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 16 May 2010 12:41 On Sun, 16 May 2010 10:44:37 +0100, john wright <john(a)pegasus.f2s.com> wrote: <snip> >I think we need some numbers here. I'm certainly not mad, but do have a >backrground in risk assessment going back twenty odd years. So if there was any scientific evidence that wearing helmets increases the risks which cyclists take - you would probably have come across it. Do you know of any such evidence? -- 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: Tony Raven on 16 May 2010 12:50 On 16/05/2010 17:32, Peter Clinch wrote: > 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... > Well with a ~30:1 difference in deaths, you only need 3% of the population cycling for the personal risk to be identical for both. The US Personal Transportation Survey estimates about 9 million daily bicycle trips in a population of about 300 million so the personal risks are very much in the same ballpark. -- Tony " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell
From: Roland Perry on 16 May 2010 13:19 In message <cg70v590f7d46aa95d02f6f7ipiq87e24q(a)4ax.com>, at 17:36:32 on Sun, 16 May 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >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. I will, but only when I get home and have the book in front of me. I do find it slightly irritating, however, that when I respond to your continued challenges for "cites" that quoting a well known book, and even the page number, doesn't seem to be good enough. Isn't the idea of quoting published sources, that people can go look it up for themselves? -- Roland Perry
From: Derek C on 16 May 2010 17:01 On May 16, 4:27 pm, Tony Raven <tra...(a)gotadsl.co.uk> wrote: > 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. > I have pointed out on a number of occasions that many two vehicle collisions are glancing blows. A cycle helmet may not provide full protection in an absolute head on collision with a vehicle, but it will if you just fall off your bike as a result of a glancing collision. There is some reasonably good evidence that helmets reduce the risk of death, or serious brain injury in even quite high speed crashes. Any unnecessary death is one too many, and may leave widows and orphaned children behind, so the consequences can be serious. I think that I spend far more of my time at home and in the bathroom than I do on a bike, so always remember the population effect when quoting statistics. You are most likely to have a road accident within 5 miles of your home, because that's where you spend most of your time, and because you always have to pass through the local roads to go anywhere else. It is not because you drive, ride or walk any more dangerously in your local area. Derek C
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 16 May 2010 19:14
On Sat, 15 May 2010 21:09:41 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >Derek C wrote: > >> I feel far from bomb proof when riding a bike, with or without a >> helmet, especially when being continuously overtaken by a stream of >> fast moving (by bicycle standards) cars and lorries. I am certainly >> not prepared to take any more risks just because I am wearing a >> helmet! > >It's not entirely unheard of for people to refuse to go out without >a helmet. So if they're going at all into what they perceive is a >risky environment then they're taking greater risks because if they >didn't wear the helmet, they wouldn't be in what they think is the >risky environment. > >It's not about feeling invulnerable, it's about being there at all. > >Pete. How about: If you go out with or without the helmet - there is a certain level of risk of you being involved in an accident and suffering an injury. I do not believe that going out wearing a helmet will reduce - or increase - that risk of having an accident - do you? I do believe that - on the whole - the wearing of the helmet will reduce the risk of injury - and will certainly not increase the risk of injury. Do you? -- 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) |