helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Albert T Cone on 6 Apr 2010 12:13 JMS wrote: > On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:21:48 +0100, Albert T Cone > <a.k.kirby(a)durham.ac.uk> wrote: > >> JMS wrote: >>> The fact that Walker is a rabid anti-helmet psycholist was sufficient >>> reason for mis-representing that data. >> There are very good arguments for not wearing a helmet - the pro/con >> debate is not at all clear cut. > > Are you against them by any chance? No. I don't wear one myself, if you are interested, because I prefer the risk of abrasions and blunt trauma injury to those of torsional injury to the neck and spine. Other people may weigh those risks differently, but I think that it *should* be a personal choice, and I am not in favour of making helmet wearing mandatory.
From: Derek C on 6 Apr 2010 12:34 On 1 Apr, 15:59, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > j...(a)eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Gosling) considered 31 Mar 2010 17:41:34 > GMT the perfect time to write: > > > > > > >In article <hovtgk$5j...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > >Nick Finnigan <n...(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > >> It is read most accurately with the Origin at zero. If the variation can > >>not be seen with that presentation, it is not important. > > >Oh the joy of cargo-culted rule-making. > > >There are plenty of situations where "zero" is an entirely inappropriate > >place for an origin. > > >Do you suppose that an investigation into the dependency of a mechanical > >system on the current barometric pressure will be improved by an > >insistence on not having an origin somewhere near 1000 mbar? > > >Do you perhaps think that a plot of some property against temperature > >should definitely have its origin at 0'C ? If so, why? If not, why not? > > Obviously, any temperature graph is deliberately misleading if it's > origin is not at 0 kelvin. > > > > >If I find that my graph lacks clarity when the origin for parameter Y > >is at zero, should I perhaps instead a plot and label it as a graph of > >parameter Z (which happens to be Y + a constant)? > > Isn't that what celsius does anyway? > Celsius has the freezing point of water as zero degrees and the boiling point of water as 100 degrees, probably because that is most relevant to water based life such as ourselves, and because it was easy to measure for calibration at the time. Absolute zero, the lowest possible temperature in the Universe, is -273.15 degrees Centigrade or zero degrees Kelvin and temperatures can go up to many thousands of degrees Kelvin in the centre of stars. Derek C
From: Derek C on 6 Apr 2010 13:18 On 6 Apr, 17:13, Albert T Cone <a.k.ki...(a)durham.ac.uk> wrote: > JMS wrote: > > On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:21:48 +0100, Albert T Cone > > <a.k.ki...(a)durham.ac.uk> wrote: > > >> JMS wrote: > >>> The fact that Walker is a rabid anti-helmet psycholist was sufficient > >>> reason for mis-representing that data. > >> There are very good arguments for not wearing a helmet - the pro/con > >> debate is not at all clear cut. > > > Are you against them by any chance? > > No. I don't wear one myself, if you are interested, because I prefer > the risk of abrasions and blunt trauma injury to those of torsional > injury to the neck and spine. Other people may weigh those risks > differently, but I think that it *should* be a personal choice, and I am > not in favour of making helmet wearing mandatory. Only 2% of cyclists hospitalised after accidents suffered a neck injury, but 38% suffered head injuries in 2008. I would estimate that about 50% of cyclists wear cycle helmets, so not a very convincing argument. The most common injuries to cyclists are to the hands, arms and shoulders, so perhaps protection should be worn in those areas? Derek C
From: Clive George on 6 Apr 2010 13:25 On 06/04/2010 18:18, Derek C wrote: > On 6 Apr, 17:13, Albert T Cone<a.k.ki...(a)durham.ac.uk> wrote: >> JMS wrote: >>> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:21:48 +0100, Albert T Cone >>> <a.k.ki...(a)durham.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>>> JMS wrote: >>>>> The fact that Walker is a rabid anti-helmet psycholist was sufficient >>>>> reason for mis-representing that data. >>>> There are very good arguments for not wearing a helmet - the pro/con >>>> debate is not at all clear cut. >> >>> Are you against them by any chance? >> >> No. I don't wear one myself, if you are interested, because I prefer >> the risk of abrasions and blunt trauma injury to those of torsional >> injury to the neck and spine. Other people may weigh those risks >> differently, but I think that it *should* be a personal choice, and I am >> not in favour of making helmet wearing mandatory. > > Only 2% of cyclists hospitalised after accidents suffered a neck > injury, but 38% suffered head injuries in 2008. I would estimate that > about 50% of cyclists wear cycle helmets, so not a very convincing > argument. > > The most common injuries to cyclists are to the hands, arms and > shoulders, so perhaps protection should be worn in those areas? The most serious injury I've ever had on a bike was to none of those. Will you be wearing body armour for your hips?
From: Derek C on 6 Apr 2010 13:49
On 6 Apr, 18:25, Clive George <cl...(a)xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > On 06/04/2010 18:18, Derek C wrote: > > > > > > > On 6 Apr, 17:13, Albert T Cone<a.k.ki...(a)durham.ac.uk> wrote: > >> JMS wrote: > >>> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:21:48 +0100, Albert T Cone > >>> <a.k.ki...(a)durham.ac.uk> wrote: > > >>>> JMS wrote: > >>>>> The fact that Walker is a rabid anti-helmet psycholist was sufficient > >>>>> reason for mis-representing that data. > >>>> There are very good arguments for not wearing a helmet - the pro/con > >>>> debate is not at all clear cut. > > >>> Are you against them by any chance? > > >> No. I don't wear one myself, if you are interested, because I prefer > >> the risk of abrasions and blunt trauma injury to those of torsional > >> injury to the neck and spine. Other people may weigh those risks > >> differently, but I think that it *should* be a personal choice, and I am > >> not in favour of making helmet wearing mandatory. > > > Only 2% of cyclists hospitalised after accidents suffered a neck > > injury, but 38% suffered head injuries in 2008. I would estimate that > > about 50% of cyclists wear cycle helmets, so not a very convincing > > argument. > > > The most common injuries to cyclists are to the hands, arms and > > shoulders, so perhaps protection should be worn in those areas? > > The most serious injury I've ever had on a bike was to none of those. > Will you be wearing body armour for your hips?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Anecdotal evidence! Derek C |