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 21 Apr 2010 12:20 On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:44:33 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <0nkps59eljjsuq9jnbhm3bcv9qirhsbpln(a)4ax.com>, at 23:03:00 on >Mon, 19 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>>Bigger head, more twisting leverage. >> >>Sorry - was that the report from a coroner's court or such like; >>perhaps an autopsy? > >Even a cyclist with rose coloured specs can see that a helmet increases >the effective radius of the head. The rest is O-Level physics. Indeed - but you have actually tried to dodge the question by snipping and diverting Here it is again: ================================================================== Feel free to list those cases where it was found that a helmet made things worse in a real accident - rather than in an insurance man's imagination. A list of one will be a good start. ================================================================ Your response of "Bigger head, more twisting leverage" was not really sufficient. Perhaps you could not find just the one? -- There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury. The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances and it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence should wear one. Mr Justice Griffith Williams
From: Roland Perry on 21 Apr 2010 12:48 In message <tu8us5hdtt3sgj6tkuito686u5bg804toa(a)4ax.com>, at 17:15:05 on Wed, 21 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >You have yet to provide any proof that Risk Compensation is applicable >to cyclists in *any* way I have, but you have gone to extreme lengths to say it's not proof (simply because of the peer-reviewed issue), rather than the more academically rigorous approach of saying why you disagree with the actual arguments in the book. -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 21 Apr 2010 12:54 In message <ma9us5p56lat14pvuc7c7m6v5dnd01fra6(a)4ax.com>, at 17:20:21 on Wed, 21 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>>>Bigger head, more twisting leverage. >>> >>>Sorry - was that the report from a coroner's court or such like; >>>perhaps an autopsy? >> >>Even a cyclist with rose coloured specs can see that a helmet increases >>the effective radius of the head. The rest is O-Level physics. > >Indeed - but you have actually tried to dodge the question by snipping >and diverting > >Here it is again: > >================================================================== >Feel free to list those cases where it was found that a helmet made >things worse in a real accident - rather than in an insurance man's >imagination. > >A list of one will be a good start. >================================================================ > >Your response of "Bigger head, more twisting leverage" was not really >sufficient. > >Perhaps you could not find just the one? There's some references to the issues we are discussing in here: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7543/722-a/DC1 -- Roland Perry
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 23 Apr 2010 18:21 On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:23:09 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7--ct(a)cam.ac.uk> wrote: <snip> >Are you prepared to regularly ride your bicycle without wearing a cycle >helmet? Do you know any other cyclists who insist on wearing a cycle >helmet when they ride a bicycle? > >That's an example of risk compensation. > >Mike Yes - many thanks for a tremendous contribution. I c an see that you are an expert on the subject.
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 21 Apr 2010 13:25
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:48:45 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <tu8us5hdtt3sgj6tkuito686u5bg804toa(a)4ax.com>, at 17:15:05 on >Wed, 21 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>You have yet to provide any proof that Risk Compensation is applicable >>to cyclists in *any* way > >I have, but you have gone to extreme lengths to say it's not proof >(simply because of the peer-reviewed issue), rather than the more >academically rigorous approach of saying why you disagree with the >actual arguments in the book. All you have done is mention a book. You have not even given any relevant quotes. Do you really think that that is sufficient "proof"? Perhaps you could quote a paragraph or two which mentions cyclists - and the effect of risk compensation on them? I assume that cyclists are actually mentioned Are they? -- Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371 All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631 |