Kid's Trailers for Puxh bikes

[[email protected]]

I would like to thank all who have taken the time to reply to my post.
I have recieved my trailer today and am very happy with it so far, My
DS age 2.5 yrs loves it I can't keep him out of it. We have taken it
for a ride and you barly now its there. I had a helmet on him but it
seamed very uncomfertable for him.
DOES any one know if its law here in Australia if they have to wear a
helmet in these trailer's?
thank you to all you kind folk who answere my question.

Kind regards Mrs Mintie

[Bleve]

On Jun 4, 3:50 pm, wrote:
> I would like to thank all who have taken the time to reply to my post.
> I have recieved my trailer today and am very happy with it so far, My
> DS age 2.5 yrs loves it I can't keep him out of it. We have taken it
> for a ride and you barly now its there. I had a helmet on him but it
> seamed very uncomfertable for him.
> DOES any one know if its law here in Australia if they have to wear a
> helmet in these trailer's?

Yes, it is law.

[Graeme Dods]

On Jun 4, 1:50 pm, wrote:
> I would like to thank all who have taken the time to reply to my post.
> I have recieved my trailer today and am very happy with it so far, My
> DS age 2.5 yrs loves it I can't keep him out of it. We have taken it
> for a ride and you barly now its there. I had a helmet on him but it
> seamed very uncomfertable for him.
> DOES any one know if its law here in Australia if they have to wear a
> helmet in these trailer's?
> thank you to all you kind folk who answere my question.
>
> Kind regards Mrs Mintie

As Bleve said, yes, it's the law. Then again, in Perth I see loads of
helmetless cyclists every day (much more now than when I arrived 3
years ago) and often see them cycle past police on foot or in cars and
the police pay no notice. I think the police are more concerned about
more serious issues. Also, how well can anyone else see into the
trailer to tell whether you're towing a helmetless toddler or a sack
of spuds?

I'm not encouraging you to break the law though. In fact, that's one
of the many things that annoy me about the helmet law(s). Kids know
that they are legally required to wear a helmet but will learn quickly
that this law is often ignored with impunity. So we're effectively
teaching kids that laws don't matter thanks to a poorly thought out
implementation.

My son is helmetless in the trailer but will wear a helmet when we
start teaching him to cycle. We've already bought the helmet, a large
adult helmet for a 3 year old. The poor bugger's got his dad's
head :-/

Graeme

[scotty72[_23_]]

Yes, cops will mostly ignore that law unless there is some sort of crack
down or bored cop.

However, if they see a baby or toddler without a helmet, they may be
more likely to take action against an idiot who puts an innocent at
risk rather than an idiot who puts himself at risk.

Graeme Dods Wrote:
> On Jun 4, 1:50 pm, wrote:
> > I would like to thank all who have taken the time to reply to my
> post.
> > I have recieved my trailer today and am very happy with it so far,
> My
> > DS age 2.5 yrs loves it I can't keep him out of it. We have taken it
> > for a ride and you barly now its there. I had a helmet on him but it
> > seamed very uncomfertable for him.
> > DOES any one know if its law here in Australia if they have to wear
> a
> > helmet in these trailer's?
> > thank you to all you kind folk who answere my question.
> >
> > Kind regards Mrs Mintie
>
> As Bleve said, yes, it's the law. Then again, in Perth I see loads of
> helmetless cyclists every day (much more now than when I arrived 3
> years ago) and often see them cycle past police on foot or in cars and
> the police pay no notice. I think the police are more concerned about
> more serious issues. Also, how well can anyone else see into the
> trailer to tell whether you're towing a helmetless toddler or a sack
> of spuds?
>
> I'm not encouraging you to break the law though. In fact, that's one
> of the many things that annoy me about the helmet law(s). Kids know
> that they are legally required to wear a helmet but will learn quickly
> that this law is often ignored with impunity. So we're effectively
> teaching kids that laws don't matter thanks to a poorly thought out
> implementation.
>
> My son is helmetless in the trailer but will wear a helmet when we
> start teaching him to cycle. We've already bought the helmet, a large
> adult helmet for a 3 year old. The poor bugger's got his dad's
> head :-/
>
> Graeme


--
scotty72

[eddiec[_4_]]

I've got my three year old in our trailer, about to be joined by our
other littler one - And at this stage neither of them have helmets.
That's not a deliberate decision to flout the law for the fun of it,
but rather simply because helmets don't work well as the back of the
seat pushes them forward and makes it all very uncomfortable.

I'm also of the opinion that if anything is going to get through the
massive roll cage that they're sitting in and get to them strapped
securely into their 4 point harness, then a helmet might not be much
added protection. In other words, the trailer rolling or hitting a tree
is in itself going to provide most of the protection itself. And if it
gets squashed by a semi, well, a helmet isn't going to help much. That
being said, I could be wrong and as soon as they're big enough to have
the helmet work properly, they will wear one, as do I always.

I've never been pulled up by a police officer, or even busybody
citizen, over not having them wearing helmets. Indeed, you can barely
even see them in there with the tinted plastic. But, your experience
might differ, and there's definitely no harm in having helmets on them
if the trailer accommodates that.


--
eddiec

[scotty72[_24_]]

So, to sum up your argument.

1) if they can not wear a helmet without them being seen, then it's ok.

2) You'd rather them brain damaged than uncomfortable.

3) Whilst I take your point about things hitting the trailer, you make
no room for the possibility that the trailer could roll, or they could
get thrown around in it. Oh, I forgot, the plastic walls are bullet
proof and the straps are un-breakable.


I have been so silly.

SCotty


eddiec Wrote:
> I've got my three year old in our trailer, about to be joined by our
> other littler one - And at this stage neither of them have helmets.
> That's not a deliberate decision to flout the law for the fun of it,
> but rather simply because helmets don't work well as the back of the
> seat pushes them forward and makes it all very uncomfortable.
>
> I'm also of the opinion that if anything is going to get through the
> massive roll cage that they're sitting in and get to them strapped
> securely into their 4 point harness, then a helmet might not be much
> added protection. In other words, the trailer rolling or hitting a tree
> is in itself going to provide most of the protection itself. And if it
> gets squashed by a semi, well, a helmet isn't going to help much. That
> being said, I could be wrong and as soon as they're big enough to have
> the helmet work properly, they will wear one, as do I always.
>
> I've never been pulled up by a police officer, or even busybody
> citizen, over not having them wearing helmets. Indeed, you can barely
> even see them in there with the tinted plastic. But, your experience
> might differ, and there's definitely no harm in having helmets on them
> if the trailer accommodates that.


--
scotty72

[eddiec[_5_]]

geez - someone woke up as Mr Sarcastic Grumpy pants this morning...

1) No - just making the point that if you do choose to not have them
wearing a helmet, it's unlikely that you'll be pulled up by a cop. Not
advocating that you make that decision however.

2) Interesting assumption there, that I have a choice between
uncomfortable and brain damaged children. We'll ignore the myriad of
other factors that might be involved there.

3) I've known people who've rolled their trailer with their kids in it
- While scared and shaken (literally!), they have been unharmed.
Getting thrown around within the trailer is pretty unlikely if you saw
how tightly we strap them in, and yes, the straps are pretty
unbreakable.

All of the accusations you've placed on my opinion (without knowing me
or how/where I ride with my kids) could be fairly applied to motor
vehicles as well... So, I assume you and your kids wear helmets in the
car? Oh, that's right - you'd rather be brain damaged than
uncomfortable, and there's no possibility that the car could roll or
they could get thrown around in it, as the car is bullet proof and the
straps are un-breakable.

I have been so silly. (Couldn't resist)...


--
eddiec

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 6 Jun 2007 14:21:45 +1000
scotty72 > wrote:
>
> So, to sum up your argument.
>
> 1) if they can not wear a helmet without them being seen, then it's ok.
>
> 2) You'd rather them brain damaged than uncomfortable.
>
> 3) Whilst I take your point about things hitting the trailer, you make
> no room for the possibility that the trailer could roll, or they could
> get thrown around in it. Oh, I forgot, the plastic walls are bullet
> proof and the straps are un-breakable.
>

4) you know how likely the brain damage is, and how well a helmet will
prevent it.

5) you don't expect a helmet to protect from bullets.

Zebee

[Theo Bekkers]

scotty72 wrote:
> So, to sum up your argument.
>
> 1) if they can not wear a helmet without them being seen, then it's
> ok.
>
> 2) You'd rather them brain damaged than uncomfortable.
>
> 3) Whilst I take your point about things hitting the trailer, you make
> no room for the possibility that the trailer could roll, or they could
> get thrown around in it. Oh, I forgot, the plastic walls are bullet
> proof and the straps are un-breakable.

> I have been so silly.

Oh goodie, helmet war. I'll start:-
My parents never forced me to wear a helmet, they never even suggested I
wear a helmet, they didn't know a helmet was an essential safety item. My
dad wore a leather thing that wrapped around his head when riding his
motorcycle, but he said that was only to keep his ears warm.

Should I sue my parents?

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

eddiec wrote:

> All of the accusations you've placed on my opinion (without knowing me
> or how/where I ride with my kids) could be fairly applied to motor
> vehicles as well... So, I assume you and your kids wear helmets in the
> car? Oh, that's right - you'd rather be brain damaged than
> uncomfortable, and there's no possibility that the car could roll or
> they could get thrown around in it, as the car is bullet proof and the
> straps are un-breakable.

Love your style Eddie. I'm fairly certain that Scotty's kids were pre-fitted
with helmets before birth. That birthing can really distort your head. :-)

Theo

[TimC]

On 2007-06-06, scotty72 (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> So, to sum up your argument.
>
> 1) if they can not wear a helmet without them being seen, then it's ok.
>
> 2) You'd rather them brain damaged than uncomfortable.

Or the small perceived risks of brain damage outweigh the perhaps
larger risks of spinal damage from a head made twice as heavy as it
normally is, combined with the accelarations of impact.

But since there has no doubt been no study done with this in mind, I'd
rather go along the lines of my intuition rather than what the law
specifies.


P.S. Not a good way of winning arguments by calling people that
disagree with your assesment, "idiots".

--
TimC
"Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand." -- Jim Burlant

[cfsmtb[_250_]]

TimC Wrote:
>
> P.S. Not a good way of winning arguments by calling people that
> disagree with your assesment, "idiots".

Funnily enough, it's been a day for the Deadly Ernests, or are the
internets collectively suffering from Harsh Week™?


--
cfsmtb

[Theo Bekkers]

cfsmtb wrote:

> Funnily enough, it's been a day for the Deadly Ernests, or are the
> internets collectively suffering from Harsh WeekT?

Well, it's officially been Harsh Week in aus.motorcycles for more than three
years now. We tried to introduce Hugz Week but it didn't take off.

Theo

[Graeme Dods]

On Jun 6, 2:05 pm, "Theo Bekkers" > wrote:

> Should I sue my parents?
>
> Theo

No, but there are times when you're at your most cantankerous on
aus.bicycle that some may think they have grounds for suing your
parents for bringing you into existence :-)

It's been a while since I was involved in a helmet thread as I'd sworn
to avoid them some time ago. It looks like I started this one, oops,
sorry! What's my penance?

Graeme

[Bleve]

On Jun 6, 1:29 pm, scotty72 <scotty72.2rq...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Yes, cops will mostly ignore that law unless there is some sort of crack
> down or bored cop.
>
> However, if they see a baby or toddler without a helmet, they may be
> more likely to take action against an idiot who puts an innocent at
> risk rather than an idiot who puts himself at risk.

Out of curiosity (not fan the embers or anything ... :) ), don't kids
up to a certain age have very fragile skulls, or not complete skulls
or something? Such that almost any whack on the scone could be rather
more serious than on an adult's bonce?

I don't know ... no kids, and no plans to breed, just idle curiosity.

[Dave]

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:27:32 -0700, Bleve wrote:

> Out of curiosity (not fan the embers or anything ... :) ), don't kids
> up to a certain age have very fragile skulls, or not complete skulls
> or something? Such that almost any whack on the scone could be rather
> more serious than on an adult's bonce?

Yeah, although (off the top of my head) the majority of the solidification
has taken place in the first couple of years. There are a few floaty bits
up until around 25 IIRC.

The biggest issue is the one Tim alluded to, which is that neck bones that
handle a 10% increase in mass don't take well to a 50%+ increase in mass,
so kids' helmets tend to hurt kids' necks, particularly in a trailer
situation where they're being constantly pushed forward by the back of the
helmet pressing on the seat.

--
Dave Hughes |
"He who asks is a fool for five minutes, but he who does
not ask remains a fool forever." -- Old Chinese saying

[Bleve]

On Jun 7, 2:16 pm, "Dave" > wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:27:32 -0700, Bleve wrote:
> > Out of curiosity (not fan the embers or anything ... :) ), don't kids
> > up to a certain age have very fragile skulls, or not complete skulls
> > or something? Such that almost any whack on the scone could be rather
> > more serious than on an adult's bonce?
>
> Yeah, although (off the top of my head) the majority of the solidification
> has taken place in the first couple of years. There are a few floaty bits
> up until around 25 IIRC.
>
> The biggest issue is the one Tim alluded to, which is that neck bones that
> handle a 10% increase in mass don't take well to a 50%+ increase in mass,

50%?!

How much does a kids head weigh? Isn't it the head that changes the
least as a kid grows, so it'd be mostly the same weight as an adult
head (within a few 10's of percent anyway)?

[Friday]

wrote:
> On Jun 7, 11:44 am, Graeme Dods > wrote:
>> It's been a while since I was involved in a helmet thread as I'd sworn
>> to avoid them some time ago. It looks like I started this one, oops,
>> sorry! What's my penance?
>>
>> Graeme
>
> Drop your seat 4" for the next week ;-)
>

Or remove it for one day.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:13:25 +0800
Friday > wrote:
> wrote:
>> On Jun 7, 11:44 am, Graeme Dods > wrote:
>>> It's been a while since I was involved in a helmet thread as I'd sworn
>>> to avoid them some time ago. It looks like I started this one, oops,
>>> sorry! What's my penance?
>>>
>>> Graeme
>>
>> Drop your seat 4" for the next week ;-)
>>
>
> Or remove it for one day.

A new use for chain lube....


Zebee

[Dave]

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:54:14 -0700, Bleve wrote:

> How much does a kids head weigh? Isn't it the head that changes the
> least as a kid grows, so it'd be mostly the same weight as an adult
> head (within a few 10's of percent anyway)?

An adult head apparently weighs around 4.5-5kg on average. I can't find
any decent references for child head masses, but given a newborn normally
weighs a bit over 3kg, and drops to about 2.5 fairly quickly before
putting on weight again, somewhere around 1.5-2kg for baby head weight
seems reasonable.There's one study that claims "4 lbs", or around 2kg, for
a child's head, but no age is listed.

A decent helmet weighs around 250g, so roughly 5% of head mass. A kid's
helmet probably doesn't weigh 1kg, but I've seen several that'd be close
to 500g, so it's more like 25% of head mass. That's a big difference,
particularly when neck muscles are still developing.

--
Dave Hughes |
I still can't see a wasp without thinking "400K 1W"
- Derek Potter, uk.misc

[Bleve]

On Jun 7, 3:26 pm, "Dave" > wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:54:14 -0700, Bleve wrote:
> > How much does a kids head weigh? Isn't it the head that changes the
> > least as a kid grows, so it'd be mostly the same weight as an adult
> > head (within a few 10's of percent anyway)?
>
> An adult head apparently weighs around 4.5-5kg on average. I can't find
> any decent references for child head masses, but given a newborn normally
> weighs a bit over 3kg, and drops to about 2.5 fairly quickly before
> putting on weight again, somewhere around 1.5-2kg for baby head weight
> seems reasonable.There's one study that claims "4 lbs", or around 2kg, for
> a child's head, but no age is listed.

Is anyone here with a young kid able to chop its head off and weigh it
for us?

> A decent helmet weighs around 250g, so roughly 5% of head mass. A kid's
> helmet probably doesn't weigh 1kg, but I've seen several that'd be close
> to 500g, so it's more like 25% of head mass. That's a big difference,
> particularly when neck muscles are still developing.

The smallest helmets we stock are the little duckbill michellins, I
think they weigh about 400g at most. I'll be able to weigh one
tomorrow. If the kid is that small, you wouldn't put it in a trailer
anyway, surely? The kid seats we stock have head restraints,
presumably to stop excessive head movement side to side and rearwards,
but they don't have forward restraint (heh ... it'd look funny if they
did :) I hear GW Bush & Little Johnny are all in favour of torture
these days, maybe we can rig one up for their 'terrorism' suspects?

[ghostgum[_15_]]

Bleve Wrote:
>
> > > How much does a kids head weigh? Isn't it the head that changes
> the
> > > least as a kid grows, so it'd be mostly the same weight as an
> adult
> > > head (within a few 10's of percent anyway)?
> Is anyone here with a young kid able to chop its head off and weigh it
> for us?
>

Since the human body is almost entirely water, it has a similar density
to water. Just dunk the head (still attached to the body) in a bucket
of water and measure the volume of water displaced. If you pick a
young enough child, they still have the dive reflex and the airway will
automatically close.

p.s. you are not trying these methods on my children :-)


--
ghostgum

[cfsmtb[_256_]]

ghostgum Wrote:
> Since the human body is almost entirely water, it has a similar density
> to water. Just dunk the head (still attached to the body) in a bucket
> of water and measure the volume of water displaced. If you pick a
> young enough child, they still have the dive reflex and the airway will
> automatically close.
>
> p.s. you are not trying these methods on my children :-)

We've got a spare small cat at our place that weighs in at about 3kgs.


After last nights tanties, I'd love to dunk her in a bucket of water
....


--
cfsmtb

[Graeme Dods]

On Jun 7, 1:13 pm, Friday > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 11:44 am, Graeme Dods > wrote:
> >> It's been a while since I was involved in a helmet thread as I'd sworn
> >> to avoid them some time ago. It looks like I started this one, oops,
> >> sorry! What's my penance?
>
> >> Graeme
>
> > Drop your seat 4" for the next week ;-)
>
> Or remove it for one day.

I'm happy to do either of those this week. With work commitments and
home renovations my bike will probably remain in the shed for a week,
so I'm not too bothered if it's saddleless for a while :)

Graeme

[Graeme Dods]

On Jun 7, 10:27 am, Bleve > wrote:

> Out of curiosity (not fan the embers or anything ... :) ), don't kids
> up to a certain age have very fragile skulls, or not complete skulls
> or something? Such that almost any whack on the scone could be rather
> more serious than on an adult's bonce?

I read somewhere recently* that the squidginess of children's skulls
actually mean they're less likely to receive a serious head injury
than an adult. The nearest analogy I can think of is kid's
head=squidgy stress ball, adult's head=boiled egg. I guess it all
depends on how much force is involved in the impact.

Graeme

* I did a quick search for it a moment ago and couldn't find it, you
can imagine how many hits "skull helmet child absorb" gives!

[scotty72[_25_]]

I did not mean to call you an idiot personally. My point was that the
cops would have every right to think of a person who ignores this law
as an idiot. It is the same sort of argument as the seat belt laws.

I was once in a car crash where the driver (not me) ran head on into
another car. Cops estimated the closing speed at 105-110 km/h (it was
near the corner of Logan and Marshall Rds at Holland Pk (Bris)).

My g/f at the time was in the front passenger seat wearing a seat belt.


I was directly behind her (what a gentleman) also belted up. Another
mate who reckoned that selt belts were more bad than good was beside
me.

Yep, the three of us who were belted (inc driver) got some pretty cool
seat belt burns. The too cool for belts dude spent 2 weeks in PA
hospital with a really badly smashed up face, broken ribs and a whole
host of other damage including pattern of the inside of the chasis
embossed on his forehead.

I have also seen the results of helmet-less bike riders who have kissed
the pavement. It ain't pretty.

2 years ago - a mate came off his bike during the Spring Cycle (syd).
Cracked his helmet pretty well in half - he got up and laughed at it -
then he thought about if that was his head - stopped laughing.

If you wanna ride around without a helmet - that is your choice but,
equally it is my choice to think of you as a bloody idiot.

The real question is .. does an adult have the right to take that risk
on behalf of a baby?

SCotty

TimC Wrote:
> On 2007-06-06, scotty72 (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> >
> > So, to sum up your argument.
> >
> > 1) if they can not wear a helmet without them being seen, then it's
> ok.
> >
> > 2) You'd rather them brain damaged than uncomfortable.
>
> Or the small perceived risks of brain damage outweigh the perhaps
> larger risks of spinal damage from a head made twice as heavy as it
> normally is, combined with the accelarations of impact.
>
> But since there has no doubt been no study done with this in mind, I'd
> rather go along the lines of my intuition rather than what the law
> specifies.
>
>
> P.S. Not a good way of winning arguments by calling people that
> disagree with your assesment, "idiots".
>
> --
> TimC
> "Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand." -- Jim
> Burlant


--
scotty72

[Terryc]

Graeme Dods wrote:

> I read somewhere recently* that the squidginess of children's skulls
> actually mean they're less likely to receive a serious head injury
> than an adult. The nearest analogy I can think of is kid's
> head=squidgy stress ball, adult's head=boiled egg. I guess it all
> depends on how much force is involved in the impact.

I think that is only first 12 months until skull plates fuse.
Unless you are talking about the general relative softness of young
childrens bones that become increasingly brittle as they age until you
may break your hip from falling in your 70's.

[Plodder]

"Zebee Johnstone" > wrote in message
...
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:13:25 +0800
> Friday > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Jun 7, 11:44 am, Graeme Dods > wrote:
>>>> It's been a while since I was involved in a helmet thread as I'd sworn
>>>> to avoid them some time ago. It looks like I started this one, oops,
>>>> sorry! What's my penance?
>>>>
>>>> Graeme
>>>
>>> Drop your seat 4" for the next week ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Or remove it for one day.
>
> A new use for chain lube....

REAL men use Dencorub :)

[Theo Bekkers]

Bleve wrote:

> Out of curiosity (not fan the embers or anything ... :) ), don't kids
> up to a certain age have very fragile skulls, or not complete skulls
> or something? Such that almost any whack on the scone could be rather
> more serious than on an adult's bonce?
>
> I don't know ... no kids, and no plans to breed, just idle curiosity.

Kids are born with very flexible skulls, with many semi-attached segments,
so that the head can deform during birth. This does not make childrens heads
fragile, in fact it makes them more resilient and able to get over the
falling-down-learning-to-walk and walking-under-the-table when they have
grown-just-that-much-too-tall stages with a few tears and a hug.

Theo

[Graeme Dods]

On Jun 7, 7:53 pm, scotty72 <scotty72.2rt...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> I did not mean to call you an idiot personally. My point was that the
> cops would have every right to think of a person who ignores this law
> as an idiot. It is the same sort of argument as the seat belt laws.

Oh goody, a seat belt war to top off the helmet one! Cool!

You do know the statistics behind seatbelt effectiveness/use don't
you? (and please don't anyone trot out the "you can prove anything
with statistics" line)

When the UK government were planning on introducing the mandatory
seatbelt laws there was a report commissioned (the Isles Report) into
the effectiveness of such an introduction which studied the situation
around the world (Australia included as it was a very early introducer
of such a law). The report claimed there would be a slight *increase*
in the number of fatalities in car occupants. The government chose to
ignore this report (some claim the report was suppressed) and
introduced the law.

Sure enough, the prediction was correct, as was the prediction that
there would be an increase in fatalities for other road users, e.g.
pedestrians and cyclists. The ratio of fatalities per crash went down,
but the number of crashes went up to more than compensate for this.

So yes, seatbelts do help in the event of a crash, but there's a hell
of a lot of evidence that they make that crash more likely. In your
anecdote there's plenty of evidence that Mr "Too Cool to Belt Up"
would have benefited from wearing one. There's a small chance that if
the driver hadn't been forced to wear one though, he may have driven
slightly differently and avoided having the crash in the first place
(but there's no way to say for sure).

Does any of this sound familiar? Yep, it matches the pattern of
behaviour around the introduction of mandatory helmet laws pretty
damned closely.

Graeme

(first I start a helmet thread then a seatbelt thread, I'm doomed I
tell you, DOOMED!)

[Rory Williams[_15_]]

Graeme Dods Wrote:
>
> So yes, seatbelts do help in the event of a crash, but there's a hell
> of a lot of evidence that they make that crash more likely. In your
> anecdote there's plenty of evidence that Mr "Too Cool to Belt Up"
> would have benefited from wearing one. There's a small chance that if
> the driver hadn't been forced to wear one though, he may have driven
> slightly differently and avoided having the crash in the first place
> (but there's no way to say for sure).
>
> Does any of this sound familiar? Yep, it matches the pattern of
> behaviour around the introduction of mandatory helmet laws pretty
> damned closely.
>
> Graeme
>
> (first I start a helmet thread then a seatbelt thread, I'm doomed I
> tell you, DOOMED!)

Travelling with the children the other day we were discussing the
demise of the Princess of Wales. Can't remember why. I recalled that
the bodyguard survived the crash while all around died. He was the one
with the seat belt on. Discipline, training, perhaps a strong survival
instinct kept him alive.

You often have some measures you can take to protect yourself (not
getting into a car with a ****ed driver would be one of the best). Do
the things you can for yourself because you can't always control what
others are doing.

RoryW


--
Rory Williams

[scotty72[_26_]]

That is a very strange correlation.

There are a whole range of reasons there are a lot more crashes.

Driver attitudes, numbers of cars on the roads, frustrations, ill
discipline in general society.

To blame it on the wearing of seat belts is like blaming the
consumption of ice cream for rape. (it so happens that both are more
likely in hot weather - but, one doesn't cause the other)

So, please...


Graeme Dods Wrote:
> On Jun 7, 7:53 pm, scotty72 <scotty72.2rt...@no-
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> > I did not mean to call you an idiot personally. My point was that
> the
> > cops would have every right to think of a person who ignores this
> law
> > as an idiot. It is the same sort of argument as the seat belt laws.
>
> Oh goody, a seat belt war to top off the helmet one! Cool!
>
> You do know the statistics behind seatbelt effectiveness/use don't
> you? (and please don't anyone trot out the "you can prove anything
> with statistics" line)
>
> When the UK government were planning on introducing the mandatory
> seatbelt laws there was a report commissioned (the Isles Report) into
> the effectiveness of such an introduction which studied the situation
> around the world (Australia included as it was a very early introducer
> of such a law). The report claimed there would be a slight *increase*
> in the number of fatalities in car occupants. The government chose to
> ignore this report (some claim the report was suppressed) and
> introduced the law.
>
> Sure enough, the prediction was correct, as was the prediction that
> there would be an increase in fatalities for other road users, e.g.
> pedestrians and cyclists. The ratio of fatalities per crash went down,
> but the number of crashes went up to more than compensate for this.
>
> So yes, seatbelts do help in the event of a crash, but there's a hell
> of a lot of evidence that they make that crash more likely. In your
> anecdote there's plenty of evidence that Mr "Too Cool to Belt Up"
> would have benefited from wearing one. There's a small chance that if
> the driver hadn't been forced to wear one though, he may have driven
> slightly differently and avoided having the crash in the first place
> (but there's no way to say for sure).
>
> Does any of this sound familiar? Yep, it matches the pattern of
> behaviour around the introduction of mandatory helmet laws pretty
> damned closely.
>
> Graeme
>
> (first I start a helmet thread then a seatbelt thread, I'm doomed I
> tell you, DOOMED!)


--
scotty72

[Theo Bekkers]

scotty72 wrote:

> That is a very strange correlation.
>
> There are a whole range of reasons there are a lot more crashes.
>
> Driver attitudes, numbers of cars on the roads, frustrations, ill
> discipline in general society.

Perception of increased safety results in greater risks being taken. That's
not news, or rocket science. I'll take primary safety, awareness, training,
ease of control, over secondary safety, seat belts, helmets, any day. As
Graeme said, seat belts don't prevent accidents, it may cause some. Ditto
helmets.

I also agree that proponents of safety helmets should put their practice
where their mouth is, and wear them in cars. It would prevent many more
deaths than wearing them on bicycles.

Theo

[scotty72[_27_]]

Equally,

The law's requirement for people to put on their belts / helmets acts
as a reminder to the dangers of riding / driving thus, increasing the
awareness of the driver and lowering the risk of accident.

If you tell people, "hey, don't bother with safety equipment" then
don't be surprised if they they are far too relaxed and unaware of
dangers - and as a result, crash.

It is not rocket science (or news).

Anyway, back to my original point - which was wrestled away by the
obfuscation king...

If you break the law, don't complain if a cop decides you're an idiot
and nabs you. The law is the law.

SCotty


Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> scotty72 wrote:
>
> > That is a very strange correlation.
> >
> > There are a whole range of reasons there are a lot more crashes.
> >
> > Driver attitudes, numbers of cars on the roads, frustrations, ill
> > discipline in general society.
>
> Perception of increased safety results in greater risks being taken.
> That's
> not news, or rocket science. I'll take primary safety, awareness,
> training,
> ease of control, over secondary safety, seat belts, helmets, any day.
> As
> Graeme said, seat belts don't prevent accidents, it may cause some.
> Ditto
> helmets.
>
> I also agree that proponents of safety helmets should put their
> practice
> where their mouth is, and wear them in cars. It would prevent many
> more
> deaths than wearing them on bicycles.
>
> Theo


--
scotty72

[scotty72[_28_]]

PS.

The law doesn't require that I drive with a helmet on...

Presumably because a car has a steel chasis that is deemed far more
protective than the flimsy plastic screen on a kiddy trailer.

Common sense really...


--
scotty72

[scotty72[_29_]]

PS.

The law doesn't require that I drive with a helmet on...

Presumably because a car has a steel chasis that is deemed far more
protective than the flimsy plastic screen on a kiddy trailer.

Common sense really...


--
scotty72

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 8 Jun 2007 15:34:57 +1000
scotty72 > wrote:
>
> PS.
>
> The law doesn't require that I drive with a helmet on...
>
> Presumably because a car has a steel chasis that is deemed far more
> protective than the flimsy plastic screen on a kiddy trailer.
>

The helmet isn't to protect you from something on the *outside*.

It is to protect you from the cage you are driving in. Because the
major cause of head injury in car occupants is hitting the inside of
the car. Such as door pillars.

So go get that helmet on Scotty. You have more chance of needing it
in the car than you do on the bike.

Zebee

[Theo Bekkers]

scotty72 wrote:
> PS.
>
> The law doesn't require that I drive with a helmet on...

So that makes it safe then?

> Presumably because a car has a steel chasis that is deemed far more
> protective than the flimsy plastic screen on a kiddy trailer.

ROTFL Scotty. You really were born yesterday. I think that just a little
investigation will show you that the most common head injury in modern cars,
with seat-belts and air-bags, is the head hitting the side pillar. If all
the occupants wore a bicycle helmet it would save hundreds of lives a year
in Oz. Very many more than the total cycle fatalities, both bi and motor.
How could you as a parent be so ......... as to put your children in
danger this way?

> Common sense really...

Common sense is defined as experience you've had so long that you think
everyone was born with it. You don't appear to be old enough to have any.
:-)

Theo

[Bleve]

On Jun 8, 4:17 pm, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Fri, 8 Jun 2007 15:34:57 +1000
>
> scotty72 > wrote:
>
> > PS.
>
> > The law doesn't require that I drive with a helmet on...
>
> > Presumably because a car has a steel chasis that is deemed far more
> > protective than the flimsy plastic screen on a kiddy trailer.
>
> The helmet isn't to protect you from something on the *outside*.
>
> It is to protect you from the cage you are driving in. Because the
> major cause of head injury in car occupants is hitting the inside of
> the car. Such as door pillars.

The few times I crashed my rally car (rolled, hit banks & trees at
high speed etc), with a rollcage and 4 point harness, my helmet copped
some damage from the cage. Enough to dent a motorcycle helmet
significantly.

[scotty72[_30_]]

Lies... damned lies and stats...

In what circumstances???

The crawling traffic that I encounter on my 15-20kms of driving per
week is hardly likely to flip my car over. As for my nut hitting the
side panel with massive force. Possible, but at 40 km/h not likely.

I bring you back to my crash 10 years ago. Three of us wearing seat
belts - few probs. Bloke not wearing selt beat. Badly beat up head.
(The idiots driving both cars were speeding late at night)

Please, don't compare apples with oranges. Your stats apply across the
board with a massive representation from highway / country crashes. I
too have had these figures presented to me and yes, you can paint them
which ever way you want. I've had to present them to kids at school as
part on yet another extra curricula activity that some interest group
wants to force teachers to deal with (ever wonder why your kids can't
read - teachers are too busy with, bike safety, car safety, stranger
danger, multi-culti, anti-bullying, etc. etc)

Driving my kid across inner Sydney for violin lessons twice a week
during afternoon peak is hardly likely to involve us in a high speed
collision resulting i massive head injuries - esp when compared to
driving the New England Hwy at 100km/h.

Perhaps it is a good idea to force car occupants to wear helmets
(politically it is not going to happen) in areas of high speed (eg
country or motorways) but, don't give me crap about massive head trauma
from a highspeed crash on Parramatta Rd during PM peak.

Scotty

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> scotty72 wrote:
> > PS.
> >
> > The law doesn't require that I drive with a helmet on...
>
> So that makes it safe then?
>
> > Presumably because a car has a steel chasis that is deemed far more
> > protective than the flimsy plastic screen on a kiddy trailer.
>
> ROTFL Scotty. You really were born yesterday. I think that just a
> little
> investigation will show you that the most common head injury in modern
> cars,
> with seat-belts and air-bags, is the head hitting the side pillar. If
> all
> the occupants wore a bicycle helmet it would save hundreds of lives a
> year
> in Oz. Very many more than the total cycle fatalities, both bi and
> motor.
> How could you as a parent be so ......... as to put your children in
> danger this way?
>
> > Common sense really...
>
> Common sense is defined as experience you've had so long that you
> think
> everyone was born with it. You don't appear to be old enough to have
> any.
> :-)
>
> Theo


--
scotty72

[Theo Bekkers]

scotty72 wrote:
> Lies... damned lies and stats...

You can't handle the truth!

> The crawling traffic that I encounter on my 15-20kms of driving per
> week is hardly likely to flip my car over. As for my nut hitting the
> side panel with massive force. Possible, but at 40 km/h not likely.


Geezus Scotty, you get funnier and funnier. Read the specs on your bicycle
or motorcycle helmet. Designed to maybe protect wearer from impacts up to
~20 km/h.

> Perhaps it is a good idea to force car occupants to wear helmets
> (politically it is not going to happen) in areas of high speed (eg
> country or motorways) but, don't give me crap about massive head
> trauma from a highspeed crash on Parramatta Rd during PM peak.

Oh deary me. Scotty's in the nile. We are not asking you to force all people
to wear helmets in cars, just saying that you should make sure your children
do.

Theo

[Bleve]

On Jun 8, 4:54 pm, "Theo Bekkers" > wrote:
> scotty72 wrote:
> > Lies... damned lies and stats...
>
> You can't handle the truth!
>
> > The crawling traffic that I encounter on my 15-20kms of driving per
> > week is hardly likely to flip my car over. As for my nut hitting the
> > side panel with massive force. Possible, but at 40 km/h not likely.
>
> Geezus Scotty, you get funnier and funnier. Read the specs on your bicycle
> or motorcycle helmet. Designed to maybe protect wearer from impacts up to
> ~20 km/h.

And how likely is his head to hit something (if wearing a seatbelt
properly) if he crashes at 40km/h and comes to a dead stop? Not very,
I'd have thought.

Theo, you can argue a point without being a belligerent ****, how
about you start, eh?

[Graeme Dods]

On Jun 8, 12:33 pm, scotty72 <scotty72.2ru...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> That is a very strange correlation.

> There are a whole range of reasons there are a lot more crashes.
>
> Driver attitudes, numbers of cars on the roads, frustrations, ill
> discipline in general society.
>
> To blame it on the wearing of seat belts is like blaming the
> consumption of ice cream for rape. (it so happens that both are more
> likely in hot weather - but, one doesn't cause the other)
>
> So, please...

"So please" what? Please ignore the fact that the *sudden* change in
accident rate was shown to happen directly after the introduction of
the law? Had it been a gradual change then perhaps it could be put
down to the factors such as those you give, but as it wasn't it can't
be. From your other posts it seems you're in the education sector, I
do hope you're not required to teach any kind of deductive reasoning
to kids.

Graeme

[TimC]

On 2007-06-08, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> scotty72 wrote:
>
>> That is a very strange correlation.
>>
>> There are a whole range of reasons there are a lot more crashes.
>>
>> Driver attitudes, numbers of cars on the roads, frustrations, ill
>> discipline in general society.
>
> Perception of increased safety results in greater risks being taken. That's
> not news, or rocket science. I'll take primary safety, awareness, training,
> ease of control, over secondary safety, seat belts, helmets, any day. As
> Graeme said, seat belts don't prevent accidents, it may cause some. Ditto
> helmets.

Once I got height training, and donned my harness, I noticed I was
taking a few risks I wouldn't usually take. I still would hate to
fall in a harness, particularly in this environment. Lots of things
to bash on the way down until the harness arrests you, then all sorts
of yucky injuries from the arrest.

Then there was the time when I peered up to realise I had failed to
hook the harness up to anything.

--
TimC
To define recursion, we must first define recursion.

[TimC]

On 2007-06-08, scotty72 (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> If you break the law, don't complain if a cop decides you're an idiot
> and nabs you. The law is the law.

And the law is a mule.

--
TimC
Beating is one thing .... pounding accompanied by the shakes is a bit
unnerving -- Andrew Comeau in RHOD

[TimC]

On 2007-06-08, scotty72 (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Lies... damned lies and stats...
>
> In what circumstances???
>
> The crawling traffic that I encounter on my 15-20kms of driving per
> week is hardly likely to flip my car over. As for my nut hitting the
> side panel with massive force. Possible, but at 40 km/h not likely.

But what about 80km/h? Because if a truck driver fails to see you and
takes you out (and you don't have flashing lights to alert to your
presence), then your change in velocity is going to be close to
80km/h, whereupon you would be needing that helmet.

--
TimC
Rule 46 of the Oxford Union Society in London reads, "Any member introducing a
dog into the Society's premises shall be liable to a fine of one Pound. Any
animal leading a blind person shall be deemed to be a cat."
-- stolen from quote damian in ASR stole; origin unknown

[scotty72[_31_]]

You sound like a typical motorist who will drives around with his eyes
widely shut. Only accepting the facts you wish to.

You seem to be saying that seat belts cause accidents.

So, by your sensational deductive reasoning, if I don't put on my belt
when the QANTAS captain puts on the selt belt light, the plane will be
immune from crashing. After all, you are supporting the insane argument
that seat belts cause crashes... and if you and I eat ice-cream, we'll
run around raping innocent women (esp those in selt belts -
presumably).

The mind boggles...

Graeme Dods Wrote:
> On Jun 8, 12:33 pm, scotty72 <scotty72.2ru...@no-
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> > That is a very strange correlation.
>
> > There are a whole range of reasons there are a lot more crashes.
> >
> > Driver attitudes, numbers of cars on the roads, frustrations, ill
> > discipline in general society.
> >
> > To blame it on the wearing of seat belts is like blaming the
> > consumption of ice cream for rape. (it so happens that both are more
> > likely in hot weather - but, one doesn't cause the other)
> >
> > So, please...
>
> "So please" what? Please ignore the fact that the *sudden* change in
> accident rate was shown to happen directly after the introduction of
> the law? Had it been a gradual change then perhaps it could be put
> down to the factors such as those you give, but as it wasn't it can't
> be. From your other posts it seems you're in the education sector, I
> do hope you're not required to teach any kind of deductive reasoning
> to kids.
>
> Graeme


--
scotty72

[scotty72[_32_]]

TimC Wrote:
> On 2007-06-08, scotty72 (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> >
> > Lies... damned lies and stats...
> >
> > In what circumstances???
> >
> > The crawling traffic that I encounter on my 15-20kms of driving per
> > week is hardly likely to flip my car over. As for my nut hitting the
> > side panel with massive force. Possible, but at 40 km/h not likely.
>
> But what about 80km/h? Because if a truck driver fails to see you and
> takes you out (and you don't have flashing lights to alert to your
> presence), then your change in velocity is going to be close to
> 80km/h, whereupon you would be needing that helmet.
>
> --
> TimC
> Rule 46 of the Oxford Union Society in London reads, "Any member
> introducing a
> dog into the Society's premises shall be liable to a fine of one
> Pound. Any
> animal leading a blind person shall be deemed to be a cat."
> -- stolen from quote damian in ASR stole; origin unknownBeing hit by a 30 - 40 tonne truck at 80 will require not a helmet but,
devine intervention...

SCotty


--
scotty72

[Terryc]

scotty72 wrote:
> PS.
>
> The law doesn't require that I drive with a helmet on...
>
> Presumably because a car has a steel chasis that is deemed far more
> protective than the flimsy plastic screen on a kiddy trailer.
>
> Common sense really...

actually, not so common sense;

2 tonne+ mass of motor vehcile composed of thin plastic and thin sheet
metal travelling at 110km/hr meets another 2 tonne+ mass of similar
motor vehicle. No helmet equals definite brain damage.

Kiddy trailer travelling at 8km/hr meets kiddy trailer also travelling
at 8kms/hr results in maybe two tumbled kids and lots of scratched plastic.

[Terryc]

Bleve wrote:
And how likely is his head to hit something (if wearing a seatbelt
> properly) if he crashes at 40km/h and comes to a dead stop? Not very,
> I'd have thought.

Er 1), what speed do airbags go off at {:-).

Er 2) Do you mean coming to an instantaneous dead stop, which would
result in a lot of broken bones, or the obvious factor that almost all
vehicles come to a dead stop after a crash.

Caveat, can also come to a derad stop for other reasons like alternator
spitting dummy and battery running flat, or running out of fuel, etc, etc

[Terryc]

scotty72 wrote:
> Equally,
>
> The law's requirement for people to put on their belts / helmets acts
> as a reminder to the dangers of riding / driving thus, increasing the
> awareness of the driver and lowering the risk of accident.
>
> If you tell people, "hey, don't bother with safety equipment" then
> don't be surprised if they they are far too relaxed and unaware of
> dangers - and as a result, crash.

lol, you need to actualy update your information.

Improved motor vehicle safety has resulted in people driving at higher
speeds because they think they are safer.

Likewise, taking away all the nanny state signs, etc makes peeps slow
down and think.

[Terryc]

scotty72 wrote:

> You seem to be saying that seat belts cause accidents.

Yep, just like the tanker now on Stockton Beach. 53 tankers were told to
shift their arses out to see and the three that made the news didn't do so.

[scotty72[_33_]]

It is funny, you are mounting an argument that supports my point to the
detriment of yours. Thanks anyway.

It is all this 'safety' built into the cars such as air-bags, side
impact bars etc. that make people like you believe they are
indestructible and have free reign to disobey the seat belt laws.
Unfortunately, this attitude transposes itself to bicycles that DON'T
have these features

As for the signage prob. We agree. There should be about 90% fewer
signs than now.

Terryc Wrote:
> scotty72 wrote:
> > Equally,
> >
> > The law's requirement for people to put on their belts / helmets
> acts
> > as a reminder to the dangers of riding / driving thus, increasing
> the
> > awareness of the driver and lowering the risk of accident.
> >
> > If you tell people, "hey, don't bother with safety equipment" then
> > don't be surprised if they they are far too relaxed and unaware of
> > dangers - and as a result, crash.
>
> lol, you need to actualy update your information.
>
> Improved motor vehicle safety has resulted in people driving at higher
> speeds because they think they are safer.
>
> Likewise, taking away all the nanny state signs, etc makes peeps slow
> down and think.


--
scotty72

[Dave]

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:49:32 +1000, TimC wrote:

> Once I got height training, and donned my harness, I noticed I was
> taking a few risks I wouldn't usually take.

But was that also familiarity with those actions? I know I'm a lot more
willing than most people to do potentially dangerous things a fair way up
due to about 18 years of climbing experience.

The reinforcement value of getting away with risky behaviour certainly
makes it feel less risky.

--
Dave Hughes |
There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them.
- Niels Bohr

[Graeme Dods]

On Jun 8, 5:25 pm, scotty72 <scotty72.2ru...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> You sound like a typical motorist who will drives around with his eyes
> widely shut. Only accepting the facts you wish to.

You're reading things into what I said that aren't there.


> You seem to be saying that seat belts cause accidents.

To an extent, yes. Obviously not all accidents, but they do cause an
increase in the number of accidents. To be fair, I used to think
"helmets=good, seatbelts=good, ABS=good" but since reading rather a
lot of research into the field of safety, and also of the psychology
surrounding it, I've changed my way of thinking. And before you
wilfully misinterpret me again, that does not mean I think
"seatbelts=bad etc."

> So, by your sensational deductive reasoning, if I don't put on my belt
> when the QANTAS captain puts on the selt belt light, the plane will be
> immune from crashing.

No, that would be *your* woeful deductive reasoning. This seems to be
all based around the fact that you've missed that this effect (safety
equipment increasing accident rates) is a result of the driver/cyclist/
pilot/whatever *feeling* safer. And where on earth was "immunity"
mentioned?

Look, to make it simpler for you, here are some links that it's taken
me all of about 1 minute to gather.

First, a brief introduction to the concept of risk compensation -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation (yes, I know,
Wikipedia's not exactly the best information source, but it seems a
pretty good summary of the main points on this subject)

Then some more in-depth research. Some of it is on PubMed, which I no
longer have access to but you can at least see the abstracts. If you
really are in the education sector then you'll probably be able to get
access to PubMed anyway.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3415759
http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/
http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html

and maybe buy a copy of -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857280687/
and definitely this -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Death-Streets-Cars-Mythology-Safety/dp/0948135468/ref=sr_1_8/202-4885762-9621464?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181466171&sr=1-8

and have a read of -
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
with particular reference to number 36


Graeme

[Resound[_2_]]

"Graeme Dods" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 7, 7:53 pm, scotty72 <scotty72.2rt...@no-
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>> I did not mean to call you an idiot personally. My point was that the
>> cops would have every right to think of a person who ignores this law
>> as an idiot. It is the same sort of argument as the seat belt laws.
>
> Oh goody, a seat belt war to top off the helmet one! Cool!
>
> You do know the statistics behind seatbelt effectiveness/use don't
> you? (and please don't anyone trot out the "you can prove anything
> with statistics" line)
>
> When the UK government were planning on introducing the mandatory
> seatbelt laws there was a report commissioned (the Isles Report) into
> the effectiveness of such an introduction which studied the situation
> around the world (Australia included as it was a very early introducer
> of such a law). The report claimed there would be a slight *increase*
> in the number of fatalities in car occupants. The government chose to
> ignore this report (some claim the report was suppressed) and
> introduced the law.
>
> Sure enough, the prediction was correct, as was the prediction that
> there would be an increase in fatalities for other road users, e.g.
> pedestrians and cyclists. The ratio of fatalities per crash went down,
> but the number of crashes went up to more than compensate for this.

Interesting. I've seen a graph of road fatalities for Victoria from somewhat
before the introduction of the requirement to wear seat belts. The
introduction of that law was one of three things that caused the annual
death figure to nosedive (the other two were speed cameras and booze
busses). Unless we are for some reason ridiculously anomalous I'd be
interested to know how they arrived at the conclusion that seatbelts would
cause an increase in fatalities when our experience so clearly showed a
radical decrease.

[scotty72[_34_]]

Resound Wrote:
>
> Interesting. I've seen a graph of road fatalities for Victoria from
> somewhat
> before the introduction of the requirement to wear seat belts. The
> introduction of that law was one of three things that caused the
> annual
> death figure to nosedive (the other two were speed cameras and booze
> busses). Unless we are for some reason ridiculously anomalous I'd be
> interested to know how they arrived at the conclusion that seatbelts
> would
> cause an increase in fatalities when our experience so clearly showed
> a
> radical decrease.Quite right Resound.

We were asked not to trot out the stats can prove anything you like
line simply because the asker knew damn well that it is true. Sociology
101 will give anyone the lesson on how to come up with what ever figures
you want.

The fact is - seat belts save lives. They don't cause people to become
complacent or any other psychological disorders that people blame on
seatbelts. Same for helmets. They don't fry your brain and thus make
you more suseptable to magnetic fields or inter-galatic vortexes that
cause you to crash; or any other wacko conspiracies.

All psycho effect rubbish is speculation (at best). What is undeniable
is that if your head hits the road without a helmet it is far more
likely to cracked that if you had one on.


So, to the others - Stop making excuses for breaking the law (or
risking your kids' lives). Helmets are law. If you think you can prove
the helmet vortex thing, write to your state MP.

SCotty


--
scotty72

[Graeme Dods]

Again, you're reading stuff into what I said that wasn't there. If you
still hold your opinion after reading the links I posted, then fair
enough (you did at least read some of it right?), I'll no longer try
to change your opinion and none of your ranting is likely to change
mine.

Graeme

[Theo Bekkers]

scotty72 wrote:

> All psycho effect rubbish is speculation (at best). What is undeniable
> is that if your head hits the road without a helmet it is far more
> likely to cracked that if you had one on.

> So, to the others - Stop making excuses for breaking the law (or
> risking your kids' lives). Helmets are law. If you think you can prove
> the helmet vortex thing, write to your state MP.

So you've decided to set an example for your kids and wear the bike helmet
in the car?

Theo

[Graeme Dods]

On Jun 11, 11:02 am, "Resound" > wrote:

> Interesting. I've seen a graph of road fatalities for Victoria from somewhat
> before the introduction of the requirement to wear seat belts. The
> introduction of that law was one of three things that caused the annual
> death figure to nosedive (the other two were speed cameras and booze
> busses).

Would that be the one on page 24 of this -
http://www.i95coalition.org/PDF/Meetings/Annual_meeting/2004/2004_12_IEF_Safety_Meyer.pdf
?

The graph shows a general downwards trend which may well have been
related to some or all of the safety initiatives, but it's interesting
to note that it shows no data prior to the introduction of compulsory
belts so we can't use the graph to draw any conclusion on that
specific initiative (there could have been a massive drop , a massive
rise or no change in fatalities from previous years, we don't know).
You may have seen a graph which does show the data though, so you may
be in a better position to judge.

Also, one thing to note is most of the initiatives are negative
reinforcements to a driver's behaviour, i.e. "If I break the law
(speed, drive drunk, run a red light) then I'm more likely to get
caught and punished, therefore I'll drive slower/drink less/stop
running red lights." Seatbelts etc. are a positive reinforcement "Wear
this, you'll be safer" and has the reported effect of increasing
riskier driving styles (phrased that way just to keep certain people
happy).

> Unless we are for some reason ridiculously anomalous I'd be
> interested to know how they arrived at the conclusion that seatbelts would
> cause an increase in fatalities when our experience so clearly showed a
> radical decrease.

I've heard many Australians say that Victorians are extremely
anomalous :)

The studies I've read seemed to use pretty sound analyses. I can't
comment on the Victorian figures as it's not possible to show
methodology on something as simple as a graph. I'd be interested in
seeing the data behind it if anyone knows where it can be found.


Graeme

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:04:50 -0700
Graeme Dods > wrote:
>
> The graph shows a general downwards trend which may well have been
> related to some or all of the safety initiatives, but it's interesting

And there's the problem. They keep changing more than one variable!

In Sydney there's a tricky road. It snakes steeply down the side of a
hill, very steep, lots of tight corners, at the end is a few metres of
flat and a set of lights.

At the top, a couple of hundred yards from the steep curvy bit is a
speed camera.

At the same time the camera was installed, they resurfaced the road
and added concrete barriers to separate the up and down traffic, plus
widened a corner or two.

So tell me... there has been a drop in fatal accidents on that road.
What caused the drop?

The Minister for Roads says it was the speed camera.

Zebee

[Resound[_2_]]

"Graeme Dods" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 11, 11:02 am, "Resound" > wrote:
>
>> Interesting. I've seen a graph of road fatalities for Victoria from
>> somewhat
>> before the introduction of the requirement to wear seat belts. The
>> introduction of that law was one of three things that caused the annual
>> death figure to nosedive (the other two were speed cameras and booze
>> busses).
>
> Would that be the one on page 24 of this -
> http://www.i95coalition.org/PDF/Meetings/Annual_meeting/2004/2004_12_IEF_Safety_Meyer.pdf
> ?
>
> The graph shows a general downwards trend which may well have been
> related to some or all of the safety initiatives, but it's interesting
> to note that it shows no data prior to the introduction of compulsory
> belts so we can't use the graph to draw any conclusion on that
> specific initiative (there could have been a massive drop , a massive
> rise or no change in fatalities from previous years, we don't know).
> You may have seen a graph which does show the data though, so you may
> be in a better position to judge.
>
> Also, one thing to note is most of the initiatives are negative
> reinforcements to a driver's behaviour, i.e. "If I break the law
> (speed, drive drunk, run a red light) then I'm more likely to get
> caught and punished, therefore I'll drive slower/drink less/stop
> running red lights." Seatbelts etc. are a positive reinforcement "Wear
> this, you'll be safer" and has the reported effect of increasing
> riskier driving styles (phrased that way just to keep certain people
> happy).
>
>> Unless we are for some reason ridiculously anomalous I'd be
>> interested to know how they arrived at the conclusion that seatbelts
>> would
>> cause an increase in fatalities when our experience so clearly showed a
>> radical decrease.
>
> I've heard many Australians say that Victorians are extremely
> anomalous :)
>
> The studies I've read seemed to use pretty sound analyses. I can't
> comment on the Victorian figures as it's not possible to show
> methodology on something as simple as a graph. I'd be interested in
> seeing the data behind it if anyone knows where it can be found.
>
What I saw graphed the same thing, so it does look familiar of course. I
forgot that speed cameras and booze busses were part of the same drop, I
just had them in my mind as apparently effective things due to that graph. I
can't remember whether the graph I saw extended back before 1970; I suspect
not, to be honest.

I suppose it would be possible to posit from the same graph that the general
downward trend is from progressively improving tyre compunds and suspension
design and that the big dip in 1990 corresponds with the marked increase in
availability of ABS and other active safety measures and thus conclude that
active safety is more important than passive safety.

[Theo Bekkers]

Bleve wrote:

> And how likely is his head to hit something (if wearing a seatbelt
> properly) if he crashes at 40km/h and comes to a dead stop? Not very,
> I'd have thought.

Very likely indeed. That door pillar is very close to your head and is the
cause of most head injuries in cars. If you're in a steel cage and it hits
something at 40 km/h, what you will hit is the interior of your cage. Very
few vehicle impacts are of the straight-into-a-brick-wall variety. The
vehicle will in most cases be deflected sideways. If an oncoming vehicle is
involved, both vehicle will most likely be deflected to the left. The
initial deflection will cause the driver's head to impact the right door
pillar, the whiplash reaction will cause the passenger's head to impact the
left door pillar, no matter how well they are belted in. Some cars are now
being fitted with door pillar air-bags. A cheap foam helmet would be much
more effective, and a lot cheaper.

Theo

[Bleve]

On Jun 14, 10:03 am, "Theo Bekkers" > wrote:
> Bleve wrote:
> > And how likely is his head to hit something (if wearing a seatbelt
> > properly) if he crashes at 40km/h and comes to a dead stop? Not very,
> > I'd have thought.
>
> Very likely indeed. That door pillar is very close to your head and is the
> cause of most head injuries in cars. If you're in a steel cage and it hits
> something at 40 km/h, what you will hit is the interior of your cage.

Presumably that would be influenced by the type and design of the
internal restraint. My experience with crashing cars was somewhat
atypical, wearing a 4 point harness and running directly into things
though, but at moderately high speed.

> Very
> few vehicle impacts are of the straight-into-a-brick-wall variety. The
> vehicle will in most cases be deflected sideways. If an oncoming vehicle is
> involved, both vehicle will most likely be deflected to the left. The
> initial deflection will cause the driver's head to impact the right door
> pillar, the whiplash reaction will cause the passenger's head to impact the
> left door pillar, no matter how well they are belted in. Some cars are now
> being fitted with door pillar air-bags. A cheap foam helmet would be much
> more effective, and a lot cheaper.

Or even just a bit of care with the design of the car interior.
Padding hard surfaces in likely impact zones, for example. A mate of
mine has a series 3 Landrover, and it only has lap belts, and the
interior is a mess of exposed metal of all shapes, sizes and
dimensions such that if you actually hit something in it, you'd get
minced by the interior. We load it up with bikes or skis etc, and I
hope that we never hit anything when we go on trips, because it'd be -
very- nasty to crash in.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:10:34 -0700
Bleve > wrote:
> Padding hard surfaces in likely impact zones, for example. A mate of
> mine has a series 3 Landrover, and it only has lap belts, and the
> interior is a mess of exposed metal of all shapes, sizes and
> dimensions such that if you actually hit something in it, you'd get
> minced by the interior. We load it up with bikes or skis etc, and I
> hope that we never hit anything when we go on trips, because it'd be -
> very- nasty to crash in.

So, at least one manufacturer is taking the steel spike in the
steering wheel method of safety engineering seriously!

Of course if all that happens is you *hope* you don't crash (instead
of actively avoiding same) then there goes another great idea.

Zebee

[Bleve]

On Jun 14, 12:06 pm, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:10:34 -0700
>
> Bleve > wrote:
> > Padding hard surfaces in likely impact zones, for example. A mate of
> > mine has a series 3 Landrover, and it only has lap belts, and the
> > interior is a mess of exposed metal of all shapes, sizes and
> > dimensions such that if you actually hit something in it, you'd get
> > minced by the interior. We load it up with bikes or skis etc, and I
> > hope that we never hit anything when we go on trips, because it'd be -
> > very- nasty to crash in.
>
> So, at least one manufacturer is taking the steel spike in the
> steering wheel method of safety engineering seriously!
>
> Of course if all that happens is you *hope* you don't crash (instead
> of actively avoiding same) then there goes another great idea.

I'm not the one driving it.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:11:41 -0700
Bleve > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 12:06 pm, Zebee Johnstone > wrote:
>> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:10:34 -0700
>>
>> So, at least one manufacturer is taking the steel spike in the
>> steering wheel method of safety engineering seriously!
>>
>> Of course if all that happens is you *hope* you don't crash (instead
>> of actively avoiding same) then there goes another great idea.
>
> I'm not the one driving it.

does the driver notice and feel suitable wary of the SteelSpikeSafety(tm)
or do they think that it is one of the charms of a Landy?

Zebee