helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
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. Derek C
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 ? http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=neck+injuries&btnG=Google+Search&domains=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cyclehelmets.org&sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.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 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54
From: Derek C on 13 Apr 2010 05:33 On 13 Apr, 10:29, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...(a)spidacom.co.uk> wrote: > 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? > > http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=neck+injuries&btnG=G... > 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 > http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54 Do you mean that website that is dedicated to proving that cycle helmets don't work? Hardly an unbiased source! Derek C
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. > >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. 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 good reasons. >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. Yup. Regards, Nick Maclaren.
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> wrote: >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, Oh dear, 'nuff said. Derek |