helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Roland Perry on 28 Apr 2010 16:14 In message <hra2ns$rgr$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, at 20:36:24 on Wed, 28 Apr 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> remarked: >>> How much does your peak speed increase in free moving traffic on a >>>straight road with a 30mph limit in a car with better handling? Why? >> Straw man. Now take that car out on an open road and try claiming >>"no-one" will drive faster. > > How much does your peak speed increase in free moving traffic on a >straight section of open road in a car with better handling? Why? Since when have we been talking about straight roads? -- Roland Perry
From: Derek C on 28 Apr 2010 23:42 On Apr 28, 5:39 pm, Roland Perry <rol...(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > In message > <9c4705f4-32e4-4658-af28-90839eb36...(a)n5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, at > 06:36:15 on Wed, 28 Apr 2010, Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> > remarked: > > >In the motor cycle accident I was sitting squarely in the middle of my > >lane at some red traffiic lights when I was rear ended by a drunk > >driver who totally failed to stop. > > I've had exactly the same; but I was in a car stopped at a red light. > Was rammed in the rear by a motorcyclist (hard enough to almost write > off my car) and he wasn't drunk, just impatient and apparently unaware > that speed limits applied to him, especially in the rain. > > He was carted off in an ambulance, leaving me an insurance bill of £5k > (this was 30 years ago, so more like > £10k today) plus whatever a new monster-BMW bike costs. The accident was > August (my car was less than a month old) and I didn't get it back till > after Xmas (lots of wrangling about whether they could/should repair > it). > -- > Roland Perry As the motorcyclist was clearly at fault, why were you left with a big insurance bill? Was he insured? Generally speaking, if you rear end somebody it is your fault and your responsibility. My motorbike was almost a write off, but the motorist offered to pay in full as long as I didn't involve the Police because he was obviously very drunk and in danger of losing his licence. Amazingly he paid the several hundred pound repair bill (several thousand pounds in today's devalued money) out of his own pocket by return of post. Derek C
From: Peter Clinch on 29 Apr 2010 06:11 Nick Finnigan wrote: > Peter Clinch wrote: >> Nick Finnigan wrote: >>> Peter Clinch wrote: >>>> Nick Finnigan wrote: >>>> >>>>> Nobody drives faster (other than when cornering) if they get a car >>>>> with better brakes and better handling. Hardly anyone would corner >>>>> faster. >>>> I do... >>> How much does your peak speed increase in free moving traffic on a >>> straight road with a 30mph limit in a car with better handling? Why? >> >> But that isn't the only option from your first assertion, so it's not >> reasonable to put your new, narrower goalposts down now. > > On a straight road with a 40mph limit? On a straight motorway? On a > straight NSL dual carriageway? But that isn't the only option from your first assertion, so it's not reasonable to put your new, narrower goalposts down now. >> Driving a better handling car along, say, the A93 between Spittle and >> Braemar (which is tremendous fun, a sort of tarmac rollercoaster) >> there's plenty where you can't get anywhere close to the legal limit, >> but I'll get closer to it in a better car. Because I can, because >> it's fun. > > Are you claiming it is a roller coaster with no corners? No. "Hardly anyone would corner faster", you said, and I think that's wrong. As I said, *I* do. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: Peter Clinch on 29 Apr 2010 06:19 Derek C wrote: > Just a quick reminder that according to DfT statistics, 38% of > cyclists involved in road accidents in 2008 suffered injuries to the > head or face. Just a quick reminder that those are the figures for the ones they know about. Most cyclists involved in accidents get up, don't go to A&E, don't need to involve the police so don't get into the statistics. Minor injuries are enormously under-reported, which is why papers concentrate on major injuries, those being the ones there are anything close to good stats for. > I believe that this is a > fatuous argument anyway, because when I am driving a car, cyclists > just register to me as cyclists and I don't notice if they are wearing > helmets or not. So you assume you are completely representative of everyone? Not a safe assumption. On urc some moons ago there was an anecdote from someone who was told off by a motorist for not wearing a helmet, as if he had been she figured she could have squeezed by safely instead of waiting behind him. It's just one anecdote, but it is enough to demonstrate that the way you see things isn't the only way. But you seem to be ignoring the main point being made, as usual preferring to concentrate on minor details about helmets rather than the things that really matter. The main point is that contrary to what you said you *do* have some control over how and when following vehicles choose to overtake you. Do you have, or at least have read, Cyclecraft? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: Derek C on 29 Apr 2010 07:17
On Apr 29, 11:19 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > Derek C wrote: > > Just a quick reminder that according to DfT statistics, 38% of > > cyclists involved in road accidents in 2008 suffered injuries to the > > head or face. > > Just a quick reminder that those are the figures for the ones they > know about. Most cyclists involved in accidents get up, don't go > to A&E, don't need to involve the police so don't get into the > statistics. Minor injuries are enormously under-reported, which is > why papers concentrate on major injuries, those being the ones > there are anything close to good stats for. So cycling is a lot more dangerous than you claim then! > > > I believe that this is a > > fatuous argument anyway, because when I am driving a car, cyclists > > just register to me as cyclists and I don't notice if they are wearing > > helmets or not. > > So you assume you are completely representative of everyone? Not a > safe assumption. On urc some moons ago there was an anecdote from > someone who was told off by a motorist for not wearing a helmet, as > if he had been she figured she could have squeezed by safely > instead of waiting behind him. It's just one anecdote, but it is > enough to demonstrate that the way you see things isn't the only way. There are enough things to worry about when driving, without making a special point of checking cyclists to see if they are wearing cycle helmets or not! Even if I did notice, it wouldn't make any difference to my decision making. I think your lady driver must be in a very small minority. > > But you seem to be ignoring the main point being made, as usual > preferring to concentrate on minor details about helmets rather > than the things that really matter. The main point is that > contrary to what you said you *do* have some control over how and > when following vehicles choose to overtake you. > > Do you have, or at least have read, Cyclecraft? > Yes, and I also have a copy of the Highway Code, which a fair minority of cyclists seem to ignore, or don't know about. I also passed my cycling proficiency test as a teenager. Derek C |