helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Mike Clark on 26 Apr 2010 05:34 In message <o974t5l2m6scmijaelb830u281aa9etqml(a)4ax.com> JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > wrote: > 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. > That some individuals change their behaviour in response to perceived risk is self evident. What is more problematic is calculating the impact of those individual responses at a population level. At a gross level, willingness to indulge in an activity only if using particular safety equipment (even where that safety equipment does not provide full protection) is an obvious form of risk compensation. For example I do not go ski-mountaineering without wearing an avalanche transceiver and carrying a shovel and probe. Do these items of equipment prevent me from being avalanched? No they don't. Do they offer some degree of hope rescue if I am? Yes they do. However if I didn't go off-piste my chances of being avalanched are very low. If I do they are much higher. But since about 25% of avalanche victims are killed by the trauma of the avalanche, then all the transceiver will be good for is assistance in finding my body. So I know that I'm prepared to take a greater risk of exposure to danger that is only partly mitigated by the safety equipment I use. Now if you try to tell me that such changes in behaviour do not occur for other people and for other risk taking activities, such as cycling or motoring, I simply do not believe you. I've seen you write many times on newsgroups about what you regard as the need to wear cycle helmets to mitigate the risks of a cycling accident. So I ask you, do you regularly wear a cycle helmet? Would you be prepared to cycle regularly on your normal routes without one? Mike -- o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark <\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, "> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and ` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/
From: ke10 on 26 Apr 2010 06:43 In article <Dfjx80ej$c0LFAmB(a)perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > >That would not have been true. I did the first year Statistics course in >the Maths Faculty, as a 1/3 of my third-year course in the Engineering >department. Remarkable. At present there is no stats course in the first year in the Maths Faculty, though there is a probability course, which is at most one-eighth of the compulsory material. Possibly there was a statistics course in the past - I can't remember all the course titles - but it would still have been between one-eighth and one-tenth of full time. You were doing well to stretch it out to one-third of a third-year course. Katy
From: Roland Perry on 26 Apr 2010 13:10 In message <2f36t5hrg690r3ukqrtnt183vqh8n51c7e(a)4ax.com>, at 16:48:17 on Sat, 24 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >What he didn't say was : Mayer Hillman states the evidence for risk >compensation is `overwhelming'. Whether Mayer Hillman does or not, it's probably true. But thanks for buying the book, I hope it helps. -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 26 Apr 2010 13:16 In message <hr3qo8$795$1(a)soup.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk>, at 11:43:20 on Mon, 26 Apr 2010, ke10(a)cam.ac.uk remarked: >In article <Dfjx80ej$c0LFAmB(a)perry.co.uk>, >Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >> >>That would not have been true. I did the first year Statistics course in >>the Maths Faculty, as a 1/3 of my third-year course in the Engineering >>department. > >Remarkable. At present there is no stats course in the first year in >the Maths Faculty, though there is a probability course, I did my course 40 years ago (oh dear, that makes me feel old). They were very much into "game theory" if that helps you understand which module it was. Maybe Dr Conway (he who sings a little flat) would remember it (is he still alive?) -- Roland Perry
From: Derek C on 26 Apr 2010 13:24
On 26 Apr, 10:34, Mike Clark <mrc7-...(a)cam.ac.uk> wrote: > In message <o974t5l2m6scmijaelb830u281aa9et...(a)4ax.com> > JMS <jmsmith2...(a)live.co.uk > wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 15:23:09 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7-...(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. > > That some individuals change their behaviour in response to perceived > risk is self evident. What is more problematic is calculating the impact > of those individual responses at a population level. > > At a gross level, willingness to indulge in an activity only if using > particular safety equipment (even where that safety equipment does not > provide full protection) is an obvious form of risk compensation. > > For example I do not go ski-mountaineering without wearing an avalanche > transceiver and carrying a shovel and probe. Do these items of equipment > prevent me from being avalanched? No they don't. Do they offer some > degree of hope rescue if I am? Yes they do. However if I didn't go > off-piste my chances of being avalanched are very low. If I do they are > much higher. But since about 25% of avalanche victims are killed by the > trauma of the avalanche, then all the transceiver will be good for is > assistance in finding my body. So I know that I'm prepared to take a > greater risk of exposure to danger that is only partly mitigated by the > safety equipment I use. So you have a 75% chance of being buried in an avalanche without being killed by the initial trauma then. Sounds like good odds to me, if the safety equipment allows you to be dug out alive! Derek C |