Helmet debate, helmet debate

Jules wrote:
This report in the BMJ was _years_ ago wasn't it?

Yep, don't count on The Age to come up with original content.

Sounds good to me, though ;-) Bloody helmets... flame suit on

See I knew you were intelligent when I met you :-) (against compulsion,
not against helmets).
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Gemma_k wrote:
Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the people
walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are larger, it
indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the likelihood of
collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears that motorists
adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling. There
is an urgent need for further exploration of the human factors controlling
motorist behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling.

There's overlap with second generation traffic engineering here? As I
understand it the point of second generation traffic engineering is to
remove most of the `guaranteed' road space for motorists forcing them to
think about how they're interacting with other traffic.

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feat...ign/index.html
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Gemma_k wrote:
"Resound" wrote in message
...

I wonder if there's a volume of bicycle traffic, a critical mass if you

will, where motorist behaviour changes substantially. There's probably a
point where it stop being considered the behaviour of the radical nutbag
and starts being something that most or at least a lot of people do.

There's a few theories why this phenomenon works. I think you picked it, but
I don't think it's a 'critical mass' thing (smeed's law says it's not a
linear relationship either)
Theories:
One is that there's more people that actually ride, who also drive.
Therefore they understand and can 'read' cyclists' behavious better.
One is that it's like a herd of beasts - there's only a certin number of
lions (drivers) out to get you (make mistakes), the larger the number/herd
of beasts the less chance an individual one will get picked out and eaten
(run into)
And the one I think is more likely - that motorists always seeing cyclists
on a road or junction begin to expect them there, and reacting correctly and
safely becomes a subconscious driving task rather than a conscious one.
But it's more likely to be a combination of all three....
further work reqd :-)

Another possibility, more cyclists means less drivers which leads to
less destructive potential on the roads.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Bleve Wrote:


They make you wear a seatbelt too.

seatbelts on bikes! Awesome!!

another bit of CF bling


--
flyingdutch

Bleve wrote:
Gemma_k wrote:

"endroll" wrote in message
...

from recent personal experience....take cyclist, make him fall head
first into ground at 37km/hr, have another rider on bike run over head
- take away helmet - what next?

yuh sure helmets are useless....yup yup....get rid of them!

It's not that they're useless, it's the fact you're forced to wear one that
is the point here.
For every cyclist who hits head on the ground and gets run over, there's
probably 1000 people sitting on a sofa getting ready to have a heart attack
from obesity, after having diabetes their whole adult lives.

One could further argue, that 'making' people wear helmets automatically
makes the practice of cycling look inherantly dangerous... because it must
be, the government makes you wear a helmet!!!


They make you wear a seatbelt too.

Oh yes, the common seatbelt justification. Seatbelts are an undoubted
boon to motoring safety...or are they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Wilfred Kazoks wrote:
Well a few weeks ago I saw some cyclist ,who's name i've forgotten, on the
6 o'clock news, in a race run onto the soft shoulder and lose it. He hit the
road hard and fast. I decided to slo-mo it and watch the moment of impact as
his head hit the road. Purely out of scientific interest.

I'm glad it wasn't my skull. I'm sure he's glad he had a helmet.

I've had four significant head accidents when not wearing a helmet and
pulled through just fine. That proves nothing.

If wearing a helmet makes you feel safer go for it but why force
everyone else to for no demonstrateable benefit?

There isn't a single study to my knowledge that has proven helmets help
reduce cyclist injury rates or fatality rates.--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

"Euan" wrote in message
...
Wilfred Kazoks wrote:
Well a few weeks ago I saw some cyclist ,who's name i've forgotten, on
the 6 o'clock news, in a race run onto the soft shoulder and lose it. He
hit the road hard and fast. I decided to slo-mo it and watch the moment
of impact as his head hit the road. Purely out of scientific interest.

I'm glad it wasn't my skull. I'm sure he's glad he had a helmet.

I've had four significant head accidents when not wearing a helmet and
pulled through just fine. That proves nothing.

If wearing a helmet makes you feel safer go for it but why force everyone
else to for no demonstrateable benefit?

There isn't a single study to my knowledge that has proven helmets help
reduce cyclist injury rates or fatality rates.--

There's actually some other research going on about the design of hemlets
and how they can increase some types of rotational injury.
Big fat helmet to prevent impact or penetration injuries are of course just
bigger levers to slosh your brains around faster in a rotational injury.
You win some, you lose some. helmet or not!

Gemma

Gemma_k wrote:

The helmet stuff comes in to the mix because there was an approx 30% instant
drop in the numbers of cyclists at the time of mandatory helmet wearing.
And now she's published another article, which I can't access until I get to
work on Monday..... :-)

From BFA Mail List:

On 25/03/2006, at 5:45 PM, Dorothy Robinson wrote:

Temporary links can be found at:
http://web.aanet.com.au/d-e/BMJ/Robinson_06_BMJ.pdf
http://web.aanet.com.au/d-e/BMJ/Hage...MJ_HL_resp.pdf

My draft comments on Hagel's arguments
http://web.aanet.com.au/d-e/BMJ/BMJ_PS.doc

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

TimC wrote:

On 2006-03-24, SuzieB (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
In da Age today... http://tinyurl.com/g2ml7
...
But some researchers have suggested Ms Robinson's conclusions
"crumble" under scrutiny.

Darn, small article not going into enough depth. I would love to have
read a bit more about these researchers, and the nature of the
crumbling.


From BFA Mail List:

On 25/03/2006, at 5:45 PM, Dorothy Robinson wrote:

Temporary links can be found at:
http://web.aanet.com.au/d-e/BMJ/Robinson_06_BMJ.pdf
http://web.aanet.com.au/d-e/BMJ/Hage...MJ_HL_resp.pdf

My draft comments on Hagel's arguments
http://web.aanet.com.au/d-e/BMJ/BMJ_PS.doc


--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

"cfsmtb" wrote in message
...

Resound Wrote:
We don't need helmets. We just need to replace everything with exact
replicas made out of nerf.

Why not use fimo? Nice polymer clay and great range of bright colors.


--
cfsmtb


Hell, use both. Sprinkle beanbags around liberally for good measure...there
needs to be more readily available community beanbags.