A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old February 5th 09, 10:03 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,985
Default Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'

spindrift wrote:
On Feb 4, 7:22 am, JNugent wrote:
OG wrote:
... You must surely be aware that
compusory wearing of helmets has no effect on head injury rates.

When was that tried?



Australia, in the link above.


Link?
Ads
  #72  
Old February 5th 09, 10:59 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
A.Dazzle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'

"OG" wrote...

"A.Dazzle" wrote in message
...
"OG" wrote...
snipperty
I trust you will join us in fighting this pointless imposition,
particularly since you are aware that there is no correlation between
compulsory helmet usage and head injury rates.


And there's something, somewhere, showing there *is* no correlation?
Or is it that there *is not* something, somewhere, showing that there is?
Please let me have the link for either, or both.
TIA


DL Robinson "No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the
wearing of helmets" published in BMJ in 2006 (BMJ, 2006;332:722.)

It is currently available here
http://www.geocities.com/velosecurite/art/6/ac722.pdf

It's interesting, but what does it prove?

The very first sentence says:
'Case-control studies suggest that cyclists who choose to wear
helmets have fewer head injuries than non-wearers.'
That's reiterated as the first of the summary points.
That suggests to me that she is suggesting that studies suggest
that helmet wearers have fewer head injuries than non-wearers.
OK, she says other figures show it makes no difference.
OK, she goes on to suggest that the people who *choose* to
wear helmets may be different from the people *forced* to
wear helmets.
Oh, and maybe the control studies should have considered...
And governments should think about...
anything not related to the enforced use of helmets

But I'm still stuck with:
wearing helmets = fewer head injuries.
Is there something, somewhere (not involving long-term mortality,
or obesity, or cost-benefit analysis, etc, etc), that says:
not wearing helmets = fewer head injuries?
Or is it just, 'It probably makes no difference, so we shouldn't
be obliged by law to wear them!'
Or, 'What I do with my head is my business!'
Or, 'It's the nanny-state gone mad!'
Or, 'I am not a number, I am a free man!'

One thing definitely worries me...
Fig 3 shows a graph related to '... head injuries in accidents not
involving motor vehicles ...'. NOT involving motor vehicles!
What use is that then? When she says that, 'Collisions with motor
vehicles cause nearly all deaths and debilitating head injuries
among cyclists.'
Wonder if those figures were included in her 10,000+?

But is this the best the anti-helmet camp can offer?
Surely there must be compelling figures (one way, or the other)
from, say, statistics for motorcycle helmets?

--
A. Dazzle.


  #73  
Old February 5th 09, 11:13 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Matt B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,927
Default Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'

Dave Larrington wrote:
judith wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:45:58 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

On 4 Feb, 16:41, francis wrote:
On Feb 4, 3:43 pm, Martin wrote:



bugbear wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:
So it goes.
http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc
Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?
Many thanks for posting that.
It does of course remind us all that cycling can be very
dangerous.
I think you'll find it's being hit by a car
that's dangerous.
Being hit by an SUV is a lot more dangerous than being hit by an
average car. I wonder why the MP considers it acceptable to drive
a Land Rover through an area where lots of pedestrians congregate.
Surely if you have a collision such his one, and you are driving
an SUV, this should be taken into account and you should be held
even more liable than if you had been driving a small car.
Do we have SUV's in the UK?

Why should it not be acceptable for the MP concerned to drive a Land
Rover?
It could be argued that because of a higher driving position he
would be able to see better.

Yes, as a tory, he should be used to looking down upon people.
But, in practice ...

"Last October [2005] the BMJ published an American study showing that
4x4s were more dangerous to pedestrians than normal cars. Tests
showed that people who were hit by the vehicles in accidents were
four times more likely to die than those hit by other cars."




....... in America.


Please explain the difference between being hit by a two-and-a-half-tonne
4x4 in the USA and being hit by a two-and-a-half-tonne 4x4 in Parliament
Square.


Traditional American SUVs are not the same thing as modern European
4x4s, so any study carried out in the U.S. cannot be taken as evidence
of what might happen elsewhere.

For one thing traditional American SUVs are not necessarily four-wheel
drive. Additionally, being *utility* vehicles based on ancient
commercial-vehicle rear-wheel-drive cart-spring chassis, they do not
have to comply with all the recent safety regulations now associated
with "normal" passenger cars. They will be built to take knocks, will
be equipped with _functional_ (not cosmetic) bull bars, and will /not/
be expected to crumple.

OTOH, modern European 4x4s, such as the Range Rover, are generally
"luxury" passenger cars (not "utility" vehicles), /are/ four-wheel
drive, are monocoque, will have in-built traction-control,
stability-control and ABS, and /do/ have to comply with safety
regulations, including those to do with crumple zones and pedestrian
safety, and are subject to NCAP testing.

--
Matt B
  #74  
Old February 5th 09, 12:03 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:02:18 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

wrote:

A Range Rover is not a "cross-country" vehicle.


Then what's this one doing?

http://www.ajeepthing.com/images/lan...xperience2.jpg



A bicycle is not a vehicle designed for riding on pavements - but they
do.


judith

--

Cyclists have been known to ride on the pavement and this occasionally
brings them into conflict with pedestrians. This conflict has been
known to cause injury and even, in very rare cases, death. (Guy
Chapman)

  #75  
Old February 5th 09, 01:11 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Dave Larrington
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,069
Default Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'

wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:02:18 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

wrote:

A Range Rover is not a "cross-country" vehicle.


Then what's this one doing?

http://www.ajeepthing.com/images/lan...xperience2.jpg



A bicycle is not a vehicle designed for riding on pavements - but they
do.


If a Range Rover was not designed with off-road performance in mind, do you
*really* think they'd go to all the trouble and expense of fitting a
permanent
four-wheel drive system, Terrain Response® (which "optimises the settings
for gearbox, throttle, air suspension and traction control to suit tarmac,
sand, snow, mud, boulders and more", by the way), air suspension with, and I
quote,
"height settings for extreme off-road use", electronic centre differential,
etc. etc. They don't design that sort of stuff into Jaguars or the
Mercedes-Benz S class.

Or is Land-Rover's claim that its "off-road capability across all terrains
and conditions takes it miles ahead of the field" merely a happy
coincidence?

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
I started out with nothing and I still have most of it left.



  #76  
Old February 5th 09, 02:55 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 564
Default Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'


"A.Dazzle" wrote in message
...
"OG" wrote...

"A.Dazzle" wrote in message
...
"OG" wrote...
snipperty
I trust you will join us in fighting this pointless imposition,
particularly since you are aware that there is no correlation between
compulsory helmet usage and head injury rates.


And there's something, somewhere, showing there *is* no correlation?
Or is it that there *is not* something, somewhere, showing that there
is?
Please let me have the link for either, or both.
TIA


DL Robinson "No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the
wearing of helmets" published in BMJ in 2006 (BMJ, 2006;332:722.)

It is currently available here
http://www.geocities.com/velosecurite/art/6/ac722.pdf

It's interesting, but what does it prove?


Two things really
- on the micro scale (case control studies): helmets do not *in themselves*
offer the level of protection often claimed.
- on the large scale (whole population studies): compulsory use of helmets
does not lead to the significant reduction in head injury rates that
proponents expect.

The very first sentence says:
'Case-control studies suggest that cyclists who choose to wear
helmets have fewer head injuries than non-wearers.'
That's reiterated as the first of the summary points.
That suggests to me that she is suggesting that studies suggest
that helmet wearers have fewer head injuries than non-wearers.
OK, she says other figures show it makes no difference.
OK, she goes on to suggest that the people who *choose* to
wear helmets may be different from the people *forced* to
wear helmets.
Oh, and maybe the control studies should have considered...
And governments should think about...
anything not related to the enforced use of helmets

But I'm still stuck with:
wearing helmets = fewer head injuries.


Yes, but you'll also see that those cyclists also have fewer non-head
injuries, so whatever causes the fewer head injuries is not simply the
protective effect of the helmet itself.

and we are also stuck with:
more people wearing helmets =/= fewer head injuries
In terms of preventing injury to cyclists, compulsion is an ineffective
strategy.

Is there something, somewhere (not involving long-term mortality,
or obesity, or cost-benefit analysis, etc, etc), that says:
not wearing helmets = fewer head injuries?


Is that needed ? I don't think anyone is talking of banning them. On the
other hand, it does seem that compulsion is not an effective strategy for
making cycling safer.

Or is it just, 'It probably makes no difference, so we shouldn't
be obliged by law to wear them!'
Or, 'What I do with my head is my business!'
Or, 'It's the nanny-state gone mad!'
Or, 'I am not a number, I am a free man!'


No doubt there are some who argue along those lines, but we should be more
concerned with the simple question 'is compulsion going to be effective?',
to which the answer appears to be 'No'.

One thing definitely worries me...
Fig 3 shows a graph related to '... head injuries in accidents not
involving motor vehicles ...'. NOT involving motor vehicles!
What use is that then? When she says that, 'Collisions with motor
vehicles cause nearly all deaths and debilitating head injuries
among cyclists.'
Wonder if those figures were included in her 10,000+?


Looking at the reference for that graph, it relates to a review of the
effect of NZ law change in 1994. Povey et al claimed a 28% reduction in head
injuries as a result of compulsion being brought in. At the same time that
helmet compulsion was brought in, other road safety initiatives were being
introduced such as speed controls and anti drink-drive campaigns. DL
Robinson points out that Povey's claims did not appear to take into account
the effects of these other initiatives and looks at the long term trends
before and after compulsion. To isolate the effects of the cycle helmets law
as a single factor, she has looked see if there was any significant effect
in accidents NOT involving motor vehicles. Hence the graph.

But is this the best the anti-helmet camp can offer?
Surely there must be compelling figures (one way, or the other)
from, say, statistics for motorcycle helmets?


Let's see if we can review the figures in this paper first, before we start
looking elsewhere.

  #77  
Old February 5th 09, 03:03 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 564
Default Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'


"JNugent" wrote in message
...
OG wrote:

... You must surely be aware that compusory wearing of helmets has no
effect on head injury rates.


When was that tried?


New Zealand, some Australian states, bits of Canada

DL Robinson "No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing
of helmets" published in BMJ in 2006 (BMJ, 2006;332:722.)

It is currently available here
http://www.geocities.com/velosecurite/art/6/ac722.pdf

See my discussion with A Dazzle (above)



  #78  
Old February 5th 09, 03:13 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Alan Braggins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,869
Default Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'

In article , Dave Larrington wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:02:18 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:
wrote:
A Range Rover is not a "cross-country" vehicle.
Then what's this one doing?
http://www.ajeepthing.com/images/lan...xperience2.jpg

A bicycle is not a vehicle designed for riding on pavements - but they
do.


If a Range Rover was not designed with off-road performance in mind, do you
*really* think they'd go to all the trouble and expense of fitting a
permanent four-wheel drive system


It's judith. Of course she doesn't really think, so long as she can
provoke a response.
  #79  
Old February 5th 09, 05:05 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'

On 05 Feb 2009 14:13:13 +0000 (GMT), (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

In article , Dave Larrington wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:02:18 -0000, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:
wrote:
A Range Rover is not a "cross-country" vehicle.
Then what's this one doing?
http://www.ajeepthing.com/images/lan...xperience2.jpg
A bicycle is not a vehicle designed for riding on pavements - but they
do.


If a Range Rover was not designed with off-road performance in mind, do you
*really* think they'd go to all the trouble and expense of fitting a
permanent four-wheel drive system


It's judith. Of course she doesn't really think, so long as she can
provoke a response.



Well done Bilbo.

You are a little star.

Guaranteed to jump on the band-wagon with a one liner - but sweet fa
to contribute.

Keep up the good work.


judith

--


Compulsory helmet wearing is a 'safety measure' whose costs fall
entirely on the cyclist; no government is spending required. It is an
attractive quick fix. Guy Chapman
  #80  
Old February 5th 09, 06:22 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
OG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 564
Default Tory MP in 4x4 fined for 'momentary lapse of concentration'


wrote in message
...

Guaranteed to jump on the band-wagon with a one liner - but sweet fa
to contribute.


!


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Three reasons to hate cameron, red light jumper, smoker AND a tory! spindrift UK 42 January 30th 08 05:15 PM
Tory leader NOTICES CROSSAN EV? U.S.piggybank UK 0 July 26th 06 09:16 PM
Tory Leadership Contender refutes cycling rumour? [email protected] UK 17 October 28th 05 10:02 AM
Tory T injured, Jeff J's Belgium Commuter.. hippy Australia 0 April 1st 05 01:59 AM
Time lapse dropology TonyMelton Unicycling 8 May 12th 04 12:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.