From: john wright on
On 13/04/2010 08:54, Roland Perry wrote:
> 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.

To a motorist the risk that appears is the presence of the cycle. Not
whether a helemt is being worn.

--
John Wright

Use your imagination Marvin!

Life's bad enough as it is - why invent any more of it.
From: Roland Perry on
In message <82j7teFf92U1(a)mid.individual.net>, at 13:55:09 on Tue, 13 Apr
2010, john wright <john(a)pegasus.f2s.com> remarked:
>To a motorist the risk that appears is the presence of the cycle. Not
>whether a helemt is being worn.

The risk is what the repercussions might be after an accidental
collision.
--
Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on
In message <9uk8s59istuhqnskv29tf80s0ln0e3dga6(a)4ax.com>, at 12:22:30 on
Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Derek Geldard <impex(a)miniac.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>Nice try,
>
>Oh dear, 'nuff said.

Indeed, your trimming says it all.
--
Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on
In message
<4abe5d14-acac-44dc-a775-c029b728fe14(a)j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, at
02:21:15 on Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk>
remarked:
>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.

Really? What are the two distances in question?

>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.

But that's not a "serious" injury, is it?
--
Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on
In message
<e3815405-1876-47f1-aacd-6ccc18c0044d(a)z6g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, at
02:33:29 on Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk>
remarked:
>Do you mean that website that is dedicated to proving that cycle
>helmets don't work? Hardly an unbiased source!

But even an allegedly biassed source can do no more than quote those
studies which prove its point (and ignore those which don't). Your turn:
which are the contradictory studies that site failed to mention?
--
Roland Perry