|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 04:15 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 |