Anybody not wear a helmet? Discuss....
Comments
-
What is the helmet legislation like in Kenya?Littigator wrote:Ker-rist are you lot still banging on about stats, snail tests and car-driver risk testing scenario factiodal failsafes???
Surely this thread was boring even before it started let alone after 24 pages!!!!!!!!!
:P0 -
Hmmmmm, mostly if you are on a bike and see or hear a car aproaching...escape escape escape and get as far off the road as possible
Roadie FCN: 3
Fixed FCN: 60 -
Littigator wrote:Hmmmmm, mostly if you are on a bike and see or hear a car aproaching...escape escape escape and get as far off the road as possible
Be careful, drinking an driving isn't as much as an issue as it is over here and the driving mentally is more aggressive.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Always Tyred wrote:Cunobelin wrote:Snell testing became "unpopular" because it is too tough!
There are NO helmets on the market that pass the Snell B95 test that was the original cycle helmet standard.
The tests differ considerably with basic differences such that Snell tests the helmets "off the shelf" (ie the same as you and I are wearing) whereas most others actually allow the manufacturer to manufacture a batch for the testing!
Add to that the difference in anvils, impact heights, forces and head forms - thereare significant differences.
As before why are we allowing these standards to be "dumbed down" to satisfy vanity and cosmetics?
We should actually be cautions here - there are TWO Snell standards.
I was proposing that I owned a helmet which was so old it complied with the original. It had absolutely no side or back protection and so stability whatsoever. Therefore, I was pointing out that this might suggest that the original test had shortcomings.
As I understand it, there is a current Snell standard in North America that brands like Giro and Specialized comply with, but brands such as Met do not because they don't retail out there.
I think you are being naughty in infering that manufacturers send special batches of helmets for testing that are different from the ones you buy in the shop. Really, that qualifies as a conspiracy theory and if you are going to lob that out into the forum, you might want to have some evidence to back up that there is any actual deception taking place. It makes you sound desperate otherwise.
I'll limit myself to debating the available evidence if you do.
EDIT: The point regarding differences is quite true, however Iagain you have misunderstood: I was highlighting that workers had attempted to find evidence of differing levels of protection in the various population studied and had found none. You can interpret this how you wish - it might suggest that they are all good, all crap, or somewhere moderate and considered in the middle.
My overall thrust at the moment is to point out that you can't pick on the population studies for one thing and then blithely ignore them for others. You have to treat them with the same level of circumspection for all issues, regardless of your point of view on each of them.
The tests are B95 and B90 the fact is that NO helmets on sale in the UK pass B95 - and incidentally Giro do NOT test their helmets for a Snell rating. Neither do MET, Bell or many others.
As for the batching the Trek Anthem C is a classic example. At the production stage the samples provided passed "CPSC" tests but when on the market failed miserably resulting in a recall.
Conspiracy or not - it is more desirable to test the "Off the shelf product" surely?
Finally you are assuming the studies are comparable - it is not always the case....
Your point about mileage / exposure etc is fine, but limited..... the simple fact is whether a head injury can be prevented or not.
I see more pedestrians than cyclist head injuries......... borne out by ALL the cohort studies on head injury admissions
Therefore if we assume that a helmet works in all cases we would prevent more. This would be a significant saving in resources, personal costs and inconvenience....
Butthen again why save 150 head injuries when you can save 10 and accept the rest as"statistical anomalies". I am sure it hurts less for pedestrians.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
This sums part of the argument up - deal with the injuries, don't address the cause.....<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
I'll bet pedestrian injuries are much more likely to be caused by the specific negligence of the individual in question than injuries suffered by cyclists. Cyclists face many more dangers on the road - in part because they are always on the road - from external sources (vehicles, weather, road surface, pedestrians etc.) resulting in accidents for which they're not at all to blame, whereas pedestrians are only likely to face significant danger when crossing the road.
So, a careful pedestrian would have to be FAR more unlucky than a careful cyclist to suffer an injury while pedestrianising, to the point where any risk analysis would concede it's pointless to contemplate wearing a helmet.0 -
Oh, wait, you are the guy that can't understand "rates" as opposed to "totals", aren't you?Cunobelin wrote:Butthen again why save 150 head injuries when you can save 10 and accept the rest as"statistical anomalies". I am sure it hurts less for pedestrians.
Yeah - so to you the extermination of 1000 midges is equivalent to the deaths of 1000 white tigers.
I'm just going to ignore you.0 -
p.25?? Keep the emotions charged, the SCR thread record is on the horizon!
0 -
Always Tyred wrote:
What is the helmet legislation like in Kenya?Littigator wrote:Ker-rist are you lot still banging on about stats, snail tests and car-driver risk testing scenario factiodal failsafes???
Surely this thread was boring even before it started let alone after 24 pages!!!!!!!!!
:P
You have to wear a helmet in Nigeria, now when motocycling:
BBC link0 -
Always Tyred wrote:Cunobelin wrote:Butthen again why save 150 head injuries when you can save 10 and accept the rest as"statistical anomalies". I am sure it hurts less for pedestrians.
Oh, wait, you are the guy that can't understand "rates" as opposed to "totals", aren't you?
Yeah - so to you the extermination of 1000 midges is equivalent to the deaths of 1000 white tigers.
I'm just going to ignore you.
No - its a case of saving all the tigers and midges whereas you only want to save the midges and find painful deaths acceptable in tigers.... or more accurately you claim that all deaths are due to being swatted, and are stating that the tigers may not die because they don't bite as much as midges so are less likely to be swatted.
I fully understand rates as well as risk and exposure...... what I am simply stating that cohort studies show that cyclists are a minority. That is called a real event... they occur in real life.
It does not hurt less, is not less traumatic for the patient or their family because you decide not ot accept that more head injuries can be prevented
Answer a simple question for me - do you deny that more pedestrians are admitted to A/E units with head injuries than pedestrians?
Please feel free to ignore the question if you find it inconvenient.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:Answer a simple question for me - do you deny that more pedestrians are admitted to A/E units with head injuries than pedestrians?
Please feel free to ignore the question if you find it inconvenient.
I for one absolutely refute your claim that more pedestrians are admitted to A/E units with head injuries than pedestrians
I am sure that more pedestrians enter A/E without head injuries than with
0 -
Go to the pedestrian forum. Or the motoring forum.Cunobelin wrote:Please feel free to ignore the question if you find it inconvenient.
Hell, I don't know why we are debating deaths due to traumatic injury at all. And if you are, shouldn't we first focus on the minor wars in third world countries forum?
Mind you, that all just pales into insignificance when you consider the stuff they talk about on the starvation forum.
But then, some diseases have killed more people than all of this put together. We should be on the malaria forum. Or the cholera forum.
What was your point again?0 -
Haven't voted due to lack of options.
Interesting result so far (bearing in mind the limited choices of course). I wonder how close that mirrors the percentage of the populace who wear helmets? Anyone know any published guesstimates?Still breathing.....0 -
Answer a simple question for me - do you deny that more pedestrians are admitted to A/E units with head injuries than pedestrians?
Assuming you mean cyclists in the latter case - isn't this like saying "well more people suffer from colds than bubonic plague so shouldn't the cold sufferers be placed in isolation wards", or "more cows are killed than elephants so shouldn't cows be immediately placed on the endangered list". THEY'RE NOT COMPARABLE FFS.0 -
MODERATOR - can you lock this blinking thread now? Emerging from under a big black cloud. All help welcome0
-
You are no fun any more.linsen wrote:MODERATOR - can you lock this blinking thread now?0 -
biondino wrote:Re the driving thing. In my experience (NB sample size of 1 - which makes me as valid as Mr Walker I guess), I couldn't imagine driving closer to a cyclist because he's wearing a helmet, but I could imagine driving further away from one if, in my snap visual judgment, I felt he was likely to be inexperienced or reckless. And not wearing a helmet could well be part of that judgment.
This view mirrors the findings of the TRL report (549): "Driver's perceptions of cyclists". It found that drivers would be more inclined to pass helmet and lycra wearing cyclists closer and at greater speed than someone wearing civvies. In certain situations a bit of 'controlled erraticness' might be a tactic worth deploying as it signals unpredictability.0 -
Go ahead mate.Groke wrote:biondino wrote:Re the driving thing. In my experience (NB sample size of 1 - which makes me as valid as Mr Walker I guess), I couldn't imagine driving closer to a cyclist because he's wearing a helmet, but I could imagine driving further away from one if, in my snap visual judgment, I felt he was likely to be inexperienced or reckless. And not wearing a helmet could well be part of that judgment.
This view mirrors the findings of the TRL report 549: "Driver's perceptions of cyclists". It found that drivers would be more inclined to pass helmet and lycra wearing cyclists closer and at greater speed than someone wearing civvies. In certain situations a bit of 'controlled erraticness' might be a tactic worth deploying as it signals unpredictability.0 -
Thank you, I will.0
-
you're right Groke,as you know0
-
You're not right at all, though. There is a big difference between driving closer and faster to apparently-competent cyclists (no-one does this!!) and taking evasive action (which may in itself be dangerous) when confronted by a bad cyclist.0
-
biondino wrote:You're not right at all, though. There is a big difference between driving closer and faster to apparently-competent cyclists (no-one does this!!) and taking evasive action (which may in itself be dangerous) when confronted by a bad cyclist.
These were the reports findings - I don't like them either (the cyclist who was accorded the most room was a bmx rider wearing a hooded top).
The point of wobbling a touch or deviating from a given line might sound a bit silly, but it catches the eye and can make motorists think twice about their next manouevre.
In some ways we need to burst the bubble of traffic predictability that encourages complacency with so many road users.0 -
I see what you mean, but at the same time the "automatic" nature of accomplishing tasks tends to put us in the optimal headspace for doing them, and this includes driving. One can get a bit complacent, of course, so that might counterbalance my argument.
In case I'm not being clear, try quickly climbing the stairs while actively concentrating on your actions. You'll end up confusing yourself and almost certainly stuttering or even stopping as your brain catches us with your actions. If you run up the stairs without thinking - like you would normally do - you can do it 100% effectively.0 -
I'm sure I read somewhere that it was prudent to put on a bit of a wobble when approaching pinch-points etc to encourage following motorists to give you more room. Not saying it's a fact you understand, just read it somewhere.Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/0 -
Wouldn't it be safer and more prudent to just take primary?0
-
Yes, I'd say it would be, just adding fuel to the whole "motorists give more room to perceived numpty's" fire/ argument thing. Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/0 -
biondino wrote:I see what you mean, but at the same time the "automatic" nature of accomplishing tasks tends to put us in the optimal headspace for doing them, and this includes driving. One can get a bit complacent, of course, so that might counterbalance my argument.
In case I'm not being clear, try quickly climbing the stairs while actively concentrating on your actions. You'll end up confusing yourself and almost certainly stuttering or even stopping as your brain catches us with your actions. If you run up the stairs without thinking - like you would normally do - you can do it 100% effectively.
This is true, that is why we need to disrupt the predictable nature of the traffic environment in order to counter the cossetted, auto-pilot tendency that driving can induce.0 -
Robmanic1 wrote:I'm sure I read somewhere that it was prudent to put on a bit of a wobble when approaching pinch-points etc to encourage following motorists to give you more room. Not saying it's a fact you understand, just read it somewhere.
When I was younger, I faked a wobble and promptly fell off. Lesson in life = ride the bike properly at all times.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Incorrect. No mesurements were taken. This report consists entirely of information from interviews with drivers and is therefore based on what they think they'd do.Groke wrote:These were the reports findings - I don't like them either (the cyclist who was accorded the most room was a bmx rider wearing a hooded top).
Are you convinced that a motorist would give, for example, a rider in full road lycra kit wearing a cycling cap measureably more room than the same rider wearing a helmet?
This would presuppose that the driver would actually notice (as opposed to comment on what they think they might do when asked to comment on this in particular). Given that drivers often fail to notice a cyclist entirely, I remain skeptical.
Assume for a second that you do belive this to reflect what actually takes place, and wearing a helmet means drivers pass you more closely. How much closer? Lets assume, for fun, that the guy from Bath Uni is correct and a driver comes on average 8 cm closer (do I remember that right?)
The next question you have to answer is, do you think that this difference (and the concomitant increased risk of collision) outweighs the overall benefit of wearing a helmet? Indeed, one might also ask, IS there an actual increased risk of collision, or is this factor itself outweighed by the factor that the types of cyclists afforded less room are more competent, predictable cyclists who are less likely to collide with vehicles passing them, not withstanding that said vehicle pass on average a certain percentage closer.
I'd argue that all of these factors are embedded in the data already.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:
Incorrect. No mesurements were taken. This report consists entirely of information from interviews with drivers and is therefore based on what they think they'd do.Groke wrote:These were the reports findings - I don't like them either (the cyclist who was accorded the most room was a bmx rider wearing a hooded top).
Are you convinced that a motorist would give, for example, a rider in full road lycra kit wearing a cycling cap measureably more room than the same rider wearing a helmet?
This would presuppose that the driver would actually notice (as opposed to comment on what they think they might do when asked to comment on this in particular). Given that drivers often fail to notice a cyclist entirely, I remain skeptical.
Assume for a second that you do belive this to reflect what actually takes place, and wearing a helmet means drivers pass you more closely. How much closer? Lets assume, for fun, that the guy from Bath Uni is correct and a driver comes on average 8 cm closer (do I remember that right?)
The next question you have to answer is, do you think that this difference (and the concomitant increased risk of collision) outweighs the overall benefit of wearing a helmet? Indeed, one might also ask, IS there an actual increased risk of collision, or is this factor itself outweighed by the factor that the types of cyclists afforded less room are more competent, predictable cyclists who are less likely to collide with vehicles passing them, not withstanding that said vehicle pass on average a certain percentage closer.
I'd argue that all of these factors are embedded in the data already.
what this is going round and round is stereotypes, which are very woolly indeed, people may have very differnet ideas as to what a stereotype means.
while there is some evidence for stereotyping cars, "volvo drivers" for example do people attaully treat a volvo differently?0
