helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Peter Clinch on 30 Apr 2010 08:41 boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:40:13 +0100 > Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >> boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: >> >>> I don't remember ever seeing a pedestrian fall over so badly they've been >>> hospitalised , but it happens all the time with cyclists. >> Annual rate of deaths from trips and falls in the UK is about 350 IIRC. > > And how old are these people who die? Its highly unlikely someone in their > 20s is going to die from tripping over unless they fell off a cliff and you > don't find many of those on Oxfird Street. Very likely for someone in their > 80s however. Cyclists however tend to be fairly young especially commuter > cyclists - the group where most of the accidents happen. Your suggestion was that /no/ pedestrians would typically be hospitalised. And that is simply not the case. Per unit distance, cycling is no more productive of serious head injuries than cycling. >> Go into your local A&E department and ask them if they ever have folk in >> with head injuries from trips and falls. > > I'm not getting the logic your're using to link that fact that because people > injure themselves falling off a ladder , cycling helmets are no use. By "trips and falls" I mean tripping up and falling over, not fa;lling off ladders. Note again, per unit distance, cycling is no more productive of serious head injuries than cycling. >> A bigger, heavier head is easier to hit. For instance, harder to keep >> up off the road (as you instinctively do) if you've just fallen. > > Now you're just grasping at straws. Yet there's some research that suggests it's a genuine effect. >> Where helmet laws have been repealed in some US states there hasn't been >> any evident worsening of the head injury rates. Not what I'd have >> expected, but that doesn't make it wrong. > > A lot who would have had head injuries just died instead. A fatal head injury is still a serious head injury, and is recorded as such. >>> No , but your head can hit the ground which is the same thing. >> Same goes for falling downstairs, which you seem to think never happens. > > You'd have to live in a seriously big house to hit the bottom of the stairs > at 25mph. acceleration due to gravity is ~ 10m/sec squared. 1 mph ~ half a m/s. You don't need /that/ much vertical space. >> As I just told you, EN1078 helmets assume a fall involving no other >> vehicles. Nothing magic about paths that prevents that. And plenty of >> other traffic (cycling) that will knock you off and let you hit your >> head on the ground, as you were theorising about above. > > Except if there were on the road that other bike traffic would still be with > them except with the added bonus of cars, buses and trucks. If there happened to be any there, and it happened to hit them, and that hit happened to be on the head... As I just told you, EN1078 helmets assume a fall involving no other vehicles (I forgot to add "low speed", IIRC about 12 mph) and that's all their specification can be relied upon to fulfil as they're built /down/ to spec. There is no reason an EN1078 helmet shouldn't be beneficial in the "riding into a wall at 25 mph" accident caused by Getting It Wrong on a Dutch bike path just as much as on a UK road. So since you've brought up the wall/bike interface for the UK and how that makes a helmet a Clear Win, it /should/ make excellent sense in NL. 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: Mike Clark on 30 Apr 2010 10:18 In message <1kjlt59sb0jjll8u4dk0dmbhb2rn0c1q0f(a)4ax.com> JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk > wrote: > On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:21:10 +0100, Peter Clinch > <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > > >Derek C wrote: > > > >> So cycling is a lot more dangerous than you claim then! > > > >No, unless you think any accident equates to "unsafe". > > > >> 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. > > > >Yet the research on passing distances found results that suggested > >helmet wearing did influence passing space. > > > > Ah yes - the research by Dr Ian Walker: > [snip] > > http://www.outthereliving.com/Ian_Walker_move_over_pls.pdf > That's certainly quite amusing and as a parody of the research not bad. Of course coming up with an amusing witty parody doesn't actually invalidate or disprove the original study. However I'm still awaiting the answer to the question of whether or not you personally deem the wearing of a helmet necessary in order to render acceptable the risks of cycling on the road? Do you JMS regularly cycle without a helmet? If not why not? Mike -- o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark <\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, "> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and ` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
From: Nick Finnigan on 30 Apr 2010 16:05 Roland Perry wrote: > 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? Straight sections, since I wrote 'Nobody drives faster (other than when cornering)' and you wrote 'try claiming "no-one" will drive faster.'
From: Nick Finnigan on 30 Apr 2010 16:27 Peter Clinch wrote: > 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. On a straight road with a 50mph limit? A straight NSL single carriageway? Any other options you want me to mention before you give us some idea of how much faster you will go (other than when cornering) in various speed limits if you get in a car with better brakes and better handling? >>> 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. So do *I*, but I know that I am hardly anyone.
From: Nick Finnigan on 30 Apr 2010 16:27
Roland Perry wrote: > In message <hra30q$tu3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, at 20:41:11 on > Wed, 28 Apr 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> remarked: > >> Better brakes don't; > > Better brakes (which you can tell as soon as you've used them a couple > of times) also encourage faster speeds. Try swapping from a classic > Landrover to a Range Rover, and you'll soon discover the brakes are > hugely better and therefore you don't need to plan your stopping > trajectory quite as assiduously. I would drive a series landie at it's maximum speed in a straight line (given a long enough road). Whilst I would drive faster in a Range Rover it would not be because it had better brakes. >> you should be able to tell when you are cornering faster because the >> handling is better. > > The other way round, better handling masks the speed. Even if it did mask the speed, you should be able to tell when you are cornering faster owing to the handling being better. |