helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Roland Perry on 12 Apr 2010 18:25 In message <XZCdnRJ3pPKoD17WnZ2dnUVZ8hFi4p2d(a)bt.com>, at 22:35:46 on Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Tony Dragon <tony.dragon(a)btinternet.com> remarked: >> And you can ride with a helmet and risk motorists paying you less >>attention because you are "protected". > >Why would I, as a motorist think such a thing? It's called Risk Compensation. Read John Adams' book. -- Roland Perry
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 12 Apr 2010 18:28 On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:10:43 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message ><0942b120-74cc-4aa5-b36e-301e47e8b700(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, at >12:59:41 on Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> >remarked: >>> >> They may reduce some cases of "severe bruising" to "less severe >>> >> bruising", but that's not the injuries referred to. >> >>They might also reduce a fractured skull to just bruising or mild >>concussion. > >With a toy helmet - most unlikely. > >>> >I think you are underestimating the protection offered by cycle >>> >helmets. They are not "toys" but properly tested items of safety >>> >equipment. >>> >>> No, you are overestimating their effectiveness. > >>I am not stopping you from riding bare headed and risking serious head >>injury, if that is what you want to do. > >And you can ride with a helmet and risk motorists paying you less >attention because you are "protected". And there has been some serious peer reviewed research done on this matter - other than the derided Ian Walker "research"? Perhaps you can give us a reference - you seem to attach much significance to this claim. -- Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371 All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 12 Apr 2010 18:51 On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:25:38 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <XZCdnRJ3pPKoD17WnZ2dnUVZ8hFi4p2d(a)bt.com>, at 22:35:46 on >Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Tony Dragon <tony.dragon(a)btinternet.com> remarked: >>> And you can ride with a helmet and risk motorists paying you less >>>attention because you are "protected". >> >>Why would I, as a motorist think such a thing? > >It's called Risk Compensation. Read John Adams' book. And there is some proof that Risk Compensation is applicable to cyclists wearing helmets somewhere is there? You must have been to the Anchor Lee debating society. Come out with shite - and then fail to substantiate it when questioned. -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
From: Steve Firth on 13 Apr 2010 02:09 Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > In message <XZCdnRJ3pPKoD17WnZ2dnUVZ8hFi4p2d(a)bt.com>, at 22:35:46 on > Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Tony Dragon <tony.dragon(a)btinternet.com> remarked: > >> And you can ride with a helmet and risk motorists paying you less > >>attention because you are "protected". > > > >Why would I, as a motorist think such a thing? > > It's called Risk Compensation. Read John Adams' book. It appears you need to read it. Risk Compensation applies to the cyclist, not to the passing motorist in this case. A cyclist with a helmet feels protected and takes greater risks. The motorist does not see the cyclist as more protected just because he's wearing a helmet.
From: Derek C on 13 Apr 2010 03:15
On 12 Apr, 23:25, Roland Perry <rol...(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > In message <XZCdnRJ3pPKoD17WnZ2dnUVZ8hFi4...(a)bt.com>, at 22:35:46 on > Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...(a)btinternet.com> remarked: > > >> And you can ride with a helmet and risk motorists paying you less > >>attention because you are "protected". > > >Why would I, as a motorist think such a thing? > > It's called Risk Compensation. Read John Adams' book. > -- > Roland Perry According to John Adams, there should have been no reduction in road accident KSI, because as cars became safer due to seat belts, ABS brakes etc, etc, motorists would compensate by taking more risks. In reality the KSI has come down from aboout 8000 per annum to about 3000 per annum in the UK. So not a very convincing hypothesis then! Derek C |