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 3 May 2010 13:47 On Mon, 03 May 2010 16:15:08 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >Derek C wrote: > >> I don't walk or run around my house at up to 30 mph, and even if I do >> trip and fall downstairs I will land on a nice soft carpeted floor, >> not a concrete kerbstone. Many collisions between vehicles and bicyles >> are just glancing blows that are enough to make you topple off without >> striking your head against the fast moving vehicle. It is in these >> situations that a cycle helmet will help to prevent head injuries. The >> argument that they won't stand up to 30mph head-on impacts, so it is >> not worth wearing them at all, seems totally fatuous to me! > >So if they're so good, where are the casualty savings? So if >walking is so safe, how come the serious head injury rates are, >mile for mile, similar to cycling? Err... do have different statistics which back up what you say. I suppose if "similar" means "significantly different" where you come from., Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371 (DfT Figures) I suppose that you are saying that those serious injuries which the cyclists experience are *not* head injuries. -- "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: Nick Finnigan on 3 May 2010 17:01 Roland Perry wrote: > In message <hrfd6m$guq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, at 21:05:38 on > Fri, 30 Apr 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> remarked: >>>> >>>> How much does your peak speed increase in free moving traffic on a >>>> straight section of open road in a car with better handling? Why? >>> Since when have we been talking about straight roads? >> >> Straight sections, since I wrote 'Nobody drives faster (other than >> when cornering)' and you wrote 'try claiming "no-one" will drive faster.' > > Consider the open road, not a 30mph limit. OK. How much does your peak speed increase in free moving traffic on a straight section of NSL open road in a car with better handling? Why?
From: Nick Finnigan on 3 May 2010 17:05 Roland Perry wrote: > In message <hrfega$mto$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, at 21:27:51 on > Fri, 30 Apr 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> remarked: >> Roland Perry wrote: >>> In message <hra30q$tu3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, at 20:41:11 on >>> Wed, 28 Apr 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> remarked: >>> >>>> Better brakes don't; >>> Better brakes (which you can tell as soon as you've used them a >>> couple of times) also encourage faster speeds. Try swapping from a >>> classic Landrover to a Range Rover, and you'll soon discover the >>> brakes are hugely better and therefore you don't need to plan your >>> stopping trajectory quite as assiduously. >> >> I would drive a series landie at it's maximum speed in a straight line >> (given a long enough road). > > We were talking about the ability to stop! It is able to stop, in an adequate way to pass an MoT test. > Drum brakes all round... "Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!" Not if they are adequate to pass an MoT test. >> Whilst I would drive faster in a Range Rover it would not be because >> it had better brakes. > > I would recommend reconsidering that viewpoint. Why would you drive slower in a Range Rover? >>>> you should be able to tell when you are cornering faster because the >>>> handling is better. >>> The other way round, better handling masks the speed. >> >> Even if it did mask the speed, you should be able to tell when you are >> cornering faster owing to the handling being better. > > Better handling means you don't get so much of an impression of speed. Are you really, totally incapable of cornering at a speed where the lateral force is noticeable?
From: john wright on 3 May 2010 17:21 On 01/05/2010 12:38, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <hrfega$mto$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, at 21:27:51 on > Fri, 30 Apr 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> remarked: >> Roland Perry wrote: >>> In message <hra30q$tu3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, at 20:41:11 on >>> Wed, 28 Apr 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> remarked: >>> >>>> Better brakes don't; >>> Better brakes (which you can tell as soon as you've used them a >>> couple of times) also encourage faster speeds. Try swapping from a >>> classic Landrover to a Range Rover, and you'll soon discover the >>> brakes are hugely better and therefore you don't need to plan your >>> stopping trajectory quite as assiduously. >> >> I would drive a series landie at it's maximum speed in a straight line >> (given a long enough road). > > We were talking about the ability to stop! > > Drum brakes all round... "Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!" Even modern cars like the Toyota Prius used drum rear brakes in the US model. (Rear discs for Europe) -- John Wright Use your imagination Marvin! Life's bad enough as it is - why invent any more of it.
From: Nick Finnigan on 3 May 2010 18:39
john wright wrote: > On 01/05/2010 12:38, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <hrfega$mto$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, at 21:27:51 on >> Fri, 30 Apr 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> remarked: >>> Roland Perry wrote: >> >> Drum brakes all round... "Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!" > > Even modern cars like the Toyota Prius used drum rear brakes in the US > model. (Rear discs for Europe) Rear drums for lots of modern European models, even the Forester. |