Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

[_]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:28:25 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:

> _ wrote:
>
>> Another (but more subtle) error there; one cannot choose the kind of injury
>> one will have while cycling. The whole population figures are the best
>> indicator of "protection" - which, as we know, is essentially zero.
>
> That's not quite true... the whole population data is based on KSI
> reporting, so it shows you that the protection from a KSI is essentially
> zero. That's not the same thing as "no protection at all". That
> doesn't mean you can make substantiated claims about helmet low speed
> protection, but equally you can't properly say there is none.

One cannot make substantiated claims about low speed protection means that
one cannot say there is or is not any protective effect at low speed. How
can one then say that helmets are "extra protection" (other than nebulous
hand-waving assertions of the CoyoteTroll variety)?

 

[Peter Clinch]

_ wrote:

> One cannot make substantiated claims about low speed protection means that
> one cannot say there is or is not any protective effect at low speed.

Correct. What I was getting at is that saying there is clearly no
protective effect, period, is out of order. You just don't have the
data for the relatively trivial stuff.

> How can one then say that helmets are "extra protection"

I have no idea! I didn't do that, I just said that it's stretching your
data too far to say that any protective effect whatsoever is a fallacy.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[_]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:10:54 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:

>
>> How can one then say that helmets are "extra protection"
>
> I have no idea! I didn't do that

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:00:30 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:

> Alan Braggins wrote:
>
>> Risk compensation in action? Or evidence that, unlike the cycling population
>> as a whole, he does get an overall benefit from his helmet?
>
> Could quite possibly be both: he rides in a crash-likely manner because
> he likes to ride that way, and since he likes to ride that way it's
> worth wearing extra protection.
>

 

[Peter Clinch]

_ wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:10:54 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>>> How can one then say that helmets are "extra protection"
>> I have no idea! I didn't do that
>
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:00:30 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>> Alan Braggins wrote:
>>
>>> Risk compensation in action? Or evidence that, unlike the cycling population
>>> as a whole, he does get an overall benefit from his helmet?
>> Could quite possibly be both: he rides in a crash-likely manner because
>> he likes to ride that way, and since he likes to ride that way it's
>> worth wearing extra protection.

You'll note I said "possibly", as opposed to "certainly". "Protection"
is, by definition, protective. EN 1078 hats aren't necessarily.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[burtthebike]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>_ wrote:
>
>> Another (but more subtle) error there; one cannot choose the kind of
>> injury
>> one will have while cycling. The whole population figures are the best
>> indicator of "protection" - which, as we know, is essentially zero.
>
> That's not quite true... the whole population data is based on KSI
> reporting, so it shows you that the protection from a KSI is essentially
> zero. That's not the same thing as "no protection at all". That
> doesn't mean you can make substantiated claims about helmet low speed
> protection, but equally you can't properly say there is none. You don't
> have enough data to say that any protective effect is a fallacy.

Quite right Peter. As one of my lecturers used to say "lack of evidence is
not evidence of lack".

Whatever "lack" was. I thought it was some kind of Anglo-Saxon face
painting, but I'm prepared to admit that I may be wrong.

Unlike Bonehead and attendant fools.

 

[Roger Merriman]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> > even on the edge of london here, there are streams of cars, a few buses
> > and a few bikes, while they being used as transport, the numbers are
> > still quite low compared to cars/buses/trains.
>
> That's true, but it says nothing about the relative numbers of
> transportational cyclists compared to Chain Gang roadies and MTBers.
> There are far more drivers, train passengers and buses than Chain Gang
> roadies as well.
>
> Pete.

a lot of people have bikes in sheds, not all are BSO. i think if all the
folk who have bikes attually used them for transport it would be quite a
sight. certinaly bike shops seem at least in built up areas do well.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Roger Merriman]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> _ wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:10:54 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:
> >
> >>> How can one then say that helmets are "extra protection"
> >> I have no idea! I didn't do that
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:00:30 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Braggins wrote:
> >>
> >>> Risk compensation in action? Or evidence that, unlike the cycling
> >>population > as a whole, he does get an overall benefit from his helmet?
> >>Could quite possibly be both: he rides in a crash-likely manner because
> >>he likes to ride that way, and since he likes to ride that way it's
> >>worth wearing extra protection.
>
> You'll note I said "possibly", as opposed to "certainly". "Protection"
> is, by definition, protective. EN 1078 hats aren't necessarily.
>
> Pete.

quite, simon had some protection via a cloth cap on one of his falls?
years ago i slid across the road luckly wearing a hat which saved my
face. or at least i persume it did.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Peter Clinch]

Roger Merriman wrote:

> a lot of people have bikes in sheds, not all are BSO. i think if all the
> folk who have bikes attually used them for transport it would be quite a
> sight. certinaly bike shops seem at least in built up areas do well.

Again true, but again irrelevant to actual use of bikes on the ground: I
think you'll find a lot of the bikes in sheds are MTBs, bought to go
MTBing. Mine usually manages 1 or 2 trips a year, and that's 1 or 2
more than at least a few.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Roger Merriman]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> > a lot of people have bikes in sheds, not all are BSO. i think if all the
> > folk who have bikes attually used them for transport it would be quite a
> > sight. certinaly bike shops seem at least in built up areas do well.
>
> Again true, but again irrelevant to actual use of bikes on the ground: I
> think you'll find a lot of the bikes in sheds are MTBs, bought to go
> MTBing. Mine usually manages 1 or 2 trips a year, and that's 1 or 2
> more than at least a few.
>
> Pete.

well quite, but that doesn't change the fact that people buy the bikes
with the intention of using for a hobby, to get fit etc. people buy the
bikes to ride up hills, etc. not as transport. while people do use bikes
as transport, unless there is massive untapped market. what people want
to do is ride up and down hills be that via nobblies or thin blades. a
quick glance in a bike shop tells you that.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Peter Clinch]

Roger Merriman wrote:

> well quite, but that doesn't change the fact that people buy the bikes
> with the intention of using for a hobby, to get fit etc. people buy the
> bikes to ride up hills, etc. not as transport. while people do use bikes
> as transport, unless there is massive untapped market. what people want
> to do is ride up and down hills be that via nobblies or thin blades. a
> quick glance in a bike shop tells you that.

What it tells you is that sporting equipment is what currently sells in
the UK, but that doesn't tell you what it's sold /for/. 4x4s are sold
as off-road sporting equipment as far as the packaging and marketing
goes, but they are /used/ just like any other car for the most part.
How can you tell that's not the case with bikes as well?

My first adult-size bike was a racer (or at least a racer of sorts...
Raleigh Olympus). I never raced on it, but I wanted (no, /needed/! ;-))
a racer, basically for reasons of image and my feeling that *proper*
bikes had big wheels and drop handlebars and thin tyres. It was used
almost exclusively for transportational cycling. It's successor was a
tourer, a good machine for general transport and I did buy it with an
eye to touring, but a lot of it was still "a *proper* bike has big
wheels and drop handlebars". The great majority of its usage was
transportational cycling. It's only in the last few years that I'd
consider buying and riding something that wasn't something other than a
machine that marked me as (looking as if I might be) either a sportsman
or a distance-enthusiast, which is daft but I'd be kidding myself if I
tried to pretend image didn't guide my buying habits to some degree. I
don't think I'm alone in that either, and probably less than a lot of folk.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[[email protected]]

On 17 Oct, 23:11, "burtthebike" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >_ wrote:
>
> >> Another (but more subtle) error there; one cannot choose the kind of
> >> injury
> >> one will have while cycling. The whole population figures are the best
> >> indicator of "protection" - which, as we know, is essentially zero.
>
> > That's not quite true... the whole population data is based on KSI
> > reporting, so it shows you that the protection from a KSI is essentially
> > zero. That's not the same thing as "no protection at all". That
> > doesn't mean you can make substantiated claims about helmet low speed
> > protection, but equally you can't properly say there is none. You don't
> > have enough data to say that any protective effect is a fallacy.
>
> Quite right Peter. As one of my lecturers used to say "lack of evidence is
> not evidence of lack".
>
> Whatever "lack" was. I thought it was some kind of Anglo-Saxon face
> painting, but I'm prepared to admit that I may be wrong.
>
> Unlike Bonehead and attendant fools.

Do you mean

"...lack of evidence of habitation is not evidence of a lack of
habitation."

Sniper8052

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <1i668ae.1cdt45e2m1a34N%[email protected]>, Roger Merriman wrote:
> what people want
>to do is ride up and down hills be that via nobblies or thin blades.

Not around here (Cambridge) they don't. Highest concentration of cyclists
in the country, and fairly flat. '"Coincidence? I think not", said Bear.'

 

[Rich]

On Oct 15, 12:52 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 15 Oct, 16:57, Coyoteboy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > _ wrote:
> > > On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:24:32 +0100, Coyoteboy wrote:
>
> > >> Peter Clinch wrote:
> > >>> If you could trust the monitoring and results provided, maybe, but
> > >>> experience tells us we can't.
> > >> Experience tells me there's people that argue both sides with equal
> > >> determination and neither can prove their points one way or the other
> > >> with any real science that doesnt commecne from a biased point of view
> > >> (looking at helmet literature presented on several websites). I guess it
> > >> doesnt bother me (the law) because A) I dont live there and B) I wear a
> > >> helmet (and have been very thankful for it several times) anyway.
>
> > > Methinks your experience is very lacking. You should try the
> > > interwebby-thing and go towww.cyclehelmets.organdcome back when you have
> > > some more.
>
> > That was one of the first and easiest pages to dismiss as being biased
> > and presenting results that are a great example of "here we took these
> > results and they show this, therefore these other results must prove
> > this"! I've been through this in the past, I cant see any reports in
> > that bunch that I would consider worthy of a second look due to obvious
> > flaws in their creation. I'm open minded, id prefer to ride "sans
> > helmet" as it feels nice to have the wind in your hair. But I've also
> > bounced my head on the floor plenty of times at high speeds, into
> > concrete, cars, trees, gravel and have yet to experience any time when
> > the helmet may have caused more damage.
>
> http://www.ctcyorkshirehumber.org.uk/campaigns/velo.htm
>
> Sniper8052

Is everyone in Commonwealth and Eurotrash countries a bunch of pussies
who believe the "nanny state" always knows best?
You must be. Why else would you pay 2x as much for goods as Americans
while giving away 70% of your income in taxes. You really ARE a bunch
of old women by nature.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins
('[email protected]') wrote:

> In article <1i668ae.1cdt45e2m1a34N%[email protected]>, Roger
> Merriman wrote:
>>what people want
>>to do is ride up and down hills be that via nobblies or thin blades.
>
> Not around here (Cambridge) they don't. Highest concentration of cyclists
> in the country, and fairly flat. '"Coincidence? I think not", said Bear.'

Not wholly coincidence, but partly. I continue to be surprised by the
differences in cycling culture between different parts of Scotland. In
Edinburgh, as I've observed before, there are lots of cyclists, mainly
riding sensible and well maintained and equipped bikes, despite a lot of
steep hills and a decided lack of 'cycling infrastructure'.

In East Kilbride, where I currently work, the whole town is designed around
cycling infrastructure, which is almost entirely unused. What bikes you do
see in the urban area are almost exclusively BSOs, and lights are
decidedly rare.

There are some reasons why the EK cyclepaths are unused. The surfaces
aren't really good enough for a road race type bike, and the sightlines
particularly at cyclepath junctions aren't good enough for riding fast. So
the few other roadies I see, like me, use the roads.

But this isn't to say the cyclepaths are bad. They're not. They're quite
good. Certainly good enough for a utility bike with 32mm tyres. And, given
that they are unused, I can understand the local authority not wanting to
spend money on maintaining the surfaces.

Dumfries now has a rapidly growing network of high quality cyclepaths, with
mostly excellent surfaces, many on old railway lines so very flat. It has
two expensive new cycle-only bridges over the river, one just north and
one just south of the town centre. Despite this, the cyclepath network is
largely unused. There's a fair bit of cycling to work in the town - not as
much as in Edinburgh but far more than I've seen anywhere in the Glasgow
area. But 90% of cycle users in Dumfries ride unlit BSOs and cycle on the
pavement, while 10% ride road bikes and cycle on the road.

I think local cycling culture is far more important in whether people cycle
than either flatness or infrastructure. You need to get a critical mass of
cyclists, and then the prevalence of cycling starts to gather momentum.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that spending on infrastructure is a bad
investment.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; may contain traces of nuts, bolts or washers.

 

[Marc Brett]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 06:39:57 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I think local cycling culture is far more important in whether people cycle
>than either flatness or infrastructure.

Agreed. Your examples are wonderfully described and very persuasive.

IMHO, a /national/ cycling culture is also desirable and worth working
towards. The usual tools of taxes and laws can be used to promote (or
in the case of a MHL, destroy) such a goal. At the risk of becoming a
single-topic bore, a reminder that adopting European-style strict
liability laws would go some way towards making cycling a more valued
part of our national culture.

 

[Don Whybrow]

Rich wrote:
>
> Is everyone in Commonwealth and Eurotrash countries a bunch of pussies
> who believe the "nanny state" always knows best?
> You must be. Why else would you pay 2x as much for goods as Americans
> while giving away 70% of your income in taxes. You really ARE a bunch
> of old women by nature.

Yeah, yeah! and without the dumb yanks to win the war for us we would
all be speaking German.


--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

'Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Rich wrote:
> >
> > Is everyone in Commonwealth and Eurotrash countries a bunch of pussies
> > who believe the "nanny state" always knows best?
> > You must be. Why else would you pay 2x as much for goods as Americans
> > while giving away 70% of your income in taxes. You really ARE a bunch
> > of old women by nature.
>
> Yeah, yeah! and without the dumb yanks to win the war for us we would
> all be speaking German.
>

We must have won another war then cos the Yanks are all speaking
English, albeit making a bad job of it ;-)

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> I'm increasingly of the opinion that spending on infrastructure is a bad
> investment.
>

The main Dutch programme to benchmark their provision for cyclists,
Cycle Balance, makes no assessment of any cycle facilities other than
cycle parking provision. They do not see them as relevant to getting
more people cycling or making cyclists' journeys better and safer. They
are far more concerned about things like surface quality.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> I'm increasingly of the opinion that spending on infrastructure is
>> a bad
>> investment.
>>
>
> The main Dutch programme to benchmark their provision for cyclists,
> Cycle Balance, makes no assessment of any cycle facilities other
> than
> cycle parking provision. They do not see them as relevant to
> getting
> more people cycling or making cyclists' journeys better and safer.
> They
> are far more concerned about things like surface quality.

[snip]

One interesting thing that I have never seen the Dutch refer to, but
which was mentioned in a CTC publication (1) was an objective of the
last Dutch Bike MasterPlan. This was to reduce cycling times to town
centres by 20%. Having such an objective makes no sense, unless
those drawing up the objectives considered that the bike facilities
had previously *increased* travel times by at least 25%, probably
more.

The Dutch post mortem on their plan (2) seems to make no mention of
this objective, let alone how well it was met.

Jeremy Parker

-----------------

(1) "More Bikes, Policy into Best Practice", CTC 1995, p 49, halfway
down 1st column

(2) "The Dutch Bicycle Master Plan, Description and evaluation in an
historical context", Dutch Directorate-General for Passenger
Transport, March 1999.

 

[raisethe]

Hypothetically, if the MHL is introduced in say 5 years, what will we
do? Calmly accept it and obey the law like Aussie cyclists and UK
motorcyclists, or refuse to wear it and clog up the courts appealing
against fines and so on?

Would people on this site be prepared to face incarceration for
persistent non-helmet wearing? Will mass helmetless protests, eg
organised by ctc be held?

Just wond'ring aloud.

Perhaps KPI motivated plod would find the prospect of booking polite
middle class cyclists a godsend after the drunken white trash they
normally have to deal with. It would certainly be another great
opportumity for the authorities to harrass victims / innocent people
rather than dealing with the crims.