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 04:01 In message <la77s5972d17ck3sib3hmjqmpaqa4tgtpc(a)4ax.com>, at 23:26:05 on Mon, 12 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>>> The arithmetic I could work out, thanks very much. What I can't see is >>>> why the arithmetic leads to the conclusion that "[other] serious head >>>> injuries would be significantly reduced". >>> >>>So wearing padded protection on your head won't reduce head injuries? >>>Not very likely is it? >> >>I agree, a toy helmet such as most cyclists wear isn't going to be much >>use for the majority of impacts that could be classified as "liable to >>cause serious head injuries". >> >>They may reduce some cases of "severe bruising" to "less severe >>bruising", but that's not the injuries referred to. > >A simple question for you: OK, I don't mind you moving the goalposts away from discussing *serious* head injuries... >Do you think that the wearing of a cycle helmet - by the average >cyclist - will most likely reduce or increase the level of injury if >they are involved in an accident? Depends on the nature of the accident. For example, it'll mitigate a few very low level bruises and scrapes, at the risk of triggering a neck injury. And don't forget they'll be more likely to have an accident at all, if they are wearing a helmet. -- Roland Perry
From: Adrian on 13 Apr 2010 04:18 Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > 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. Compare on the same timelines. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208 Road deaths haven't been 8,000 since the late '60s, early '70s. At that time, there were plenty of cars on the road without seatbelts (front three-point belts were only required to be fitted to new cars from '67, from the start of '69 fitted to all cars first registered since '65), rear seatbelts were unheard of, and drink-driving was a popular pastime. The number of deaths has barely moved since the early '90s - before ABS, before airbags, car structures considerably weaker. Don't forget the average life-span of a new car in the UK is 14yrs or so, so it takes a while for technical improvements to filter through the national car fleet. The last steep drop roughly coincides with the 1991 introduction of compulsory rear belt-wearing legislation. Strange how it's been flat despite the widespread introduction of ABS, airbags etc; despite the emphasis on "kill your speed", reducing limits, increasing camera enforcement etc.
From: Adrian on 13 Apr 2010 04:29 Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > 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. <sigh> It's when you say things as stupid as that, Roland, that rational people start to ignore the rest of your comment.
From: Roland Perry on 13 Apr 2010 04:51 In message <82ioc3F4l3U4(a)mid.individual.net>, at 08:29:55 on Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> remarked: >> 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. > ><sigh> It's when you say things as stupid as that, Roland, that rational >people start to ignore the rest of your comment. So the sarcasm went over your head, did it? -- Roland Perry
From: Adrian on 13 Apr 2010 05:02
Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> 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. >><sigh> It's when you say things as stupid as that, Roland, that rational >>people start to ignore the rest of your comment. > So the sarcasm went over your head, did it? Clearly. I'm obviously too used to people around these parts saying things like that and meaning it. It's early in the day, and I've got a cold. |