Helmets

"James Annan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

Twenty-five squids, they want, for an offprint! Ouch!

The authors asked you to pay for the privilege of reading their research?

I'm in the wrong field!

James

Wrong answer. Move two fields to the left. Do not pass go. Do not collect
200 trolls.

Quoted message said:

--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, James Annan

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

Twenty-five squids, they want, for an offprint! Ouch!

The authors asked you to pay for the privilege of reading their
research?

The journal publishers, I'm guessing.

You're guessing? It was you who stated it in the first place!

I have never been refused a free reprint by any author of any paper, and
I have never heard of such an event occurring.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, James Annan
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

Twenty-five squids, they want, for an offprint! Ouch!

The authors asked you to pay for the privilege of reading their
research?

Quoted message said:

The journal publishers, I'm guessing.

They try it on. It's a barefaced swindle. I'm surprised so many
scientists fall for it. Every time I'm sent the publication copyright
sign over I simply amend it by hand, crossing out and adding bits so
that I retain the right to distribute my own copies free for
educational purposes. No publisher has ever queried this, and none has
ever objected to my subsequently doing just that, even in such obvious
ways as making it a compulsory text for a class which they get
supplied free.

The whole point of publically funded research is that your taxes paid
for it precisely so that the results can be freely available to you.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm said:

...

I've nothing against helmets per se. I'd consider wearing a cycle
helmet if research hadn't so comprehensively shown their
silliness. You don't even need to go into accident statistics, you
simply have to look up impact concussion data and check them against
the design and test criteria for cycle helmets. They're a text book
case of a triumph of marketing over ignorance. But what about all
those research studies which show positive benefit? Well yes, what
about all those research studies which showed that smoking wasn't bad
for you? It's not hard to buy research studies.

--
Chris Malcolm

well said, Chris, especially that bit "a triumph of marketing over ignorance".

Cyclists are unwittingly allowing themselves to become dupes to a marketing scam. The helmet manufacturers are undoubtedly well aware that their market would increase enormously if they could get the government to assist them by making helmets compulsory for them as well. BUT(and that's a big but) I'm sure that helmet manufacturers have done a modicum of target market analysis and concluded that if there was a push for motorists and pedestrians to wear them as well, what would likely occur would be a huge reaction against helmets which would unearth all the arguments against helmets (as we are currently attempting to do - but we don't have as big a voice).

The most probable outcome of a push for motorists and peds to wear bonnets would be a much higher level of media coverage (I'd say there'd be HUGE media coverage) regarding the inability of helmets to provide any significant protective ability, such that would provide sufficent warrant for legislation to proceed.

If this scenario were to occur then it would have a likely result of casting a greater shadow on the question of just how much use helmets are for cyclists. The outcome that I would suggest would occur is that the truth would get out of the bag - that in reality, helmets aren't what they're cracked up to be and all the hullabaloo about them is precisely that: hullabaloo (or hoopla, hyperbole, hysteria, an infectious virus that I call Helmetitus - in short just a delusion that cyclists all-too-easily succumb).

Helmet manufactures must be laughing all the way to the bank with the way cyclists dupe themselves into the false beliefs about helmets - it's got to be a marketing dream for them - the way some cyclists become True Believers and do their marketing for them free of charge!

Roger

Alan Braggins said:

In article said:

On 02 Dec 2004 17:43:06 GMT, Andy Leighton <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I don't think it is in the same class. Helmets may work in some
individual cases, however it seems that there are confounding
factors (be it risk compensation, rotational injuries or some
other factors) that reduce their effectiveness (to below a
significant level) when viewed on whole populations.

I don't think a rabbit's foot would reduce head injuries in any
accident.

But conversely, there's no credible way it could make the injuries
worse, unlike helmets.

Risk compensation: believing in your lucky rabbit's foot could
encourage you to take bigger risks, leading to you travelling faster
at the time of the accident, making your injuries worse.
Conversely, the added confidence it gives you could make you cycle
better, avoiding the accident in the first place.

Clearly more research is called for.

Why research? I cycle and where appropriate (according to The Highway Code,
main roads, lighting or dirt tracks in the country blah blah), with front
and rear halogens, flashing LEDs, but ALWAYS a fluorescent jacket AND a
helmet. My bike is in very good condition too.

I don't take bigger risks because of my lucky rabbit's foot. But accidents
happen and I try to anticipate them. But they happen.

I spent 4 hours in A&E last night (Yes, a Friday night, full of drunks etc -
not me BTW) because I fell off my bike due to someone else's incompetance
(which I couldn't have anticipated) and was knocked unconcious. The gash on
my knee will heal as will the sprain in right hand. I'm not bothered about
that. Cuts heal. But-my head took a big bang. The doc reckoned wearing a
helmet was very wise. I had concussion. That could have been a lot worse
without a helmet in THIS particular case.

Wearing a helmet makes me feel more comfortable. I don't take bigger risks.

No accident is the same but I just prefer to wear one just in case.

Jeff (concussed).

Jeff A said:

I spent 4 hours in A&E last night (Yes, a Friday night, full of drunks etc -
not me BTW) because I fell off my bike due to someone else's incompetance
(which I couldn't have anticipated) and was knocked unconcious. The gash on
my knee will heal as will the sprain in right hand. I'm not bothered about
that. Cuts heal. But-my head took a big bang. The doc reckoned wearing a
helmet was very wise. I had concussion. That could have been a lot worse
without a helmet in THIS particular case.

Commiserations but you and he can never know whether the helmet made it
a lot better or a lot worse. In either case it did not prevent
concussion in what sounds like the sort of fall its designed to work in.

Quoted message said:

Wearing a helmet makes me feel more comfortable. I don't take bigger risks.

No accident is the same but I just prefer to wear one just in case.

That's all that matters with the current state of knowledge - how you
feel about it and whether it makes you more or less inclined to cycle.

Tony

Just zis Guy said:

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:50:24 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden] (Chris
Malcolm) wrote in message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They kept me in hospital for ten days just waiting for the concussion
to develop. They said there was no way I could have been in that sort
of accident and not be suffering from concussion.

Quoted message said:

Impressive. Obviously van headlights make good crumple zones :-)

And I suspect that the combination of *good* helmet and sacrificial
hand took the concussive edge off the worst bits off that prolonged
impact. My nose may also have made its crumple zone contribution, or
it may simply have got smashed in the general mayhem.

The most frightening thing was waking up on the ground, opening my
eyes, and seeing nothing at all but a red tinged darkness. I thought
my eyes had gone. That convinced me to lie still and wait for the
ambulance rather than struggle to my feet and find my poor motorcycle,
which usually comes off a lot worse than me in these incidents.
Fortunately it was only my motorcycle goggles which had filled up with
blood!

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm said:

That convinced me to lie still and wait for the
ambulance rather than struggle to my feet and find my poor motorcycle,
which usually comes off a lot worse than me in these incidents.

You make habit of doing that?

Tony

Peter Taylor said:

My argument is that skin and bones heal. Brain does not. And wearing a
helmet is just a sensible precaution against suffering an irreversible
injury.

Adults can make up their own mind and weigh up the risks, but for heavens
sake encourage your kids to wear a properly designed helmet.

Maybe someone's asked this further down the thread.

Ignoring, for now, your view that helmets can prevent anything more
than bruises and scratches, it is probably fair to view them as
insurance against the very remote chance of these minor injuries.

But if you're so concerned but such unlikely events, do you also wear
a helmet when walking? It's a serious and genuine question - you are
robust in saying why, for you, helmet wearing is appropriate for the
level of risk you are prepared to live with.

Mile for mile, walking is more likely to result in head injury
(serious or otherwise) so I'm wondering if you similarly minimise this
risk. And forbid your kids from walking without a helmet?

"Jeff A" <[email hidden]> wrote:
....
| I spent 4 hours in A&E last night (Yes, a Friday night, full of drunks etc -
| not me BTW) because I fell off my bike due to someone else's incompetance
| (which I couldn't have anticipated) and was knocked unconcious. The gash on
| my knee will heal as will the sprain in right hand. I'm not bothered about
| that. Cuts heal. But-my head took a big bang. The doc reckoned wearing a
| helmet was very wise. I had concussion. That could have been a lot worse
| without a helmet in THIS particular case.

Possibly. I too have spent some hours in A&E, not on a Friday IIRC,
but after work after an over-the-bonnet situation (which I too was
aware would happen during the full second before it did, spookily). My
head too took a big bang - it felt like some troll had taken a section
of the road and socked me on the back of the head with it. I didn't go
unconscious but I did have mild concussion, two days off work, feeling
wobbly during the first one. I wasn't wearing a helmet & it wasn't
mentioned in A&E.

It looks like, from these two examples, that mild-to-medium concussion
(I'm rating medium concussion as "what you get after unconsciousness"😉
is right on the borderline of what helmets are useful for, whereas I
had thought they were effective against mild concussion and would
reduce medium c to mild c but not major c to medium c (they'd break
before that) whereas you seem to have had something like the latter.
Could you describe your particular example in more detail?

| Wearing a helmet makes me feel more comfortable. I don't take bigger risks.
|
| No accident is the same but I just prefer to wear one just in case.

I still prefer to avoid giving drivers a false sense of security, just
in case.

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk

Jeff A said:

that. Cuts heal. But-my head took a big bang. The doc reckoned wearing a
helmet was very wise. I had concussion. That could have been a lot worse
without a helmet in THIS particular case.

Here we go again.

You crashed wearing a helmet. Despite your helmet you suffered what
is medically classified as a serious brain injury. This proves
helmets work.

Err, can you run that past me again?

You crashed wearing a helmet and suffered serious brain injury, so the
helmet must have been a good thing.

If you wore oven gloves, yet got burnt taking something from teh oven
would you be proclaiming how marvelous they were?

If you wore non-slip boots but slipped on a polished floor would you
be singing their praises?

Quoted message said:

Jeff (concussed).

Really. I wouldn't have guessed.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

you know? said:

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:26:19 GMT, [email hidden] (Patrick Herring)

wrote in message : said:

Not wearing one might make you or the bus driver take greater care,

Or indeed you yourself.

Oh, come on now.

This is the point where someone will say "If you weren't wearing a helmet
you wouldn't have had an accident" or some similar stupidity.

Anyone who seriously believes that a bus driver will take more care to
avoid a cyclist if s/he isn't wearing a helmet has no need of a helmet
because IMHO there is nothing in the cranial area to protect.

Granted that helmets will not protect most of your body, and that in most
situations other parts of your body are likely to be injured.

Granted also that helmets only provide limited protection - full on impact
with a speeding car is outside the design spec.

However I think that there are situations where the wearing of a helmet
can reduce the risk of certain types of injuries. e.g. I have a friend who
was knocked off her bike, fell and hit her head, and had a fairly serious
concussion. If she had been wearing a helmet then I believe that the
chances are the concussion would have been reduced or absent. I also
believe that wearing a helmet would not have altered her riding style.

As she was knocked off her bike by a (female) motorist who cut in sharply
in front of her and hit her front wheel and who (presumably) could see
that she was not wearing a helmet we must conclude that either

(a) the fact she was not wearing a helmet didn't make the car driver take
more care

or that

(b) the car driver thought "She isn't wearing a helmet so I'll only clip
her. If she had been wearing a helmet I would, of course, have driven
right over her."

Yeah, I know that the more extreme posters will immediately opt for (b).

The suggestions I have seen posted that 'wearing a helmet will
make an accident more likely' and 'will encourage legislation so YOU
shouldn't wear a helmet because I don't want to be made to wear one' (I
think I got that right) are (again IMHO) more likely to undermine the
credibility of reasonably stated arguments that encourage anyone not to
wear a helmet.

ISTR the same sort of twisted arguments about motor cycle crash helmets
and car seat belts.

I must have missed the ones about fitting air bags and side impact
protection - no, hang on, these were to score better in crash safety tests
and are not compulsory.

However no doubt we should legislate to have these taken out on the
grounds that they only encourage people to drive faster and with less
concern for safety.

Please try and keep to a reasonable line - accept that there may be some
benefits to some people in wearing helmets, and at the moment it is a
matter of choice.

Cheers

Dave R

P.S. slightly disjointed because I was interrupted half way through by a
visitor who stayed for about 3 hours :-)

David WE Roberts [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

However I think that there are situations where the wearing of a helmet
can reduce the risk of certain types of injuries. e.g. I have a friend who
was knocked off her bike, fell and hit her head, and had a fairly serious
concussion. If she had been wearing a helmet then I believe that the
chances are the concussion would have been reduced or absent. I also
believe that wearing a helmet would not have altered her riding style.

You "believe"? You have no evidence for this? You have no explanation as
to why it might have any effect? You just believe! This is the attitude
that many here try to combat. Yes a helmet might have some minor effect,
but the forces where head injury becomes serious have already exceeded
the capacity of the helmet to do anything.

Quoted message said:

The suggestions I have seen posted that 'wearing a helmet will
make an accident more likely' and 'will encourage legislation so YOU
shouldn't wear a helmet because I don't want to be made to wear one' (I
think I got that right) are (again IMHO) more likely to undermine the
credibility of reasonably stated arguments that encourage anyone not to
wear a helmet.

The latter is a problem. I am fully in favour of free choice, but with
this scenario there is a problem in that your choice to wear a helmet
may remove my choice not to in the future.

Quoted message said:

ISTR the same sort of twisted arguments about motor cycle crash helmets
and car seat belts.

I believe the phenomena is known as risk compensation.

Quoted message said:

However no doubt we should legislate to have these taken out on the
grounds that they only encourage people to drive faster and with less
concern for safety.

I think this property was shown in a study of ABS fitted taxis in
Germany. Someone can probably cite the paper.

Jon

On 4/12/04 3:48 pm, in article [email hidden],

David WE Roberts said:

However I think that there are situations where the wearing of a helmet
can reduce the risk of certain types of injuries. e.g. I have a friend who
was knocked off her bike, fell and hit her head, and had a fairly serious
concussion. If she had been wearing a helmet then I believe that the
chances are the concussion would have been reduced or absent.

Given that helmets are designed to protect from linear impacts, and
rotational impacts are far more serious and may be exacerbated by helmets,
why do you not also conclude that a helmet may have actually contributed to
her injury?

It is very hard to say in an individual case which is why we have to look at
averages over large numbers of accidents and large populations to see if
they work in general (ie have a net benefit). It is easy to postulate cases
where they will eb a benefit and cases where they will harm. The aim of
science is to quantify the two sides of the balance.

...d

David WE Roberts said:

Anyone who seriously believes that a bus driver will take more care to
avoid a cyclist if s/he isn't wearing a helmet has no need of a helmet
because IMHO there is nothing in the cranial area to protect.

I have done the experiment and my experience is I have observed a
significant difference in motorist behaviour for the better when not
wearing a helmet. Better not tell my employers though because they are
paying a lot of money for what they think is in my cranial area.

Quoted message said:

Granted that helmets will not protect most of your body, and that in most
situations other parts of your body are likely to be injured.

No, the cornerstone study of the helmet promoting lobby shows that
helmets reduce injuries to other parts of your body by 75%.

Quoted message said:

However I think that there are situations where the wearing of a helmet
can reduce the risk of certain types of injuries. e.g. I have a friend who
was knocked off her bike, fell and hit her head, and had a fairly serious
concussion. If she had been wearing a helmet then I believe that the
chances are the concussion would have been reduced or absent. I also
believe that wearing a helmet would not have altered her riding style.

We've just had someone here posting that he fell off his bike wearing a
helmet, was knocked unconcious and suffered concussion so your belief
might be a triumph of hope over reality.

Quoted message said:

As she was knocked off her bike by a (female) motorist who cut in sharply
in front of her and hit her front wheel and who (presumably) could see
that she was not wearing a helmet we must conclude that either

(a) the fact she was not wearing a helmet didn't make the car driver take
more care

or that

(b) the car driver thought "She isn't wearing a helmet so I'll only clip
her. If she had been wearing a helmet I would, of course, have driven
right over her."

or (c) that while that driver did not take any more care it does not
follow that all drivers would not make more care.

Quoted message said:

Yeah, I know that the more extreme posters will immediately opt for (b).

If you class me as an extreme poster then I will immediately opt for (c)

Quoted message said:

The suggestions I have seen posted that 'wearing a helmet will
make an accident more likely' and 'will encourage legislation so YOU
shouldn't wear a helmet because I don't want to be made to wear one' (I
think I got that right) are (again IMHO) more likely to undermine the
credibility of reasonably stated arguments that encourage anyone not to
wear a helmet.

Read the Government statements about why they have not supported a
mandatory helmet law so far.

Quoted message said:

ISTR the same sort of twisted arguments about motor cycle crash helmets
and car seat belts.

I must have missed the ones about fitting air bags and side impact
protection - no, hang on, these were to score better in crash safety tests
and are not compulsory.

However no doubt we should legislate to have these taken out on the
grounds that they only encourage people to drive faster and with less
concern for safety.

It has been suggested that mounting a sharp steel spike in the middle of
the steering wheel would produce a marked change in the risk taking
behaviour of drivers. You should read the study on the effect of
fitting ABS on Munich taxis [1]

Quoted message said:

Please try and keep to a reasonable line - accept that there may be some
benefits to some people in wearing helmets, and at the moment it is a
matter of choice.

There are advantages if you want to reduce scratches and scrapes but
little more and there are disadvantages to set off against them. As you
say personal choice but please let it be an informed choice rather than
based on false security.

Tony

[1]Aschenbrenner, M. and Biehl, B. (1994). Improved safety through
improved technical measures? Empirical studies regarding risk
compensation processes in relation to anti-lock braking systems. In R.
M. Trimpop and G.J.S. Wilde, Challenges to accident prevention: The
issue of risk compensation behaviour. Groningen, the Netherlands: Styx
Publications.

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 15:48:51 +0000, David WE Roberts
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

This is the point where someone will say "If you weren't wearing a helmet
you wouldn't have had an accident" or some similar stupidity.

Exhibit A: Target Risk, by Gerald Wilde
<url:http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/target/index.html> - full text,
bargain!

Exhibit B: Risk, by John Adams
<url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/risk>

Exhibit C: Risk compensation in children's activities: A pilot study,
Mok D, Gore G, Hagel B, Mok E, Magdalinos H, Pless B. 2004. Paediatr
Child Health: Vol 9 No 5 May/June 2004

Exhibit D: The risk compensation theory and bicycle helmets, Adams J,
Hillman M. 2001. Injury Prevention: 2001;7 p89-91

Can we stop having this argument now please?

Quoted message said:

Anyone who seriously believes that a bus driver will take more care to
avoid a cyclist if s/he isn't wearing a helmet has no need of a helmet
because IMHO there is nothing in the cranial area to protect.

Despite the anecdotal evidence to the contrary. Right.

Quoted message said:

However I think that there are situations where the wearing of a helmet
can reduce the risk of certain types of injuries. e.g. I have a friend who
was knocked off her bike, fell and hit her head, and had a fairly serious
concussion.

Er, what? That is precisely what the helmet is claimed to prevent!

Quoted message said:

The suggestions I have seen posted that 'wearing a helmet will
make an accident more likely' and 'will encourage legislation so YOU
shouldn't wear a helmet because I don't want to be made to wear one' (I
think I got that right) are (again IMHO) more likely to undermine the
credibility of reasonably stated arguments that encourage anyone not to
wear a helmet.

It is, however, the case that the major deterrent to helmet
legislation in the UK, according to those making the decision, is low
wearing rates, so if anyone is against compulsion and chooses not to
wear a helmet on that basis then it's an entirely defensible position.

Quoted message said:

ISTR the same sort of twisted arguments about motor cycle crash helmets
and car seat belts.

Exhibit E: The Isles Report, "Seat belt savings: Implications of
European Statistics" , UK DoT, 1981 (see
<url:http://www.eirbyte.com/gcc/info/seat_belts.html> or Death on the
Streets by Bob Davis).

So much of what is "obvious" in road safety turns out not to be true!

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

David WE Roberts said:

Anyone who seriously believes that a bus driver will take more care to
avoid a cyclist if s/he isn't wearing a helmet has no need of a helmet
because IMHO there is nothing in the cranial area to protect.

Oh that's an original put-down. No-one has ever come up with that
before, have they. And it's always so convincing when the best anyone
can do to defend their position is to assert their opponent has no
brain.

Quoted message said:

Granted also that helmets only provide limited protection - full on impact
with a speeding car is outside the design spec.

Falling from head-height while stationary is outside the design spec,
unless you've detached your head from teh rest of your body.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

David WE Roberts said:

Anyone who seriously believes that a bus driver will take more care to
avoid a cyclist if s/he isn't wearing a helmet has no need of a helmet
because IMHO there is nothing in the cranial area to protect.

Oh that's an original put-down. No-one has ever come up with that
before, have they. And it's always so convincing when the best anyone
can do to defend their position is to assert their opponent has no
brain.

O.K. then - chapter and verse.

I've seen various postings with references to risk taking by the cyclist.

Can you point to one that proves that bus drivers asses the risk of
hitting a cyclist based on the headgear (or lack of it) of said cyclist?

David WE Roberts <[email hidden]> wrote:

| On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:35:54 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
|
| > On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:26:19 GMT, [email hidden] (Patrick Herring)
| > wrote in message <[email hidden]>:
| >
| >>Not wearing one might make you or the bus driver take greater care,
| >
| > Or indeed you yourself.
| >
|
| Oh, come on now.
|
| This is the point where someone will say "If you weren't wearing a helmet
| you wouldn't have had an accident" or some similar stupidity.
|
| Anyone who seriously believes that a bus driver will take more care to
| avoid a cyclist if s/he isn't wearing a helmet has no need of a helmet
| because IMHO there is nothing in the cranial area to protect.

What's your theory of why "accidents" happen?

I wouldn't like to claim a causal link in a particular case, but I
would claim a link between a driver's general expectation of what
kinds of things they need to look out for and which are the most
serious, with the care taken to avoid apparently protected cyclists.
There are so many things a driver needs to think about that it's easy
to fall off the list, and helmets look a lot more effective than they
are.

| Granted that helmets will not protect most of your body, and that in most
| situations other parts of your body are likely to be injured.
|
| Granted also that helmets only provide limited protection - full on impact
| with a speeding car is outside the design spec.

So is glancing impact with a car doing well below the urban speed
limit. I'd bet that a lot of drivers, if polled, would not only not
know that but would express astonishment that "they" (i.e. the powers
that be) have allowed a situation in which "safety gear" won't cope
within the legal speed limit.

| However I think that there are situations where the wearing of a helmet
| can reduce the risk of certain types of injuries. e.g. I have a friend who
| was knocked off her bike, fell and hit her head, and had a fairly serious
| concussion. If she had been wearing a helmet then I believe that the
| chances are the concussion would have been reduced or absent.

I'd expect that too, in this example, the question is what else
happens in general when you are perceived to be more protected than
you are.

| I also
| believe that wearing a helmet would not have altered her riding style.
|
| As she was knocked off her bike by a (female) motorist who cut in sharply
| in front of her and hit her front wheel and who (presumably) could see
| that she was not wearing a helmet we must conclude that either
|
| (a) the fact she was not wearing a helmet didn't make the car driver take
| more care
|
| or that
|
| (b) the car driver thought "She isn't wearing a helmet so I'll only clip
| her. If she had been wearing a helmet I would, of course, have driven
| right over her."
|
| Yeah, I know that the more extreme posters will immediately opt for (b).

I'd go for

(c) very few drivers wish to hurt anyone but most are driving
semi-automatically and easily forget that their own safety margin is
much greater, due to being in a steel cage, than other road users. So
"accidents" happen.

Having said that I suppose you could say a helmet is a visual reminder
of vulnerability, though I'd still bet people will vastly overestimate
their effectiveness, some to the extent of stopping worrying about the
problem.

| The suggestions I have seen posted that 'wearing a helmet will
| make an accident more likely' and 'will encourage legislation so YOU
| shouldn't wear a helmet because I don't want to be made to wear one' (I
| think I got that right) are (again IMHO) more likely to undermine the
| credibility of reasonably stated arguments that encourage anyone not to
| wear a helmet.
|
| ISTR the same sort of twisted arguments about motor cycle crash helmets
| and car seat belts.

I wouldn't like to comment on those two areas but I don't see any
twist in the risk compensation argument.

| I must have missed the ones about fitting air bags and side impact
| protection - no, hang on, these were to score better in crash safety tests
| and are not compulsory.
|
| However no doubt we should legislate to have these taken out on the
| grounds that they only encourage people to drive faster and with less
| concern for safety.

I think I would, actually, also ABS, also bring in compulsory speed
limiters & GPS-driven average speed checks. Drivers are far too
insulated from the environment they're driving in. Tends to make them
forget about their impact and potential impact.

| Please try and keep to a reasonable line - accept that there may be some
| benefits to some people in wearing helmets, and at the moment it is a
| matter of choice.

Sure there may be some benefits sometimes. My post at the top was a
quick-fire simplification. But it does indicate the way I'd bet.

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk

Jon Senior said:

David WE Roberts [email hidden] opined the following...

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ISTR the same sort of twisted arguments about motor cycle crash helmets
and car seat belts.

I believe the phenomena is known as risk compensation.

Quoted message said:

However no doubt we should legislate to have these taken out on the
grounds that they only encourage people to drive faster and with less
concern for safety.

I think this property was shown in a study of ABS fitted taxis in
Germany. Someone can probably cite the paper.

Risk compensation, the Munich taxi study and much more, all online if
you do not want to buy the book, just click on the "table of contents"
link and go from there

http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap