From: Roland Perry on
In message <hrndr1$ith$1(a)>, at 22:05:32 on
Mon, 3 May 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)> remarked:

>>>> 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?

To answer all three comments above - I would drive the Range Rover
faster (but still safely and within the speed limit) because it has
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.
>> Better handling means you don't get so much of an impression of
> Are you really, totally incapable of cornering at a speed where the
>lateral force is noticeable?

The force is noticeable, but the amount you notice it depends on the
car's handling.
Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on
In message <hrnjbl$8fn$1(a)>, at 23:39:46 on
Mon, 3 May 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)> remarked:
>>> 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.

Fascinating news, but not relevant to a discussion of the braking
ability of a vehicle with drums all round.
Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on
In message <hrndiu$hom$1(a)>, at 22:01:13 on
Mon, 3 May 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)> remarked:

>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?

The amount will depend on the degree of betterness of the handling. Why
will the speed increase - because handling is not exclusively about
going round corners in the road.
Roland Perry
From: Mike Clark on
In message <mmcpt5p8bdgajt1d91sm447pj5tj7qesqq(a)>
JMS <jmsmith2010(a) > wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:18:27 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7--ct(a)>
> wrote:
> > 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?
> ffs - do you have a reading difficulty
> Message-ID: <9bugt5p1t3qeppg3dpdmujvs91i2burtgj(a)>

The message with that ID isn't available on the news server that I use
so I've no idea what it says. Perhaps you could copy the relevant text
for me?

o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
From: Peter Clinch on
Derek C wrote:

> You seem to to leap on any report from any nutty American academic
> that agrees with your point of view.

You seem to have missed on how I got started with my present feelings on
the subject. My opinions were much as yours are now but having been
told things were not as I thought I decided I'd counter the arguments
against my stance with a trip to the library and return fire with good
evidence backing me up. After all, I'm a science professional with a
medical research library a few minutes from my desk, so I had the skills
and the materials.
And after a while I came to realise that, actually, things were not as I
had thought, and I couldn't find anything decent to return fire with.
So I changed what I thought so it fitted the evidence, rather than
selectively re-quoting the evidence to fit my preconceived opinions.

That you think I'm persuaded primarily by "nutty American academics"
just shows how little attention you've been paying. I've read and
assessed work by numerous nationalities. The Hewson paper I've
suggested you read, for example, is by a British (at least by residence)
statistician working for a UK local authority, so I don't see how that
fits in with "nutty American academic". Have you read it yet? Another
thing I've suggested you read is Wardlaw's "3 lessons for a better
cycling future", and that's by a non-American non-academic too. I'm
actually intrigued as to which American academics you think I'm in
thrall to? Would you name names please?

> Both the accident statistics and
> all of the reputable reports suggest a link between helmet wearing and
> reduced head injuries and KSI for cyclists.

For "reputable" I take it as meaning "say what I've decided they ought
to say". As has been pointed out to you at some length by Mike Clark,
your correlation between lowering KSIs and increases in helmet wearing
as some sort of objective statistical analysis showing how effective
helmets are is, at best, "lacking in rigour".

If "all" of the good evidence said what you say it does then there
wouldn't be any controversy. As it is, when you get the original work
in your hands and assess it as close to objectively as you can then the
"Big Win for Helmets" side of the evidence simply doesn't stand up. As
you'd know if you /really/ read it (and I don't mean stopping at the
abstracts or starting with the conclusions).

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)