Helmets

Marc said:

Simon Brooke said:

If you genuinely believe that there are risk factors which make you likely to lose control, you
SHOULD NOT DRIVE.

There are risk factors that are likely to make anyone loose control ( Sneezing is one) are you
suggesting that no one ever drives ?

Some people (me and Simon) don't have the problem with sneezing that you do.

I can think of no other situation where a lethal piece of machinery requires the constant and full
attention of the operator to avoid death and injury to people unconnected to the use of the
machinery.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK We have a license to drive not a right.

AndyMorris said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you genuinely believe that there are risk factors which make you likely to lose control, you
SHOULD NOT DRIVE.

There are risk factors that are likely to make anyone loose control ( Sneezing is one) are you
suggesting that no one ever drives ?

Some people (me and Simon) don't have the problem with sneezing that you do.

I would suggest that you do, but don't realise it, your eyes close when you sneeze, do you think
that your are then in control of your vehicle?

Quoted message said:

I can think of no other situation where a lethal piece of machinery requires the constant and full
attention of the operator to avoid death and injury to people unconnected to the use of the
machinery.

Aircraft. Bicycles. Radio controlled aircraft.Disc cutters. Chain saws. Do I need to go on ,or is
that 30 second list enough to show you that your horizons on this sunject seem to be a bit narrow?

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
jaceeprint.demon.co.ukjaceeprint.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

(Marc) said:

Simon Brooke said:

If you genuinely believe that there are risk factors which make you likely to lose control, you
SHOULD NOT DRIVE.

There are risk factors that are likely to make anyone loose control (

There are risk factors which may make people lose control, yes. 99% of them are in the control of
the driver. An alert, healthy, competent driver of a well maintained car (or bike, or any other
vehicle) will never lose control. If you drive when you're not alert or not healthy or not competent
then you're culpable. And if you sneeze so violently that you lose control of the car, you are not
fit to drive.

Quoted message said:

Sneezing is one) are you suggesting that no one ever drives ?

I've sneezed many, many times in my life. Never has it made me lose control of anything.

I'm not joking about this and I'm not arguing to make a point: if when you see a spider or when you
sneeze you lose control, GET OFF THE BLOODY ROAD. You are a danger to yourself, which is excusable,
and to other people, which is not.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out of copper roove nails.

Simon Brooke said:

Quoted message said:

Sneezing is one) are you suggesting that no one ever drives ?

I've sneezed many, many times in my life. Never has it made me lose control of anything.

You're deluding yourself if you believe that.

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
jaceeprint.demon.co.ukjaceeprint.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

marc must be edykated coz e writed:

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

Quoted message said:

Sneezing is one) are you suggesting that no one ever drives ?

I've sneezed many, many times in my life. Never has it made me lose control of anything.

You're deluding yourself if you believe that.

A bit of judicious snipping there Marc.

--
Ian

catrike.co.ukcatrike.co.ukOpen ↗

Ian said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've sneezed many, many times in my life. Never has it made me lose control of anything.

You're deluding yourself if you believe that.

A bit of judicious snipping there Marc.

Sorry but I thought that was the only relevant point.

marc said:

AndyMorris said:

Quoted message said:

> If you genuinely believe that there are risk factors which make you likely to lose control, you
> SHOULD NOT DRIVE.

There are risk factors that are likely to make anyone loose control ( Sneezing is one) are you
suggesting that no one ever drives ?

Some people (me and Simon) don't have the problem with sneezing that you do.

I would suggest that you do, but don't realise it, your eyes close when you sneeze, do you think
that your are then in control of your vehicle?

Quoted message said:

I can think of no other situation where a lethal piece of machinery requires the constant and
full attention of the operator to avoid death and injury to people unconnected to the use of the
machinery.

Aircraft. Bicycles. Radio controlled aircraft.Disc cutters. Chain saws. Do I need to go on ,or is
that 30 second list enough to show you that your horizons on this sunject seem to be a bit narrow?

Constant and full attention to avoid <blah blah> to people unconnected.

None off the machinery you mentioned needs the constant (not even time for a sneeze) and full
attention. None are operated in close proximity to people who gain no benefit from them.

Its very difficult to kill people with a bike, I tried once when a pedestrian stepped out in front
of me. He walked away, I woke up in hospital. Yes I was wrong, I've learned from it.

None of the above is operated 18 inches from my children as we walk, on the pavement, on the way
to school.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
home.in.tum.deoe quotefixOpen ↗

AndyMorris said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I can think of no other situation where a lethal piece of machinery requires the constant and
full attention of the operator to avoid death and injury to people unconnected to the use of
the machinery.

Aircraft. Bicycles. Radio controlled aircraft.Disc cutters. Chain saws. Do I need to go on ,or
is that 30 second list enough to show you that your horizons on this sunject seem to be a bit
narrow?

Constant and full attention to avoid <blah blah> to people unconnected.

None off the machinery you mentioned needs the constant (not even time for a sneeze) and full
attention. None are operated in close proximity to people who gain no benefit from them.

You do have limited horizons don't you?

Quoted message said:

Its very difficult to kill people with a bike, I tried once when a pedestrian stepped out in front
of me. He walked away, I woke up in hospital. Yes I was wrong, I've learned from it.

None of the above is operated 18 inches from my children as we walk, on the pavement, on the way
to school.

Well , as this seems to be a NIMBY argument, if you would let me know where you and your children
walk ,I will try and ensure that you/your children , me and any spiders don't coincide, would that
satisfy you or will you now start back pedalling and drop the "think of the chilldrrruunnnnn" ?

AndyMorris said:

marc wrote:

Its very difficult to kill people with a bike,

That is not in fact true. Two to four pedestrians a year are killed and about a hundred seriously
injured by bikes every year (1)

That is between 0.2 and 0.5% of the number killed by cars but since total annual bicycle mileage is
only about 2% of that of cars it makes a bike not that much less dangerous than a car

(1) Hansard July 7 1999

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

Tony Raven said:

AndyMorris said:

marc wrote:

Its very difficult to kill people with a bike,

That is not in fact true. Two to four pedestrians a year are killed and about a hundred seriously
injured by bikes every year (1)

FWIW the only time I have ever been in collision with a vehicle of any sort when not in a vehicle
myself was when an idiot on a cycle ran into
me. I say idiot because he came up the inside of a queue of traffic waiting at a pelican crossing
and failed to stop. I was actually using the crossing - that's why the cars had stopped. He
shouted abuse at me as I lay on the ground with a badly sprained ankle and then rode off.

Can we say I was somewhat less than impressed?

Quoted message said:

That is between 0.2 and 0.5% of the number killed by cars but since total annual bicycle mileage
is only about 2% of that of cars it makes a bike not that much less dangerous than a car

(1) Hansard July 7 1999

Makes you think. What I mostly think though is "How do they know that?"
--
Tina Eager

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote:

| AndyMorris wrote:
| > marc wrote:
| >
| > Its very difficult to kill people with a bike,
| >
|
| That is not in fact true. Two to four pedestrians a year are killed and about a hundred seriously
| injured by bikes every year (1)
|
| That is between 0.2 and 0.5% of the number killed by cars but since total annual bicycle mileage
| is only about 2% of that of cars it makes a bike not that much less dangerous than a car
|
| (1) Hansard July 7 1999

Isn't that 0.1 to 0.25 as dangerous as a car? I suppose a quarter could be seen as "not that much
less" so I'll concede the point if challenged <g>.

--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK anweald.co.ukanweald.co.ukOpen ↗

Marc said:

AndyMorris <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Aircraft. Bicycles. Radio controlled aircraft.Disc cutters

Quoted message said:

None off the machinery you mentioned needs the constant (not even time for a sneeze) and full
attention. None are operated in close proximity to people who gain no benefit from them.

You do have limited horizons don't you?

Quoted message said:

So how many people have been killed by Aircraft ( radio operated or otherwise) and disc cutters, due
to only a moments inatention in the uk recently

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

None of the above is operated 18 inches from my children as we walk, on the pavement, on the way
to school.

Well , as this seems to be a NIMBY argument, if you would let me know where you and your children
walk ,I will try and ensure that you/your children , me and any spiders don't coincide, would that
satisfy you or will you now start back pedalling and drop the "think of the chilldrrruunnnnn" ?

I walk my kids to school along an urban road with a 30mph speed limit, cars habitually go round
one corner in well in excess of that, close to the limits of traction in full on fantasy Colin
MacRae mode. Its one of those 'fun' drivers corners. How do I know? I used to do it before I had
kids and started questioning the whole car culture thing. One moments inattention from them could
wipe us out.

And if some [censored] does hit my children with a car due to a 'moments inattention' the no will no
doubut accept that as an excuse.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
home.in.tum.deoe quotefixOpen ↗

Patrick Herring said:

Isn't that 0.1 to 0.25 as dangerous as a car? I suppose a quarter could be seen as "not that much
less" so I'll concede the point if challenged <g>.

Between a tenth and a quarter is "not much less" when the case being presented was there
was no risk.

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

AndyMorris said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

None off the machinery you mentioned needs the constant (not even time for a sneeze) and full
attention. None are operated in close proximity to people who gain no benefit from them.

You do have limited horizons don't you?

Quoted message said:

So how many people have been killed by Aircraft ( radio operated or otherwise) and disc cutters,
due to only a moments inatention in the uk recently

Doesn't it get tireing having to dig new holes, take the net down, move all the posts and restring
the net ,everytime you want to move the goal posts? The answer to your question ( I do try and and
answer questions , not ignore them a you seem to do) is.. I would estimate about the same number
that have been killed by arachnophic drivers.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

None of the above is operated 18 inches from my children as we walk, on the pavement, on the
way to school.

Well , as this seems to be a NIMBY argument, if you would let me know where you and your
children walk ,I will try and ensure that you/your children , me and any spiders don't coincide,
would that satisfy you or will you now start back pedalling and drop the "think of the
chilldrrruunnnnn" ?

I walk my kids to school along an urban road with a 30mph speed limit, cars habitually go round
one corner in well in excess of that, close to the limits of traction in full on fantasy Colin
MacRae mode. Its one of those 'fun' drivers corners. How do I know? I used to do it before I had
kids and started questioning the whole car culture thing. One moments inattention from them could
wipe us out.

Quoted message said:

And if some [censored] does hit my children with a car due to a 'moments inattention' the no will no
doubut accept that as an excuse.

And this has relevance to my question how exactly , or are you simply using it as convienienet peg
to hang your rant?

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
jaceeprint.demon.co.ukjaceeprint.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

David Hansen said:

The case actually being presented was that, "Its very difficult to kill people with a bike". That
is rather different to your version of the case being presented, which would presumably be that,
"Its impossible to kill people with a bike".

Perhaps my use of "zero" instead of "negligible" risk was a mistake. I guess logically based on the
relative risks then either:

- if its very difficult to kill people with a bike then it must be difficult to kill someone
with a car
- if its easy to kill someone with a car its fairly easy to kill someone with a bike.

Either that or car drivers are much more careful road users than cyclists so the higher potential
risk of the car is mitigated by greater care by the operator.

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Either that or car drivers are much more careful road users than cyclists

so

Quoted message said:

the higher potential risk of the car is mitigated by greater care by the operator.

Or bikes are ridden in places where there more pedestrians, so more likely to have collisions?

I tried to work this out a year or so ago, and easily got a factor of two that needed to be applied
to the mileage (*), and suspect this was a significant underestimate.

(*) Ie given cyclist/ped accidents and motor vehicle/ped accidents per vehicle distance for the
entire country, you need to divide the cyclist accident number by at least two to correct for the
different number of interactions.

cheers, clive

Clive George said:

Or bikes are ridden in places where there more pedestrians, so more likely to have collisions?

I tried to work this out a year or so ago, and easily got a factor of two that needed to be
applied to the mileage (*), and suspect this was a significant underestimate.

(*) Ie given cyclist/ped accidents and motor vehicle/ped accidents per vehicle distance for the
entire country, you need to divide the cyclist accident number by at least two to correct for the
different number of interactions.

Two is probably about right. Over the years 1994-8 four pedestrians were killed and 148 seriously
injured by bicycles on the pavement while 10 were killed and 292 seriously injured on the road. That
makes about a 1:2 ratio onto which has to be factored motorway mileage by cars where very few
pedestrians are killed by cars (and none by bicycles)

Within the accuracy of the figures though two is neither here nor there.

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Clive George said:

Or bikes are ridden in places where there more pedestrians, so more likely to have collisions?

I tried to work this out a year or so ago, and easily got a factor of two that needed to be
applied to the mileage (*), and suspect this was a significant underestimate.

(*) Ie given cyclist/ped accidents and motor vehicle/ped accidents per vehicle distance for the
entire country, you need to divide the cyclist accident number by at least two to correct for
the different number of interactions.

Two is probably about right. Over the years 1994-8 four pedestrians were killed and 148 seriously
injured by bicycles on the pavement while 10 were killed and 292 seriously injured on the road.
That makes about a 1:2

ratio

Quoted message said:

onto which has to be factored motorway mileage by cars where very few pedestrians are killed by
cars (and none by bicycles)

Within the accuracy of the figures though two is neither here nor there.

I reckon it's quite a lot more than two. Motorway miles are the obvious easy ones to discount, but
you should probably also count most rural roads and an awful lot of urban ones. What's really needed
is some sort of map of pedestrian density against vehicle distance travelled. (hmm - is high
pedestrian density actually going to be safer in terms of number of accidents per potential
vehicle/pedestrian interaction? Better correct for that too).

Anyway this is all unstatistical blather, but I think it does provide some explanation for the
counterintuitive statistics.

cheers, clive

Clive George said:

I reckon it's quite a lot more than two. Motorway miles are the obvious easy ones to discount, but
you should probably also count most rural roads and an awful lot of urban ones. What's really
needed is some sort of map of pedestrian density against vehicle distance travelled. (hmm - is
high pedestrian density actually going to be safer in terms of number of accidents per potential
vehicle/pedestrian interaction? Better correct for that too).

Anyway this is all unstatistical blather, but I think it does provide some explanation for the
counterintuitive statistics.

There are statistics on total motor vehicle distances on the various road types. If you seperate out
motorways, non-built up major and minor roads from built up major and minor roads the figure two is
about right. For this purpose a built up road is defined as one with a speed limit of 40mph or less.
I would think that is a reasonably good correlate where most cycling takes place.

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain