helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 14 Apr 2010 14:12 On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:13:26 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <8ib9s5p5ngu9vttbrmrnan6uls415bra9f(a)4ax.com>, at 18:50:02 on >Tue, 13 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>>>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. > >Same answer again. You seem to have a very narrow view of the world, >don't you find it a bit of a trial? If you mean arguing with fuckwits - then yes - I certainly do -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 14 Apr 2010 14:15 On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:12:10 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >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)? Eeeer : I could write a book which was totally at odds with the statements in *your* book. Would that make *my* book more acceptable than yours - or less? So are you now suggesting that the book has been "peer reviewed"? Perhaps I am not so naive as you; just because something appears in a book does not make it true, I bet you think Wikipedia is an excellent source of "evidence" as well. -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
From: Nick Finnigan on 14 Apr 2010 16:25 ke10(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: > In article <hq4rmt$gf1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >> >> Road users will tend follow dozy looking road users more closely than >> they will competent looking ones, > > Really? That's the exact reverse of what I do - and I should have thought many > other responsible drivers would do. Our business is to get to where we're Do you observe other drivers (and riders) doing that, in general? > going without an accident, not to hassle people for being dozy. > > As a driver, I stay well back from a wobbly cyclist, for instance. Do you follow closer to a non-wobbly cyclist? If so, why? > I hope it's not just a gender difference. It isn't.
From: ke10 on 14 Apr 2010 17:36 In article <hq58bc$te9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >ke10(a)cam.ac.uk wrote: >> In article <hq4rmt$gf1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >> Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> Road users will tend follow dozy looking road users more closely than >>> they will competent looking ones, >> >> Really? That's the exact reverse of what I do - and I should have thought many >> other responsible drivers would do. Our business is to get to where we're > > Do you observe other drivers (and riders) doing that, in general? Yes, quite often, but of course not invariably. > >> going without an accident, not to hassle people for being dozy. >> >> As a driver, I stay well back from a wobbly cyclist, for instance. > > Do you follow closer to a non-wobbly cyclist? If so, why? > I suppose the two go together. But I would say I have a notion of a "normal" distance to stay behind a cyclist at a given speed, assuming overtaking to be impractical for the moment, and if the cyclist is wobbly I consciously stay further behind. I know I regularly do so at a junction where I know from experience that wobbly cyclists don't always signal before pulling out to turn right. The same applies to a driver in front about whom I have doubts, whether unusually dozy or unusually aggressive. I have had occasion to be thankful that I had done so, more than once. Katy
From: Steve Firth on 14 Apr 2010 17:41
Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > In message <1jgwp30.1cg8y8x1m7tgqN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, at 21:33:40 on > Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked: > >> I'm not claiming a conscious complete lack of caution/respect; rather > >> that a more vulnerable-looking cyclist is likely to be given slightly > >> more caution/respect. The corollary of which is that the > >> less-vulnerable-looking will be given relatively less caution/respect. > >> > >> Or are you claiming that motorists won't give more vulnerable-looking > >> cyclists more caution/respect? > > > >I'm pointing out that motorists tend to treat cyclists with caution and > >respect. > > Please answer the question. I have, clearly and in English. > >Your claims that a motorist, upon seeing a helmet on the head > >of a cyclist, will drive to endanger the cyclist is bullshit. > > I didn't claim that. What I said was that (probably subconsciously) they > will give them slightly less respect. <shrug> You make an incorrect statement, you have nothing to back it up. How seriously should your claim be taken on a scale from <snigger> to <guffaw>? |