Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Tom Crispin on 17 May 2010 12:36
On Mon, 17 May 2010 10:03:20 +0100, Peter Clinch
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> Oh... I know the point you are making.
>You still show a remarkable lack of understanding about it though.
Apart from being flamebait, there's nothing of substance to it.
From: Clive George on 17 May 2010 12:44
On 17/05/2010 17:36, Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2010 10:03:20 +0100, Peter Clinch
> <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> Oh... I know the point you are making.
>> You still show a remarkable lack of understanding about it though.
> Apart from being flamebait, there's nothing of substance to it.
In the context of URC, it's tiny flamebait - and at least it's
moderately civilised. I see the nutty USians have started up there
again, and we've got the little cohort of people who have nothing better
to do that complain about cyclists filling up a lot of the rest of it.
If there were any actual content on URC I'd be more likely to complain
about this thread, but there isn't.
There's a nice little helmet thread over in RBT at the moment if anybody
feels like playing. (ok, this statement is more likely to be true than
false any time of year, but I thought it was a good one).
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 17 May 2010 14:32
On Mon, 17 May 2010 15:13:51 +0100, Tony Raven <traven(a)gotadsl.co.uk>
>Derek C wrote:
>> Read some of the abstracts in TRL PPR446, available on-line as a free
>> download, although �45 to buy. The most conservative estimate is that
>> 10-16% of cycling fatalities would have been prevented by wearing
>> helmets. Some American studies claim up to an 85% reduction.
Simple question for you:
Do you think that a cycle helmet is more likely to reduce the risk of
injury in a cycle accident than it will increase the risk of injury?
From: Derek C on 17 May 2010 14:36
On 17 May, 15:13, Mike Clark <mrc7-...(a)cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> In message <bb0f5a15-4ac1-4e0d-85c1-008c9ddcb...(a)a20g2000vbc.googlegroups..com>
> Derek C <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> > Safety in the home and the bathroom, and safety on bicycles are two
> > completely separate issues. We are all going to die eventually, so why
> > bother to take any sensible precautions at all? Let's do away with
> > Health & Safety legislation, seat belts, airbags and crumple zones in
> > vehicles, speed limits, motorcycle helmets, clean drinking water,
> > sanitation, etc, etc. On the other hand it is nice to get your three
> > score years and ten on this planet, and not to get disabled or brain
> > damaged on the way.
> But the irony is that cyclists, regardless of whether they wear a helmet
> or not, are more likely than non-cyclists to get in their three score
> years and ten, and with a good quality of life. It's not the wearing of
> the helmet that does that, it's the physical activity.
People who keep fit and don't get overweight are likely to live
longer, but you don't have to be a cyclist to do this. Swimming,
running, walking, golf, tennis, squash, or going to the gym will all
achieve the same aims, with less chance of instant death, or serious
Arguments used by the anti-helmet faction:
1) Cycling is so safe that there is no need to wear a helmet!
No it isn't. Only 2% of journeys in the UK are made by bicycle and are
probably not very long, but cyclists make up 9% of the reported killed
and seriously injured in road accidents. Some other cyclists (e.g.
Doug) are always complaining about how vulnerable they are. The
accident rate per kilometre travelled must be greater than for most
other means of transport.
2) Cyclists who wear helmets take greater risks, that is 'risk
At best unproven.
3) Cycle helmets provide inadequate protection.
Possibly, because they have to be light and well ventilated, but
hospital studies suggest a big reduction in serious head injuries for
cyclists that wear them. The BMA is in favour of helmet wearing.
4) Motorists are more likely to cut up cyclists who wear helmets when
Pretty dubious claim. It doesn't register with me whether cyclists are
wearing helmets or not when I am driving. The one paper on this
subject by Dr Ian Walker uses some pretty dodgy statistics and biased
graphs to 'prove' this point.
5) Anyone who is in favour of helmets doesn't understand statistics.
From: Derek C on 17 May 2010 14:43
On 17 May, 19:32, JMS <jmsmith2...(a)live.co.uk > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2010 15:13:51 +0100, Tony Raven <tra...(a)gotadsl.co.uk>
> >Derek C wrote:
> >> --
> >> Read some of the abstracts in TRL PPR446, available on-line as a free
> >> download, although £45 to buy. The most conservative estimate is that
> >> 10-16% of cycling fatalities would have been prevented by wearing
> >> helmets. Some American studies claim up to an 85% reduction.
> Simple question for you:
> Do you think that a cycle helmet is more likely to reduce the risk of
> injury in a cycle accident than it will increase the risk of injury?
Do you honestly expect a straightforward and honest answer from the