From: Derek C on
On Apr 30, 12:31 pm, boltar2...(a) wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:46:52 +0100
> Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)> wrote:
> Since the energy to cause that fracture would otherwise have gone into the
> persons skull then I would suggest thats still better than having no
> helmet.
> >cards in the Netherlands, where both helmet wearing rates and serious
> >head injury rates amongst cyclists are the lowest in the developed
> >world.  You'd think if they were so obviously a Win then they'd have
> Holland also has probably the greatest number of cycle paths in the developed
> world too. If you keep bikes away from traffic there will be fewer accidents
> and hence head injuries.
But the CTC and psycholists in general seem to be against using cycle
lanes and cycle paths, as well as wearing cycle helmets!

Derek C
From: Roland Perry on
In message <hrfega$mto$2(a)>, at 21:27:51 on
Fri, 30 Apr 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)> remarked:
>Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <hra30q$tu3$1(a)>, at 20:41:11 on
>>Wed, 28 Apr 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)> 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).

We were talking about the ability to stop!

Drum brakes all round... "Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!"

> Whilst I would drive faster in a Range Rover it would not be because
>it had better brakes.

I would recommend reconsidering that viewpoint.

>>> 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.

Better handling means you don't get so much of an impression of speed.
Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on
In message <hrfd6m$guq$1(a)>, at 21:05:38 on
Fri, 30 Apr 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)> 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?
>>>> 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

Consider the open road, not a 30mph limit.
Roland Perry
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:46:52 +0100, Peter Clinch
<p.j.clinch(a)> wrote:


>I'd wear one myself for technical MTB work, where I /expect/ to fall off
>(and it's entirely likely I will) and I expect to encounter low
>vegetation that will strike my head. So I do something about it.

Do you make your brats wear them?

Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.

The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)

From: JMS jmsmith2010 on
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:40:13 +0100, Peter Clinch
<p.j.clinch(a)> wrote:

>boltar2003(a) 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.
>Go into your local A&E department and ask them if they ever have folk in
>with head injuries from trips and falls.
>> Well unless you cycle under bridges with a tolerance of 1cm above your head
>> that so what?
>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.
>> Well I guess in that case motorcyclists shouldn't wear their even thicker
>> helmets then.
>Where helmet laws have been repealed in some US states there hasn't been
>any evident worsening of the head injury rates.

You are a liar and a fool Clinch:

On July 1 2000, the State of Florida exempted adult motorcyclist and
moped riders from wearing

helmets provided they have medical insurance of $10 000. Monthly time
series of motorcycle

occupant deaths are examined from 1/1994 to 12/2001. The interrupted
time series analysis

estimates a 48.6% increase in motorcycle occupant deaths the year
after the law change.

Motorcycle crash-related injuries,
fatalities, and fatality rates increased
in Kentucky (1998) and
Louisiana (1999) following the
weakening of their helmet laws
covering all riders.

Arkansas EMS data showed an
increase in the number of motorcyclists with head injuries. Texas
Trauma Registry data showed
that the proportion of cases involving head injury increased and that
the cost per case of

head injury increased substantially after the law change. Arkansas
motorcycle operator fatalities
increased by 21 percent comparing 1998 with 1996. Texas motorcycle
operator fatalities increased
by 31 percent comparing 1998 with 1996.


An analysis of federal motorcycle crash statistics done by the
newspaper Florida Today found

"unhelmeted" deaths in Florida rose from 22 in 1998 and 1999, the
years before the helmet law

repeal, to 250 in 2004, the most recent year of available data.

Total motorcycle deaths in the state have increased 67 percent, from
259 in 2000 to 432 in 2004,

according to National Highway


"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)