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 13 Apr 2010 03:53 In message <1jgvl20.sscdka88vp3lN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, at 07:09:48 on Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked: >> >As a motorist, cyclists are just cyclists to me and I can't say that I >> >notice if they are wearing helmets or not. I certainly don't >> >deliberately overtake them any more closely if they are wearing >> >helmets. >> >> Then you aren't typical. > >Bullshit. Neither are you, and thanks for proving my point. -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 13 Apr 2010 03:54 In message <3q87s5laid5djm3ci5dtttuv7du22rqt02(a)4ax.com>, at 23:51:04 on Mon, 12 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> 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? It applies to all situations where a risk is assessed. >You must have been to the Anchor Lee debating society. Come out with >shite - and then fail to substantiate it when questioned. I've cited a whole book written by an expert on the subject. That's about as much as anyone can do. -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 13 Apr 2010 03:57 In message <39cfe40b-2711-44c6-b46e-f4333c323644(a)30g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, at 00:15:18 on Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> remarked: >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! Nice try, but there are two factors in play - "safer" cars, roads etc, and "less safe" drivers. The *combined* result means a smaller reduction than otherwise. -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 13 Apr 2010 03:55 In message <1jgvl2p.kubm1eqnvu9uN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, at 07:09:48 on Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> 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. It applies to the motorist as well, because he perceives a risk that if he knocks a cyclist off, causing an injury, at the very least it will delay his oh-so-important journey by five minutes while he calls an ambulance. -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 13 Apr 2010 03:58
In message <tg77s5pj107idoj8rji5hras8q3g13rgt6(a)4ax.com>, at 23:28:53 on Mon, 12 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>And you can ride with a helmet and risk motorists paying you less >>attention because you are "protected". >Perhaps you can give us a reference - you seem to attach much >significance to this claim. See the answer I gave earlier. -- Roland Perry |