helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Tony Raven on 16 May 2010 11:27 On 16/05/2010 15:49, Derek C wrote: > > When I'm getting out of the bath, it's extremely unlikely that I will > be knocked over by a vehicle doing 30, 40 or more miles per hour. > Neither am I likely to be moving at a good 20mph reasonable cycling > speed. > So you think that a helmet which, in those scenarios, is experiencing between 2.6 and 10 times a certified performance it barely meets is going to help? However a back of the envelope calculation indicates you are probably about as likely to die slipping and falling in the bathroom as you are being hit cycling. And protecting from a bathroom fall is well within the certified performance of a bicycle helmet whereas being hit by a car isn't. -- Tony " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell
From: Peter Clinch on 16 May 2010 12:25 Derek C wrote: > When I'm getting out of the bath, it's extremely unlikely that I will > be knocked over by a vehicle doing 30, 40 or more miles per hour. > Neither am I likely to be moving at a good 20mph reasonable cycling > speed. No. But you are actually moderately likely to bang your head in a manner that you could reasonably expect an EN1078 helmet to usefully mitigate. To quote yourself: "I just think that it's sensible to wear a helmet if you have one, as it reduces your chances of getting a serious brain injury, should you have an accident". Tony's given you some figures for bathroom fatalities from trips and falls. So now you tell me why your reasoning above doesn't apply to that situation. It's not about traffic, because presence of traffic doesn't guarantee a head injury. It's about might you bang your head in a way you'd wish to mitigate the injury. > As to the vintage car, as it is likely to have poorer performance, > handling and brakes than a modern car Depends how you define vintage. Plenty of "vintage" cars are kept as they were, in their day, desirable sports machines with high performance. But relatively crappy brakes and no concept of crumple zones. 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: JMS jmsmith2010 on 16 May 2010 12:29 On Sat, 15 May 2010 20:07:05 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <shitu5hjanfo88s6btk6431urhdlsjg201(a)4ax.com>, at 17:38:06 on >Sat, 15 May 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>I have asked these people (Chapman, Perry, Clinch) time and time again >>for evidence of risk compensation with regards to wearing cycle >>helmets. >> >>They have no evidence. >> >>The best Perry was able to do was refer me some page numbers in a >>book. > >You've changed your tune, last time you accused me of not providing a >page number. Please try and keep up - I actually said "last time" =============================================================== I apologise for my exaggeration re the page ref You did indeed say "Cycle helmets pages 144-147". So despite a full three pages on cycle helmets - you could not even provide a quote which supported your view. =============================================================== As I said - you could not even produce one quote from your recommended reading which supported your view. Now I found that very odd. Many people will not easily be able to access the book to check on what you say - perhaps that is what you are hoping for. You could of course dispel any disbelief that perhaps the book does not actually say anything conclusive about cycle helmets and people wearing them taking more risks. Of course if you can't - then people may jump to their own conclusions. -- 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: Peter Clinch on 16 May 2010 12:32 Tony Raven wrote: > In the US, 20,000 people a year are killed in slips and falls in the > bathroom with 70% of home accidents occurring there. It is the second > leading accidental cause of death and disabiity after automobile > accidents. Compare that with the 700 cyclist deaths a year in the US. Of course, probably not that far off 100% of the US population use the bathroom and rather fewer cycle regularly so the exposure isn't the same... .... *But* it does illustrate that you have a real and tangible possibility of a life-threatening head injury by going in there and doing stuff involving wet feet on slippery surfaces. 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: JMS jmsmith2010 on 16 May 2010 12:36
On Sat, 15 May 2010 20:07:05 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >In message <shitu5hjanfo88s6btk6431urhdlsjg201(a)4ax.com>, at 17:38:06 on >Sat, 15 May 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>I have asked these people (Chapman, Perry, Clinch) time and time again >>for evidence of risk compensation with regards to wearing cycle >>helmets. >> >>They have no evidence. >> >>The best Perry was able to do was refer me some page numbers in a >>book. > >You've changed your tune, last time you accused me of not providing a >page number. > >>He could not even produce a paragraph from those pages which >>backed up his stance. > >That's because you need to read the book yourself. Anything I quote will >be accused of being selective. Sorry - I only replied to half of that. Feel free to post anything you like from the book regarding people wearing cycle helmets taking more risks. I am sure you can do that. I promise not to accuse you of being selective. You see - you are now beginning to confirm my doubts about that book. I though there was a slight smell to it when time after time cyclists here will say read the book without being willing to give one relevant quote concerning cycle helmets. -- 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) |