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 27 Apr 2010 13:36 On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:16:56 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >Derek C wrote: > >> 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! > >But a great many of those 75% die from asphyxiation before being >rescued. The odds are never good in avalanches, as with bike crashes >the best defence, by several orders of magnitude, is don't be in one. Alternatively you could use extra safety equipment. Oh - hang on - won't that mean that you will take even further risks - you know, the same sort of thing with extra risks you take when wearing a cycle helmet -- "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: JMS jmsmith2010 on 27 Apr 2010 13:38 On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:14:59 +0100, Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: >Mike Clark wrote: >> >> So in this example the availability and use of the safety equipment is >> likely to be a factor that encourages more people to be prepared to take >> the risks off-piste, yet in doing so they are definitely increasing >> their risks of serious injury and death. Thus over time the improvements >> in safety equipment may lead to more victims. >> > >There is a classic example of this in Sunshine/Banff where to ski an >area called Delirium you have to pass through a gate where they check >you have a transceiver and shovel and that you are skiing with a >partner. I understand that a similar thing is to be tried with cyclists before they are allowed on the road - but it will also include an IQ test and a test on social responsibility.
From: Mike Clark on 27 Apr 2010 14:19 In message <o18et5tiutsjvohgf9ng93konm1rsq18r2(a)4ax.com> JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > wrote: > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:16:56 +0100, Peter Clinch > <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > > >Derek C wrote: > > > >> 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! > > > >But a great many of those 75% die from asphyxiation before being > >rescued. The odds are never good in avalanches, as with bike crashes > >the best defence, by several orders of magnitude, is don't be in one. > > > Alternatively you could use extra safety equipment. > The only way I can think of avoiding the major risk is to avoid off-piste skiing. I can't think of any safety equipment that guarantees survival if caught in an avalanche and that includes trademarked systems such as ABS (air bag system) and Avalung. > > Oh - hang on - won't that mean that you will take even further risks - > you know, the same sort of thing with extra risks you take when > wearing a cycle helmet > I don't recall your answering my question as to whether you are pepared to regularly ride a bicycle when not wearing a helmet? Are there cycling situations when you do wear a helmet and others when you don't? It would seem to be an easy question for you to answer, but so far you've managed to avoid the issue. Mike -- o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark <\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, "> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and ` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/
From: Halmyre on 27 Apr 2010 14:25 In article <368et5dm626q671mjvtrhg4frqntr6tim4(a)4ax.com>, jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk says... > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:14:59 +0100, Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk> > wrote: > > >Mike Clark wrote: > >> > >> So in this example the availability and use of the safety equipment is > >> likely to be a factor that encourages more people to be prepared to take > >> the risks off-piste, yet in doing so they are definitely increasing > >> their risks of serious injury and death. Thus over time the improvements > >> in safety equipment may lead to more victims. > >> > > > >There is a classic example of this in Sunshine/Banff where to ski an > >area called Delirium you have to pass through a gate where they check > >you have a transceiver and shovel and that you are skiing with a > >partner. > > > I understand that a similar thing is to be tried with cyclists before > they are allowed on the road - but it will also include an IQ test and > a test on social responsibility. > That'll certainly reduce drastically the number of cyclists on the roads/pavements. -- Halmyre This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your head clean off.
From: Nick Finnigan on 27 Apr 2010 15:14
Mike Clark wrote: > > We as individuals often tend to exhibit similar behaviour in taking > risks in many activities that we do including driving and cycling. If > you buy a car with better brakes and better handling, you may have a > tendency to drive faster, brake later and corner faster. As an opposite, Nobody drives faster (other than when cornering) if they get a car with better brakes and better handling. Hardly anyone would corner faster. The few that do corner faster will be safer than those that don't. > if you are given a car which you are unfamiliar with, or which seems to > show poor handling, you're more likely to drive it cautiously. You think that people drive hire cars cautiously ? |