rec.sport.unicycling · Public discussion

Re: quick everybody burn your helmets...

Started by U-Turn · · Last activity · 2 posts · 153 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
rec.sport.unicycling
Published
13 September 2006
Last activity
13 September 2006
Original author
U-Turn
Posts
2
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
153
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–2 of 2
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. A catch-em-all post rather than to get all complicated with lots of
    quotes and replies....

    My assertions weren't assumptions, they were -my opinion-. I'm not
    doing a study or publishing a paper. So I don't need to have
    statistics. And yes, using skills I developed doing masters and
    phd-level research and reading and critiquing thousands of technical
    journal articles, I did read the article. Since the article quotes Dr.
    Walker as saying:

    "Either way, this study suggests wearing a helmet might make a
    collision more likely in the first place"

    I figured it was reasonable to think that the -researcher -was making
    the connection. What do you think, Ian?

    I do have a long lifetime of safe road riding, driving, and distance
    walking. I delivered papers on a bike when I was in junior high and
    have ridden ever since, including a 650 mile tour of New England. Last
    summer (2005) as a unicyclist, bicyclist, and uni-manufacturer-guy with
    the express purpose of finding the best taillights, I played around
    with taillights while riding about 1000 miles in rain, shine, dusk, and
    dawn. This is the experience on which I base my -opinions-.

    On (3) drivers seeing helmets: I'm sure, though I couldn't prove it at
    the moment, that the additional risks people take are non-roadie things
    like stunts, off-roading, skate park stuff, and the like. I can't
    imagine anyone taunting a car or weaving all over the road just because
    they have a helmet on and feel invincible. I have seen lots of kids do
    this, and I can't recall seeing a helmet on most of them. So I hold to
    this opinion.

    On (5a) road selection: choosing your road and time is important. When
    people are going to and from work, their judgment is impaired. You can
    feel the frantic nature of their driving as if it were spraying you as
    they drive by. "Congested" means crowded, it does not imply slow.
    Crowded means: no room to maneuver. This is a bad thing for road
    things that don't have exoskeletons. Choose roads and conditions that
    are more likely to be forgiving of cycling in general, and unicycling
    in particular.

    On (5b) navigation: I intended that to include road positioning; I
    should have called that out specifically. However, this overall point
    is not obvious and certainly not spurious. One should ride with the
    specific intent to "talk" to drivers - "this is what to expect from
    me." Many cyclists do not do this, especially if they are part of a
    pack.

    On (5c) taillights. The latest ones are very bright. Daylight is not
    uniform. Rain is a complicating factor. Drivers can be distracted.
    Drivers are used to flashing lights being "official". Ride all the
    time with a flashing taillight if you are in traffic, and I guarantee
    drivers will consistently give you a wider berth. I proved this to
    myself all during the summer of 2005 while riding my 29er in all
    conditions.

    On (5d) rear-view mirror. If you take time to really learn your mirror
    well, you can see a heck of a lot with it. Then when the pothole that
    covers your road's shoulder pops up, you'll be able to tell whether to
    go around it or get off the uni, because you'll be able to tell how
    close that tractor-trailer truck is. Just because many riders don't do
    this, doesn't mean that they wouldn't be better off with a mirror -
    they would be. Imagine driving your car without rear view mirrors.
    -It's the same thing.-

    On (6) UPDs: It's true that a driver should try to drive as safely as
    possible. However, we do have to share the road with cars. Is it
    reasonable to say to a driver: "I'll be riding here, and I may fall
    off at any time without notice, even when the road seems smooth, and my
    cycle may go skittering across traffic uncontrollably, and I may fall
    flat on my face. It's your job to avoid me." This has happened to me,
    and it has happened to David Stone (three lanes of traffic, the wrong
    way up a one-way street), and probably every competent distance
    unicyclist. All it takes is one invisible dip in the road, and...
    you're off! This is just not true for bicyclists. I am all for
    unicycle road riding, by competent, mature riders of all ages.
    However, I do find it instructive and cautionary to try to see this
    activity from the driver's point of view.

    On (7) taillights: This opinion is NOT an assumption, this is an
    observation by me. I have seen drivers give me more room during dry,
    bright daylight hours, because I was using a flashing taillight on my
    unicycle. And I'm not talking centimeters, I'm talking meters - at
    least half a lane more room.

    One thing the research didn't appear to control is whether or not the
    opposite/adjoining lane was in use when a given car's separation was
    measured. This too, would have a far more significant effect on
    car-cycle separation than whether the cyclist is male or female or
    wearing a helmet.

    Finally, the article says

    -Dr Walker thinks the reason drivers give less room to cyclists wearing
    helmets is because they see them as "Lycra-clad street warriors" and
    believe they are more predictable than those without. -

    Well, yes an obviously serious rider in full Lycra and helmet would be
    more skilled, more in control, and less likely to take unexpected
    action in most or all situations. It's reasonable for a driver to give
    him/her less room than a bare-headed kid on a bmx bike who is talking
    to his buddies and swerving around or doing wheelies.

    Just to be sure that it's clear: I love kids and bikes and unicycles,
    even the ones who do stupid things on roads, in traffic.

    --
    U-Turn

    Weep in the dojo... laugh on the battlefield.
    'LiveWire Unicycles' (http://www.livewireunicycles.com)
    'Strongest Coker Wheel in the World'
    (http://www.unicyclist.com/gallery/albup39)
    '29er Tire Study' (http://u-turn.unicyclist.com/29erTireStudy/)
    'New York Unicycle Club' (http://www.newyorkunicycle.com)
    -- Dave Stockton
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U-Turn's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/691
    View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/53205

  2. U-Turn said:


    And yes, using skills I developed doing masters and phd-level
    research and reading and critiquing thousands of technical journal
    articles,

    Did you? Or did you just base your opinion on what the funnies page
    in the local newspaper had to say about them - which seems to be what
    you're doing here.

    Quoted message said:

    I did read the article.

    I asked if you had read the paper, not whether you had read the report
    by a popular journalist about the research. I assume from your
    failure to answer the question, that the answer is no.

    Quoted message said:

    Since the article quotes Dr. Walker as saying:

    "Either way, this study suggests wearing a helmet might make a
    collision more likely in the first place"

    I figured it was reasonable to think that the -researcher -was making
    the connection. What do you think, Ian?

    But that's not a conclusion of the research, and is not presented as
    such. Now, who was it that said you don't need statistics to have an
    opinion?

    Besides, I'd say that statement, as quoted is 100% correct. If you
    disagree, it can only be if you are CERTAIN that passing wider
    increases the chance of a collision. Do you actually believe that?
    How can that possibly be? You know that missing something with a
    bigger gap increases the chances of hitting it?

    Quoted message said:

    I played around with taillights while riding about 1000 miles in
    rain, shine, dusk, and dawn. This is the experience on which I
    base my -opinions-.

    Not so much then - about an average month's riding at my peak (and I
    was never covering serious mileage compared to many people). It's
    about a quarter of my annual mileage at the moment.

    Quoted message said:

    Drivers are used to flashing lights being "official". Ride all the
    time with a flashing taillight if you are in traffic, and I guarantee
    drivers will consistently give you a wider berth. I proved this to
    myself all during the summer of 2005 while riding my 29er in all
    conditions.

    You just said everything you claimed was opinion and you don't need
    facts. Now you're making guarantees. Can you make your mind up
    please.

    Besides, your case relies upon a flashing light not being recognised
    as a cyclist. In the UK almost every lit cyclist has a flashing light
    - a flashing red light is likely to be immediately perceived by pretty
    much any driver as being a cyclist. Your hypothesis is completely
    unproven, and your postulated mechanism is certainly wrong.

    Quoted message said:

    they would be. Imagine driving your car without rear view mirrors.
    -It's the same thing.-

    Now you're just being silly. On a bike or unicycle you have
    unimpeded 360 degree vision, and immediate proximity to all
    extremities, all of which can be easily observed. In a car you have
    neither of these conditions. The visibility on a bike or unicycle is
    vastly superior to that in a car, and consequently there is no need
    of mirrors.

    Quoted message said:

    On (7) taillights: This opinion is NOT an assumption, this is an
    observation by me. I have seen drivers give me more room during dry,
    bright daylight hours, because I was using a flashing taillight on my
    unicycle. And I'm not talking centimeters, I'm talking meters - at
    least half a lane more room.

    That _IS_ an unproven assumption. You're ASSUMING that the specific
    driver in the specific conditions would have left less space if you
    had not been lit with a flashing light. You're ASSUMING the reasons
    for the gap which was left.

    Quoted message said:

    Well, yes an obviously serious rider in full Lycra and helmet would be
    more skilled, more in control, and less likely to take unexpected
    action in most or all situations.

    No, you're getting carried away again. Putting on lycra does not
    miraculously impart greater skills to the person in question. You
    cannot tell from the clothing how skilled a specific cyclist is.

    Quoted message said:

    It's reasonable for a driver to give
    him/her less room than a bare-headed kid on a bmx bike who is talking
    to his buddies and swerving around or doing wheelies.

    That's not what the article (or the research) says though. You're
    arguing a straw man there. The research shows that a cyclist wearing
    lycra and a helmet gets less space than a cyclist dressed differently
    but otherwise behaving the same. Try critiquing what is said, rather
    than finding fault with things you've made up for yourself.

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

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.