Cycle helmets - major study

[Richard Burton]

"Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 22:27:51 +0100, "Richard Burton"
>
> >Cyclists find out very quickly that inattention hurts. Drivers found out that inattention hurts
> >someone else. Darwinism.
>
> Apart from the fact that your proposed mechanism is nonsense, proposed mechanisms are clearly
> insufficient. So that's a double zero for you.

Given that my above statements are blindingly obviously true and logical, that's a double minus
several million for you.

Perhaps you would like to explain, in your view, the flaw with the proposition that cyclists pay
attention because they know from experience that not doing so hurts them, and the observable fact
that drivers know they won't get hurt in collision with a cyclist, and therefore pay considerably
less attention. I can tell you from observation as a cyclist, this proposition is irrefutably true.

Rich

 

[Tony W]

"Richard Burton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Perhaps you would like to explain, in your view, the flaw with the proposition that cyclists pay
> attention because they know from experience that not doing so hurts them, and the observable fact
> that drivers know
they
> won't get hurt in collision with a cyclist, and therefore pay considerably less attention.

>I can tell you from observation as a cyclist, this proposition is irrefutably true.

There's your problem, Rich. You are a cyclist, you have relevant experience and, it can safely be
assumed, you are not sitting in a hut in Inverness pontificating on things you clearly know f***
all about.

Obviously, you are not competent to comment

T

 

[Tony Raven]

Richard Burton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Perhaps you would like to explain, in your view, the flaw with the proposition that cyclists pay
> attention because they know from experience that not doing so hurts them, and the observable
> fact that drivers know they won't get hurt in collision with a cyclist, and therefore pay
> considerably less attention. I can tell you from observation as a cyclist, this proposition is
> irrefutably true.
>

You clearly have not experienced the youth and students of Cambridge. Many seem to be convinced they
are indestructable on a bicycle and certainly cannot be said to be paying attention. I can tell you
from observation as a cyclist that I have had more near misses from these "attention paying"
cyclists directly or through their forcing drivers to take avoiding action than I have ever had from
drivers directly. Therefore your proposition from observation is irrefutably false.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[Paul Smith]

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So far he's now really starting to enjoy his cycling and is chuffed to ribbons with his new bike,
> especially since he's been promised carbon forks for it ;-)
>

How old is he? How long before he thinks anything his parents are interested in is automatically
embarassing and stupid ;-)

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[James Hodson]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:15:12 -0400, "Robert Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>My experience playing rugby tells me that as soon as I start breathing hard, my mental capacity
>diminishes. I'm guessing the brain competes for blood flow with muscles.
>

Hi Robert

I haven't played rugby for many a year but I used to find almost the exact opposite. When playing
hard I used to things without making a conscious effort - side-steps or drop goals, to give just two
examples. Admittedly, I doubt I would have been able to do too well in a fiendishly difficult IQ
test just after a match, but, when actually playing, I was "in the zone" or "on a higher plane", and
possibly several other dodgy phrases.

To contradict myself a little: I sure you're right in saying that some blood flow does go to the
muscles rather than to the brain, but only a small amount. However, IIRC, the body tries to keep the
brain (and major organs) oxygenated at the expense of any peripheral muscles - hence frostbite etc.

Dr Helen V's expertise is once again required.

James

--
Watch the kite, not where you're going!

 

[Robert Goodman]

"James Hodson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...

> I haven't played rugby for many a year but I used to find almost the exact opposite. When playing
> hard I used to things without making a conscious effort - side-steps or drop goals, to give just
> two examples.

Well, yeah, that's probably because you were good!

> Admittedly, I doubt I would have been able to do too well in a fiendishly difficult IQ test just
> after a match, but, when actually playing, I was "in the zone" or "on a higher plane", and
> possibly several other dodgy phrases.

The last time I played I was propping and in the 2nd half the ref didn't like the way we were
forming scrums, so he said he'd have us touch & engage on his call. I said, yeah, sure, and then as
we crouched he said, "Touch" maybe 3 times before I realized, "Dummy, he's talking to YOU!" I was
just staring at my immediate opponent waiting for something to happen. I'm sure that wouldn't've
happened if I had a cool head.

Robert

 

[Dr]

"Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote

> lower speed (of cycling) is inherently less demanding

(my brackets)

Oh? Is that a recent revelation or have you been spending all this time deliberately
making mischief?

David Roberts

 

[Paul Smith]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 00:43:30 +0100, "DR" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> lower speed (of cycling) is inherently less demanding

>(my brackets)

>Oh? Is that a recent revelation or have you been spending all this time deliberately making
>mischief?

You're trying to make a general point?

Don't be silly.

Lower speeds in general are less demanding. But that doesn't automatically make them safer.
Sometimes the reduced demand will lead to an excessive loss of concentration.

Imagine a 240 mile motorway journey late at night in good conditions. Will it be safer at 80mph with
an alert driver for 3 hours or at 40mph with an under involved driver for 6 hours? (And bear in mind
that 30% of accidents on some motorways are due to drivers falling asleep.)

Similar effects can be expected to be present in concentration and attention levels on other sorts
of roads at other times. And it's bound to be a sliding scale.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Gonzalez]

Paul Smith wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 00:43:30 +0100, "DR" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> lower speed (of cycling) is inherently less demanding
>
>>(my brackets)
>
>>Oh? Is that a recent revelation or have you been spending all this time deliberately making
>>mischief?
>
>You're trying to make a general point?
>
>Don't be silly.
>
>Lower speeds in general are less demanding. But that doesn't automatically make them safer.
>Sometimes the reduced demand will lead to an excessive loss of concentration.
>
>Imagine a 240 mile motorway journey late at night in good conditions. Will it be safer at 80mph
>with an alert driver for 3 hours or at 40mph with an under involved driver for 6 hours? (And bear
>in mind that 30% of accidents on some motorways are due to drivers falling asleep.)

A slower driver isn't, necessarily, a less alert driver.

And all things being equal, slower speeds are safer speeds. Do you think a driver could do the trip
safely in their Ferrari in 1.5 hours at 160 mph?
--
remove remove to reply

 

[Tony Raven]

Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> And all things being equal, slower speeds are safer speeds. Do you think a driver could do the
> trip safely in their Ferrari in 1.5 hours at 160 mph?

I have the unfortunate experience of having done that journey as a passenger a few years ago on a
northern Italian two lane autostrada in the late afternoon. I've no idea whether the driver was more
alert or not - I was too busy with my eyes closed trying not to leave a brown stain on his nice
leather seat. :-( I certainly know it wasn't safe.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[Paul Smith]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 03:51:53 +0100, Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> lower speed (of cycling) is inherently less demanding

>>>(my brackets)

>>>Oh? Is that a recent revelation or have you been spending all this time deliberately making
>>>mischief?

>>You're trying to make a general point?

>>Don't be silly.

>>Lower speeds in general are less demanding. But that doesn't automatically make them safer.
>>Sometimes the reduced demand will lead to an excessive loss of concentration.

>>Imagine a 240 mile motorway journey late at night in good conditions. Will it be safer at 80mph
>>with an alert driver for 3 hours or at 40mph with an under involved driver for 6 hours? (And bear
>>in mind that 30% of accidents on some motorways are due to drivers falling asleep.)

>A slower driver isn't, necessarily, a less alert driver.

Agreed. The best place to look for elevated inattention is where we've forced a driver to travel
at a speed significantly slower than the one he judges to be safe. He's bored and disinterested
in his task.

>And all things being equal, slower speeds are safer speeds.

All things can never be equal. Somehow the speed was changed, and not by magic or theory. Anyway the
other part isn't true either. Imagine trying to do a "nice safe 30mph" in lane 3 of a busy motorway.
Many researchers have found a U shaped curve of accident risk with the fastest and slowest drivers
at elevated risk of accident.

> Do you think a driver could do the trip safely in their Ferrari in 1.5 hours at 160 mph?

Sometimes, in certain circumstances, yes, I do think so. It might be possible to find a quiet
autobahn, or maybe we could do it at a test track. There's no inherent danger in speed. The danger
only arises when the speed is inappropriate for the conditions.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Richard Burton]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Richard Burton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You clearly have not experienced the youth and students of Cambridge.
Many
> seem to be convinced they are indestructable on a bicycle and certainly cannot be said to be
> paying attention. I can tell you from observation as
a
> cyclist that I have had more near misses from these "attention paying" cyclists directly or
> through their forcing drivers to take avoiding action than I have ever had from drivers directly.
> Therefore your proposition
from
> observation is irrefutably false.

Tony, I cannot argue with your own observations, but the probability is that those cyclists causing
the problem haven't yet hurt themselves - don't worry, their time will come, and when it does, they
will learn!

Cheers

Rich

 

[Richard Burton]

"Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:57:04 +0100, "Richard Burton"

> >Perhaps you would like to explain, in your view, the flaw with the proposition that cyclists pay
> >attention because they know from experience that not doing so hurts them, and the observable fact
> >that drivers know
they
> >won't get hurt in collision with a cyclist, and therefore pay
considerably
> >less attention. I can tell you from observation as a cyclist, this proposition is
> >irrefutably true.
>
> Hahahahahaha!
> --
> Paul Smith

This surely can't be the same PS who frequently flames all and sundry for making fatuous comments
and failing to make any kind of logical reply can it?

God help us if there's more than one of them.

Cheers

Rich

 

[Gonzalez]

Paul Smith wrote:

>>And all things being equal, slower speeds are safer speeds.
>
>All things can never be equal. Somehow the speed was changed, and not by magic or theory. Anyway
>the other part isn't true either. Imagine trying to do a "nice safe 30mph" in lane 3 of a busy
>motorway. Many researchers have found a U shaped curve of accident risk with the fastest and
>slowest drivers at elevated risk of accident.

The danger from a reasonable person driving at 30 mph on a congested motorway is the congestion, not
the speed.

>> Do you think a driver could do the trip safely in their Ferrari in 1.5 hours at 160 mph?
>
>Sometimes, in certain circumstances, yes, I do think so. It might be possible to find a quiet
>autobahn, or maybe we could do it at a test track. There's no inherent danger in speed. The danger
>only arises when the speed is inappropriate for the conditions.

In general, is it safer to drive on a clear motorway at 160 mph or 70 mph?
--
remove remove to reply

 

[Paul Smith]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:07:20 +0100, Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>And all things being equal, slower speeds are safer speeds.

>>All things can never be equal. Somehow the speed was changed, and not by magic or theory. Anyway
>>the other part isn't true either. Imagine trying to do a "nice safe 30mph" in lane 3 of a busy
>>motorway. Many researchers have found a U shaped curve of accident risk with the fastest and
>>slowest drivers at elevated risk of accident.

>The danger from a reasonable person driving at 30 mph on a congested motorway is the congestion,
>not the speed.

If the speed is inappropriate, then it is likely to be dangerous. 30mph in lane 3 of a motorway is
likely to be inappropriate. Granted my example is somewhat trivial, but I do find it illustrative of
the point.

>>> Do you think a driver could do the trip safely in their Ferrari in 1.5 hours at 160 mph?

>>Sometimes, in certain circumstances, yes, I do think so. It might be possible to find a quiet
>>autobahn, or maybe we could do it at a test track. There's no inherent danger in speed. The danger
>>only arises when the speed is inappropriate for the conditions.

>In general, is it safer to drive on a clear motorway at 160 mph or 70 mph?

I abhor inappropriate speed. So let's set a couple of realistic conditions intended to scupper the
view that 160mph is inappropriate:

The visibility, vehicle, legal system, vehicle capabilities, traffic and driver skills are all
sufficient for 160mph on this occasion. I expect 160mph to be perfectly safe and carry a much lower
risk of falling asleep then 70mph.

Higher speeds become dangerous whenever they are inappropriate.

Unnecessarily slow speeds become dangerous when they are soporific or when the means of reducing
speed distracts drivers or otherwise reduces their concentration or distorts their priorities.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Paul Smith]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 14:57:26 +0100, Daniel Barlow <[email protected]> wrote:

>[ Hope I've got the attributions right here ]

>Paul Smith <[email protected]> writes:

>> Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>And all things being equal, slower speeds are safer speeds.

>> All things can never be equal. Somehow the speed was changed, and not by magic or theory. Anyway
>> the other part isn't true either. Imagine trying to do a "nice safe 30mph" in lane 3 of a busy
>> motorway. Many researchers have found a U shaped curve of accident risk with the fastest and
>> slowest drivers at elevated risk of accident.

>With the exception of very large vehicles, the speed limits are the same for everyone. Nobody is
>forcing these slower vehicles to travel more slowly; the strong probability is that they're going
>as fast as they judge to be safe (perhaps they're not confident drivers, or they don't know the
>road, or they just have poor judgement). I don't think you can claim these accidents as due to
>inattention.

The time that inattention is likely to arise is if we cause people to drive at a speed which they
properly judge to be well under the speed they would otherwise have properly chosen. There's quite a
bit of it about.

>>>>>> lower speed (of cycling) is inherently less demanding

>Were all other thing equal, I'd agree, but as you point out, they can never be.

Accepted.

>For one thing, the cognitive load is probably mostly a function of _perceived_ speed.

I dispute that. It's a function of "time to react". When travelling near or above maximum safe
limits there's a dramatic and obvious increase in workload and concentration, as one strives to take
account of all that's happening. At such speeds; (which I never recommend for road driving by the
way) One might have a sensation of being "on the edge" and concentration is critical.

Below this potential "ragged edge" there's a sliding scale and as speed tends towards zero, so does
the requirement to concentrate.

> In a car at 25mph, the suspension filters out vibration from the road surface, the enclosed body
> filter out wind noise, the mass of the car ensures that crosswind is not really an issue and the
> momentum of the car tends to mean that minor gradients are not nearly as obvious. On top of which,
> I'm not actually _doing_ very much. On a bike at the same speed, I have skinny tyres that transmit
> every bump from the road, I'm being buffeted by the wind and by the draft from passing vehicles,
> every change in gradient gets noticed, and I'm busy turning my legs around at 90+ rpm. I don't
> think the situations are comparable, let alone equal.

I don't think the factors you cite have much to do with the sort of concentration we were talking
about. I was talking about directing concentration towards developing events ahead. In the case
of what might be termed "concentrated cycling" it isn't unusual to see racing cyclists looking
down while they concentrate on delivering maximum output. Are these guys paying attention to the
road ahead?

>>> Do you think a driver could do the trip safely in their Ferrari in 1.5 hours at 160 mph?

>> Sometimes, in certain circumstances, yes, I do think so. It might be possible to find a quiet
>> autobahn, or maybe we could do it at a test track. There's no inherent danger in speed. The
>> danger only arises when the speed is inappropriate for the conditions.

>A jet pilot could probably do the trip pretty safely at 300mph in something less than an hour, if
>not on the same (or any) road. I don't think these examples are adding anything.

Agreed.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Gonzalez]

Paul Smith wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:07:20 +0100, Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>And all things being equal, slower speeds are safer speeds.
>
>>>All things can never be equal. Somehow the speed was changed, and not by magic or theory. Anyway
>>>the other part isn't true either. Imagine trying to do a "nice safe 30mph" in lane 3 of a busy
>>>motorway. Many researchers have found a U shaped curve of accident risk with the fastest and
>>>slowest drivers at elevated risk of accident.
>
>>The danger from a reasonable person driving at 30 mph on a congested motorway is the congestion,
>>not the speed.
>
>If the speed is inappropriate, then it is likely to be dangerous. 30mph in lane 3 of a motorway is
>likely to be inappropriate. Granted my example is somewhat trivial, but I do find it illustrative
>of the point.

I have frequently driven at 30 in lane 3 of a motorway, especially the M6 around Birmingham.

>>>> Do you think a driver could do the trip safely in their Ferrari in 1.5 hours at 160 mph?
>
>>>Sometimes, in certain circumstances, yes, I do think so. It might be possible to find a quiet
>>>autobahn, or maybe we could do it at a test track. There's no inherent danger in speed. The
>>>danger only arises when the speed is inappropriate for the conditions.
>
>>In general, is it safer to drive on a clear motorway at 160 mph or 70 mph?
>
>I abhor inappropriate speed. So let's set a couple of realistic conditions intended to scupper the
>view that 160mph is inappropriate:
>
>The visibility, vehicle, legal system, vehicle capabilities, traffic and driver skills are all
>sufficient for 160mph on this occasion. I expect 160mph to be perfectly safe and carry a much lower
>risk of falling asleep then 70mph.
>
>Higher speeds become dangerous whenever they are inappropriate.
>
>Unnecessarily slow speeds become dangerous when they are soporific or when the means of reducing
>speed distracts drivers or otherwise reduces their concentration or distorts their priorities.

--
remove remove to reply

 

[Gonzalez]

Paul Smith wrote:

>Unnecessarily slow speeds become dangerous when they are soporific or when the means of reducing
>speed distracts drivers or otherwise reduces their concentration or distorts their priorities.

Who would you rather travel as a passenger with: a tired driver hacking down the motorway at 95 mph,
or a tired driver cruising down the motorway at 65 mph.
--
remove remove to reply

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:15:12 -0400, "Robert Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>My experience playing rugby tells me that as soon as I start breathing hard, my mental capacity
>diminishes.

You are confusing two effects: mental capacity dimishes *as you start playing rugby* <gd&r>

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 15:39:24 +0100, Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>Unnecessarily slow speeds become dangerous when they are soporific or when the means of reducing
>speed distracts drivers or otherwise reduces their concentration or distorts their priorities.

Luckily, 30mph (and lower) speed limits around towns are completely necessary, and amply justified
by an examination of the probabilities of death when pedestrians are hit at various speeds. So
that's all right then.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.