Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Derek C on 13 Apr 2010 05:21
On 13 Apr, 09:01, Roland Perry <rol...(a)perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <la77s5972d17ck3sib3hmjqmpaqa4tg...(a)4ax.com>, at 23:26:05 on
> Mon, 12 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2...(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.
Do you have any proof that cycle helmets increase the risk of neck
injuries, and if so how serious are the neck injuries. A sprain or
whiplash are a bit uncomfortable, but not as life threatening as a
fractured skull! I will remind you that an EN1078 helmet will permit
your head to fall over 4 times further before there is a risk of
fracturing your skull.
My cycle helmet has a hard outer shell that I am pretty sure would
slide along a tarmac or paved surface more easily than my bare scalp.
From: David Hansen on 13 Apr 2010 05:29
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 02:21:15 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Derek C
<del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote this:-
>Do you have any proof that cycle helmets increase the risk of neck
>injuries, and if so how serious are the neck injuries.
You are not able to use the search link on www.cyclehelmets.org ?
offers evidence. I think it demonstrates proof too, but that is
something one could debate.
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
From: Derek C on 13 Apr 2010 05:33
On 13 Apr, 10:29, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...(a)spidacom.co.uk>
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 02:21:15 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Derek C
> <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote this:-
> >Do you have any proof that cycle helmets increase the risk of neck
> >injuries, and if so how serious are the neck injuries.
> You are not able to use the search link onwww.cyclehelmets.org?
> offers evidence. I think it demonstrates proof too, but that is
> something one could debate.
> David Hansen, Edinburgh
> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
Do you mean that website that is dedicated to proving that cycle
helmets don't work? Hardly an unbiased source!
From: nmm1 on 13 Apr 2010 06:35
In article <82inloF4l3U1(a)mid.individual.net>,
Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>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.
>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.
Correct. I wuz theer.
>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.
It also coincides with a change in the weather (milder winters), and
does not even remotely correspond with the distribution of deaths in
the various positions in a car. Belts may have had a slight causal
effect, but one would need more detailed data to know whether or not
they did. Also, relatively few people obey the law, often for very
>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: Derek Geldard on 13 Apr 2010 07:22
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:57:57 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk>
>00:15:18 on Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk>
>>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!
Oh dear, 'nuff said.