feeling in this whole area is not a reliable guide to what you
> should do. Having said that, like you I have worn a seat belt from
> childhood and I now have no legal choice so the whole matter is moot
> but I don't wear a helmet now cycling and I don't want to be forced
> to by the numerous attempts to get them made mandatory in law.
>
> Which is why I react strongly to those who say its common sense you
> should wear one.


Thanks for that. It's long been my gut instinct that the use of seat belts
and other devices to improve the safety of car drivers and occupants serves
only to protect them (at best) whilst having a negative effect on others.

I recall a comment by one of the newspapers motoring journalists when
driving a pre-war car (obviously no seat belts) in which she said that she
felt unsafe.

That, to me, is how every driver should feel, all the time.

John Adams point that compulsory wearing of seat belts was effectively the
start of the Nanny State also matches my thoughts.
 
"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> says...
>>> My gut feeling is that any form of protection is better than none,
>>> though maybe the degree of protection is less than I might expect.

>
> I recall a comment by one of the newspapers motoring journalists when
> driving a pre-war car (obviously no seat belts) in which she said that she
> felt unsafe.
>
> That, to me, is how every driver should feel, all the time.


If motorists were only vulnerable as a result of their *own* actions and not
those of other people, then it would be right to make drivers feel unsafe at
all times, to limit the risks that they might take. I've even heard it
suggested (humourously, I hope) that every car should have a big spike in
the middle of the steering wheel to heighten that feeling of being unsafe.

But the risk of being injured is affected partly by other road users: one
can be a safe driver who never takes any unnecessary risks and yet still be
involved in a accident caused solely by someone else who flouts the rules.

Any fool can reduce the accident rate by reducing the speed that cars drive
at and by reducing other risks that they may take. But that's the no-brain
solution. The clever solution is one that keeps the same level of speed etc
while reducing the risk to everyone. And that solution involves *all* road
users taking responsibility for everyone's safety by not crossing the road
directly in front of a moving vehicle and by not pulling out from a side
road in front of a moving car. I other words, by being aware of your
surroundings and devoting your whole attention to the road around you.
 

Similar threads

S
Replies
13
Views
355
UK and Europe
Andy Leighton
A
D
Replies
27
Views
675
D
T
Replies
25
Views
493
J
M
Replies
0
Views
250
UK and Europe
Mike the unimaginative
M