From: JMS jmsmith2010 on
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:54:17 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk>
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.
>
>>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.


Good - so you are not aware of any peer reviewed research that
"proves" risk compensation is a factor when wearing a cycle helmet.

Many thanks for the contribution.


From: JMS jmsmith2010 on
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:58:32 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>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.


So the only reference is a book that you once read.

so nothing to do with cycling, and no serious peer reviewed research
to back up your claim.

I wonder why?

From: JMS jmsmith2010 on
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:01:21 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk>
wrote:

<snip>


>OK, I don't mind you moving the goalposts away from discussing *serious*
>head injuries...


Not really - you didn't seem to able contribute anything.


>>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.


Forget about the nature of *the* accident - I am talking about "on
average" - do you understand what that means in this context?

You may have another go at answering the question - will it reduce or
increase the level of injury?


>And don't forget they'll be more likely to have an accident at
>all, if they are wearing a helmet.

And don't forget that every time you say this you will look even
sillier, until you provide some sort of proof to back up the
statement.

You do have some proof to back this up I suppose?





--

"wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being
involved in an accident."

That august body The CTC

(They've already had a slap for lying by the ASA)
From: Roland Perry on
In message <hq263p$qna$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, at 17:28:31 on
Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> remarked:
>>> 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.
>
> Road users don't assess risks

Of course they do. And sometimes they get it wrong... like this morning
when I saw a collision for the first time in as long as I can remember -
car slowly pulled out of a side turning into a slow-moving queue of
traffic, neither them gave way and the two met at 90 degrees, headlight
to headlight <crunch>. But I bet they both decided it was a risk worth
taking (that the other would give way).
--
Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on
In message <47b9s5hqrndp6jousfb6s30b77gfqjf79h(a)4ax.com>, at 18:43:02 on
Tue, 13 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked:
>>I've cited a whole book written by an expert on the subject. That's
>>about as much as anyone can do.
>
>Good - so you are not aware of any peer reviewed research that
>"proves" risk compensation is a factor when wearing a cycle helmet.

Why is that the only evidence you'll accept (and what makes you think
the book hasn't been peer-reviewed)?
--
Roland Perry