Cycling and your child leaflet - update?
Colin McKenzie
production was by Simon Bennett, who has indicated willingness to do
updates but doesn't read this group any more.
I want to get some printed, but would like to suggest some minor changes
first. I hope the group will concur or suggest improvements.
The leaflet is available at
<www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/cyclingchild.htm>
The changes I propose are:
Page 2, grey background, para 2. Reword sentences 2 and 3 to:
National records show it to be, mile for mile, about as safe as walking.
While accidents can happen, they are rare: there have been no child
cyclist fatalities in the whole of London since 2004 (as at March 2008).
[National stats - slight deterioration in cycling figures compared to
walking; latest TfL stats on deaths, updated to March 08.]
Page 4, green background, para 1. Reword to:
The child should be able to stand astride the bike with both feet flat
on the ground and the knees slightly bent, and when sitting on the
saddle should be able to touch the ground with toes of both feet.
[Standover height, in my view, should include a little clearance at the
crotch.]
Page 4, yellow background, para 3. Reword para 5 to:
When the rear brake is applied and the bike pulled back, the front wheel
should rise
[A more stringent test - it's easy to get the wheel to skid.]
What does the panel think?
NB: suggestions for changes to helmet wording will not be entertained!
Colin McKenzie
--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.
Tom Crispin
<ne...@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:
>In happier times, this group produced this leaflet for parents. Main
>production was by Simon Bennett, who has indicated willingness to do
>updates but doesn't read this group any more.
>
>I want to get some printed, but would like to suggest some minor changes
>first. I hope the group will concur or suggest improvements.
>
>The leaflet is available at
><www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/cyclingchild.htm>
>
>The changes I propose are:
>Page 2, grey background, para 2. Reword sentences 2 and 3 to:
>National records show it to be, mile for mile, about as safe as walking.
>While accidents can happen, they are rare: there have been no child
>cyclist fatalities in the whole of London since 2004 (as at March 2008).
Fine
>[National stats - slight deterioration in cycling figures compared to
>walking; latest TfL stats on deaths, updated to March 08.]
>
>Page 4, green background, para 1. Reword to:
>The child should be able to stand astride the bike with both feet flat
>on the ground and the knees slightly bent, and when sitting on the
>saddle should be able to touch the ground with toes of both feet.
Fine - but perhaps better still:
The child should be able to stand astride the bike *comfortably* with
both feet flat on the ground...
(I'm not sure that it is necessary to be able to touch the ground with
the toes of both feet when sitting on the saddle, but it is probably a
good idea for child cyclists.)
>[Standover height, in my view, should include a little clearance at the
>crotch.]
>
>Page 4, yellow background, para 3. Reword para 5 to:
>When the rear brake is applied and the bike pulled back, the front wheel
>should rise
Much better. That is the test I have taught children to use for the
past year or so..
>[A more stringent test - it's easy to get the wheel to skid.]
>
>What does the panel think?
>
>NB: suggestions for changes to helmet wording will not be entertained!
I use this wording on my website:
No special clothing or safety equipment is necessary or required to
ride a bicycle, but cycling can be made more comfortable by your
clothing choices.
Wear comfortable clothing in layers so it can be removed or put on.
Any loose clothing or laces should be tucked away so it cannot be
caught in moving parts. Hands get cold and cannot go in pockets while
cycling - bring gloves, padded ones reduce strain on the wrist when
cycling on uneven road surfaces. Shorts or leggings allow the legs to
move freely, padded cycle shorts or padded cycle tights make sitting
in a saddle for long periods more comfortable and can help reduce
chaffing. Light coloured or high visibility clothing can make you
more visible to other road users. Wearing a correctly fitted helmet
cannot reduce the risk of a fall or collision, but may reduce the
severity of a direct impact to the top part of the head. Full face
helmets reduce a cyclist’s field of vision and should be avoided.
Bring a spare inner tube (two spare tubes are recommended) and the
tools to fix a puncture; on family rides and youth cycle rides the
ride leader will bring spare tubes suitable for most sizes of
children’s bikes. Pack some spare clothing and be prepared to remove
some clothing, even in cold weather cycling can be hot work! Pack a
waterproof if a shower is likely, sunglasses, a hat or sun tan lotion
if it is sunny. Bring water, snacks and lunch unless buying at a café
and some emergency money (£5 in coins is recommended for unaccompanied
children and young people). Bring a good lock - D locks are the most
secure type. The best place to store equipment, food and spare
clothing is on the bike in a pannier bag or a bar bag, otherwise a
rucksack or drawstring bag will do but will make cycling less
comfortable.
Peter Clinch
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:45:01 +0000, Colin McKenzie
>> The changes I propose are:
>> Page 2, grey background, para 2. Reword sentences 2 and 3 to:
>> National records show it to be, mile for mile, about as safe as walking.
>> While accidents can happen, they are rare: there have been no child
>> cyclist fatalities in the whole of London since 2004 (as at March 2008).
>
> Fine
Looks good to me too.
>> Page 4, green background, para 1. Reword to:
>> The child should be able to stand astride the bike with both feet flat
>> on the ground and the knees slightly bent, and when sitting on the
>> saddle should be able to touch the ground with toes of both feet.
>
> Fine - but perhaps better still:
> The child should be able to stand astride the bike *comfortably* with
> both feet flat on the ground...
I like Tom's here, it amounts to about the same thing but is much
more concise and easy to understand.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Tom Crispin
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:45:01 +0000, Colin McKenzie
>
>>> The changes I propose are:
>>> Page 2, grey background, para 2. Reword sentences 2 and 3 to:
>>> National records show it to be, mile for mile, about as safe as walking.
>>> While accidents can happen, they are rare: there have been no child
>>> cyclist fatalities in the whole of London since 2004 (as at March 2008).
>>
>> Fine
>
>Looks good to me too.
I've had second thoughts...
Is the (as at March 2008) bit necessary: it sounds a bit like we are
waiting for a child cyclist to be killed. I am convinced that there
have been no child cyclists killed on London's roads since March (I
would probably hear of such a case within hours of such a tragic
event) and it doesn't need to be said "at the time of going to print"
as that is obvious.
Veena, at TfL's Centre of Cycling Excellence, advised me not even to
mention the word 'death' or 'fatality' as it only has negative images.
'Safe', 'healthy' and 'fun' are the words to use.
Colin McKenzie
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:45:01 +0000, Colin McKenzie
>>> The child should be able to stand astride the bike with both feet
>>> flat on the ground and the knees slightly bent, and when sitting on
>>> the saddle should be able to touch the ground with toes of both feet.
>>
>> Fine - but perhaps better still:
>> The child should be able to stand astride the bike *comfortably* with
>> both feet flat on the ground...
>
> I like Tom's here, it amounts to about the same thing but is much more
> concise and easy to understand.
>
Colin McKenzie
>>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:45:01 +0000, Colin McKenzie
>>>> The changes I propose are:
>>>> Page 2, grey background, para 2. Reword sentences 2 and 3 to:
>>>> National records show it to be, mile for mile, about as safe as walking.
>>>> While accidents can happen, they are rare: there have been no child
>>>> cyclist fatalities in the whole of London since 2004 (as at March 2008).
> I've had second thoughts...
>
> Is the (as at March 2008) bit necessary: it sounds a bit like we are
> waiting for a child cyclist to be killed. I am convinced that there
> have been no child cyclists killed on London's roads since March (I
> would probably hear of such a case within hours of such a tragic
> event) and it doesn't need to be said "at the time of going to print"
> as that is obvious.
I would be happy to leave it out. But the date of printing would have to
go on, somewhere reasonably prominent.
> Veena, at TfL's Centre of Cycling Excellence, advised me not even to
> mention the word 'death' or 'fatality' as it only has negative images.
> 'Safe', 'healthy' and 'fun' are the words to use.
Generally I would agree, but this statistic is worth proclaiming even
though it does use the F word.
How about adding on page 2, yellow background, as the last item,
Be fun!
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> said in
<alu9k4p17dcqhot7t...@4ax.com>:
>Is the (as at March 2008) bit necessary: it sounds a bit like we are
>waiting for a child cyclist to be killed. I am convinced that there
>have been no child cyclists killed on London's roads since March (I
>would probably hear of such a case within hours of such a tragic
>event) and it doesn't need to be said "at the time of going to print"
>as that is obvious.
Agreed. Of course there may be a tragedy between now and Jan 1, but
we are nearly at the end of term and the chances of such an event
escaping the notice of you, the TfL cycling people, CTC and Bob
Davis' contacts in the RSO network is indeed slim.
>Veena, at TfL's Centre of Cycling Excellence, advised me not even to
>mention the word 'death' or 'fatality' as it only has negative images.
>'Safe', 'healthy' and 'fun' are the words to use.
Agreed doubleplus.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt>
Phil Armstrong
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:34:13 +0000, Tom Crispin
>>mention the word 'death' or 'fatality' as it only has negative images.
>>'Safe', 'healthy' and 'fun' are the words to use.
>
> Agreed doubleplus.
Absolutely. There's no need to quote any accident figures at
all. *Any* mention of accidents will simply concentrate people's minds
on the downside risks.
"About as safe as walking" is honest, and lets people make their own
judgements as to whether that's an acceptable level of risk for them
or not.
Phil
--
http://www.kantaka.co.uk/ .oOo. public key: http://www.kantaka.co.uk/gpg.txt
Tom Crispin
<ne...@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:45:01 +0000, Colin McKenzie
>>>>> The changes I propose are:
>>>>> Page 2, grey background, para 2. Reword sentences 2 and 3 to:
>>>>> National records show it to be, mile for mile, about as safe as walking.
>>>>> While accidents can happen, they are rare: there have been no child
>>>>> cyclist fatalities in the whole of London since 2004 (as at March 2008).
>
>> I've had second thoughts...
>>
>> Is the (as at March 2008) bit necessary: it sounds a bit like we are
>> waiting for a child cyclist to be killed. I am convinced that there
>> have been no child cyclists killed on London's roads since March (I
>> would probably hear of such a case within hours of such a tragic
>> event) and it doesn't need to be said "at the time of going to print"
>> as that is obvious.
>
>I would be happy to leave it out. But the date of printing would have to
>go on, somewhere reasonably prominent.
>
>> Veena, at TfL's Centre of Cycling Excellence, advised me not even to
>> mention the word 'death' or 'fatality' as it only has negative images.
>> 'Safe', 'healthy' and 'fun' are the words to use.
>
>Generally I would agree, but this statistic is worth proclaiming even
>though it does use the F word.
OK - I realise why I've been a little confused.
The version of the leaflet printed by TfL is slightly different to the
version on Peter Clinch's website:
Page 2 Grey background
Para 1 - same
Para 2 - Cycling is a safe healthy activity which mile for mile is
every bit as safe as walking. The long term health benefits of
regular exercise, especially among children, are well proven by health
professionals, and cycling to school is an excellent way to ensure
your child has that regular exercise. Young children can be
accompanied on their bikes to school by parents or carers; older
children can cycle with friends or independently.
Para 3 - same
Para 4 - There is no legal requirement to wear a cycle helmet, but it
may be a condition of your child's cycle trainer's insurance. Please
note that helmets are not designed to withstand high speed impacts and
it is important that they are fitted correctly.
(I hate the wording of that final paragraph.)
>How about adding on page 2, yellow background, as the last item,
>Be fun!
Good.
Toom Tabard
All road users are aware of the ability of some cyclists to achieve
perfection in camouflage, particularly in the current dull weather and
dark evenings. Whilst 'no special clothing' is correct per se, high
visibility, including in clothing, and particularly fluorescent/
reflective jackets, and advisabilty and low cost of these should be
emphasised in terms of use of a bike on the open road.
In addition the use of a helmet should be a positive recommendation.
On both topics there is too much condescension in the leaflet to our
'I'm a cyclist everybody should see me brigade' prevalent here, at the
expense of the need in the real world to take basic prudent action on
safety issues. These are self-evident to everyone else and need only
be presented as positive and reasonable to avoid the charge of
deterring from cycling because of danger.
And no, I'm not entering into discussion on it: I'll leave our usual
contributors to their amazingly predictable attacks of the vapours.
Toom
Señor Chris
> And no, I'm not entering into discussion on it
Could that be because you know you'll be proved wrong again ?
Peter Fox
> Just zis Guy, you know? <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:34:13 +0000, Tom Crispin
>>> Veena, at TfL's Centre of Cycling Excellence, advised me not even to
>>> mention the word 'death' or 'fatality' as it only has negative images.
>>> 'Safe', 'healthy' and 'fun' are the words to use.
>> Agreed doubleplus.
>
> Absolutely. There's no need to quote any accident figures at
> all. *Any* mention of accidents will simply concentrate people's minds
> on the downside risks.
Risk perception is a psychological thing with practically no correlation with
the statistical risk. And, as we al know 85% of statistics are made up. However
(1) A major obstacle to trusting people who are dictating what you must and
mustn't do is when they are not open. So on these limited grounds it is good to
be 'up front'.
(2) (this is the important bit)
Why are you giving training? TO REDUCE RISK. By how much? Or is this just
snake oil and politically correct/greenwash/jobs for the otherwise unemployable
council wallahs? So it _is important_ to have risk on the agenda and a robust
approach to it.
However - the real value of this approach to risk is not in the blurb but
after/during the training where you get the trainees to understand the traps and
how much safer they are by following simple good practice. Word of mouth amongst
trusted friends is much more powerful than percentages.
There are lots of people who you can't win over. "STOP CYCLING IN THE GUTTER!!!
it's unsafe" you say and all they do , even though they know you as a qualified
instructor is "Stop cycling in the road like that." Their fear trumps your
knowledge. :(
--
Peter (Prof) Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at
<http://vulpeculox.net>
2 Tees Close, Witham, Essex 01376 517206
Just zis Guy, you know?
<to...@tabard.freeserve.co.uk> said in
<36a1f655-fce9-4977...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
>And no, I'm not entering into discussion on it
You already did, just not in a productive way.
Phil Armstrong
>> Absolutely. There's no need to quote any accident figures at
>> all. *Any* mention of accidents will simply concentrate people's minds
>> on the downside risks.
> I wish to register my dissent.
>
> Risk perception is a psychological thing with practically no correlation with
> the statistical risk. And, as we al know 85% of statistics are made up. However
> (1) A major obstacle to trusting people who are dictating what you must and
> mustn't do is when they are not open. So on these limited grounds it is good to
> be 'up front'.
I agree, apart from the fact that one should choose ones words with
care. The fact remains that when you say "The risk of death is very
small" most people's brains will fixate on the word "DEATH!*!!?!OMG!!!
DEATH!" and the smallness part will pass them by entirely. That's just
how people are.
> (2) (this is the important bit)
> Why are you giving training? TO REDUCE RISK. By how much? Or is this just
> snake oil and politically correct/greenwash/jobs for the otherwise unemployable
> council wallahs? So it _is important_ to have risk on the agenda and a robust
> approach to it.
>
> However - the real value of this approach to risk is not in the blurb but
> after/during the training where you get the trainees to understand the traps and
> how much safer they are by following simple good practice. Word of mouth amongst
> trusted friends is much more powerful than percentages.
Um. Context?
This is about the wording of the text on a leaflet whose purpose is to
inform parents about good cycling practice for their children. As far
as I'm aware we're not talking about a training context. The
leaflet prominently features training as being a good thing, as is
right & proper of course.
Toom Tabard
wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:45:51 -0800 (PST), Toom Tabard
> <36a1f655-fce9-4977-b2a2-ccf25ba83...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >And no, I'm not entering into discussion on it
>
> You already did, just not in a productive way.
>
How nice to have my own personal obsessive stalker. It helps draw
attention to my views.
Thanks
Toom
Toom Tabard
It means what it says on the package - I've stated views in good faith
for consideration, but is not an issue I'd spend time discussing. Some
things become reasonably self-evident to those with the necessary
experience and knowledge.
Toom.
Adam Funk
> Risk perception is a psychological thing with practically no correlation with
> the statistical risk. And, as we al know 85% of statistics are made up.
I heard it was 77%.
judith smith
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:45:01 +0000, Colin McKenzie
><ne...@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In happier times, this group produced this leaflet for parents. Main
>>production was by Simon Bennett, who has indicated willingness to do
>>updates but doesn't read this group any more.
>>
>>I want to get some printed, but would like to suggest some minor changes
>>first. I hope the group will concur or suggest improvements.
>>
>>The leaflet is available at
>><www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/cyclingchild.htm>
>>
>>The changes I propose are:
>>Page 2, grey background, para 2. Reword sentences 2 and 3 to:
>>National records show it to be, mile for mile, about as safe as walking..
As safe as walking - 40% greater risk?
I think it would be a mistake to state something which is patently
untrue.
Passenger casualty rates per billion passenger kilometers
There were 384 pedestrians killed or seriously injured compared with
533 killed or seriously injured pedal cyclists. (Almost 40% higher.)
Still it is a cycling leaflet - so perhaps you are allowed to post
any lies you want in order to get the message across.
--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment
judith
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>Toom Tabard <to...@tabard.freeserve.co.uk> considered Sun, 14 Dec 2008
>11:45:51 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
>
><nothing of any consequence>
>
>You are judith AICMFP
>
><plonk>
Wrong yet again Anchor.
It is incredible : firstly we had anyone who posted from the same
usenet server as I did was obviously me.
This wasn't enough - so it was changed to anyone with the same domain
name in their e-mail address.
Now - you just need to disagree with a regular and you are me.
--
Commenting on a legal gate in a public park: I'd think it comes under
the heading of "causing an obstruction", and should be investigated by
the police as such. Phil W(anker) Lee - well known Psycholist
Toom Tabard
> Toom Tabard <t...@tabard.freeserve.co.uk> considered Sun, 14 Dec 2008
> 11:45:51 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
>
> <nothing of any consequence>
>
> You are judith AICMFP
>
> <plonk>
I craggy-face bearded Scotsman called Judith; now there's a thought.
I see you are a self-confessed plonker ;-)
Toom
Peter Clinch
> All road users are aware of the ability of some cyclists to achieve
> perfection in camouflage, particularly in the current dull weather and
> dark evenings.
It's amazing how good people are at spotting invisible people... It's
almost as amazing as the way they fail to spot any irony in saying "look
at that guy on a bike, he's invisible!"
> Whilst 'no special clothing' is correct per se, high
> visibility, including in clothing, and particularly fluorescent/
> reflective jackets, and advisabilty and low cost of these should be
> emphasised in terms of use of a bike on the open road.
One of the points about the leaflet is it's short and to the point. It
refers you elsewhere for more in depth discussion, so in itself it only
aims to tell you the basic facts: i.e., "no special clothing".
The leaflet points you very hard at training. If you take training up
you'll get pumped full of all sorts of information about hi-viz, and
you'll probably be issued with it too. It's wrong to take the leaflet
in isolation, it's only meant as a first pass.
> In addition the use of a helmet should be a positive recommendation.
It'll receive one as soon as anyone can demonstrate a useful track
record. So far there is no such thing.
> On both topics there is too much condescension in the leaflet to our
> 'I'm a cyclist everybody should see me brigade' prevalent here, at the
> expense of the need in the real world to take basic prudent action on
> safety issues. These are self-evident to everyone else and need only
> be presented as positive and reasonable to avoid the charge of
> deterring from cycling because of danger.
They aren't self evident to the huge numbers of people who cycle around
in normal, everyday clothes and without a helmet day after day, week
after week, year after year, and don't find it causes them problems.
But in any case you've once again missed that the leaflet is pitched as
the first word in getting safe, not the last.
Toom Tabard
I've made some recommendations in relation to what is a brief overview
text, and can be easily incorporated by minor alteration. If done
matter-of-fact and casually it can improve perception of cycling as a
safe activity, rather than overemphasis danger and have a deterring
effect.
There are many areas of work and leisure activity where high-
visibility and use of basic and available safety equipment are
recommended, and this is no different.
Silly little pedantic sophistry points on 'perfection' and
'camouflage' lend little to the issue but merely indicate the
pettiness of the one or two small-minded peole who have endless time
to sit waiting to snipe on this group.
Toom
bugbear
> Toom Tabard wrote:
>
>> In addition the use of a helmet should be a positive recommendation.
>
> It'll receive one as soon as anyone can demonstrate a useful track
> record. So far there is no such thing.
uh oh!
BugBear
Colin McKenzie
> I've made some recommendations in relation to what is a brief overview
> text, and can be easily incorporated by minor alteration. If done
> matter-of-fact and casually it can improve perception of cycling as a
> safe activity, rather than overemphasis danger and have a deterring
> effect.
>
> There are many areas of work and leisure activity where high-
> visibility and use of basic and available safety equipment are
> recommended, and this is no different.
1. I know of no evidence that hi-vis makes you safer, only that it
enables you to be seen from further away. If you know of some, please
share it. By definition the driver of the car that hits you is rather close.
2. There are many areas of work and leisure activity, no safer than
cycling and often less safe, where no-one would even consider wearing a
helmet. Any helmet promotion strongly implies, no matter what has been
said before, that cycling is more hazardous than these activities
(walking, playing football, going up stairs, running, etc etc).
Peter Clinch
> I've made some recommendations in relation to what is a brief overview
> text, and can be easily incorporated by minor alteration. If done
> matter-of-fact and casually it can improve perception of cycling as a
> safe activity, rather than overemphasis danger and have a deterring
> effect.
So what is your suggested wording?
> There are many areas of work and leisure activity where high-
> visibility and use of basic and available safety equipment are
> recommended, and this is no different.
Or it's no different from using the roads as a motorist, motor vehicle
passenger or pedestrian. And while some people use hi-viz in these
applications they are a distinct minority and usually exposed to much
greater levels of risk, so their use of it is more appropriate.
Richard Thrippleton
> Toom Tabard wrote:
>> I've made some recommendations in relation to what is a brief overview
>> text, and can be easily incorporated by minor alteration. If done
>> matter-of-fact and casually it can improve perception of cycling as a
>> safe activity, rather than overemphasis danger and have a deterring
>> effect.
>>
>> There are many areas of work and leisure activity where high-
>> visibility and use of basic and available safety equipment are
>> recommended, and this is no different.
>
> 1. I know of no evidence that hi-vis makes you safer, only that it
> enables you to be seen from further away. If you know of some, please
> share it. By definition the driver of the car that hits you is rather close.
given to evaluate and deal with its presence, which leads to improved safety.
In this hypothetical case, while the driver of the car that hits you is rather
close, they were previously 100m away, failed to see you at the point at which
it would have been sensible to slow down/pull out, and hit you.
In general, "invisible" cyclists are not invisible at all times, but they are
invisible from some distances at which sensible cyclists would be visible.
Richard
Peter Clinch
> In general, "invisible" cyclists are not invisible at all times, but they are
> invisible from some distances at which sensible cyclists would be visible.
FSVO "general". Last week I was a few inches from being SMIDSYed. At
the time I was wearing a Hi Viz jacket and riding a bright yellow bike,
and though it was daylight my front light was on.
My guess is I escaped being hit primarily by being well out into the
road which gave me a bit more reaction space to get out of the way. I
was visible from a long way away... *if* someone had been looking and
registering what they saw. Being visible is only a small part of the
battle.
Toom Tabard
> > All road users are aware of the ability of some cyclists to achieve
> > perfection in camouflage, particularly in the current dull weather and
> > dark evenings.
>
> It's amazing how good people are at spotting invisible people... It's
> almost as amazing as the way they fail to spot any irony in saying "look
> at that guy on a bike, he's invisible!"
>
It amazing that some people either can't recognise, or think it
wothwhile to take issue with, the use of modest hyperbole commonly
used to emphasise a point.
I was driving my car down a local road towards a junction with traffic
lights. It was a foul dark evening with wind and heavy rain. The
lighting on that road is poor with moving shadows cast by trees. I
could see the rear lights of the traffic waiting at the junction. It
was one light wobbling slightly that was the only initial clue to the
fact that there was a cyclist some distance behind the cars, who'd
stopped in the middle of the road and was waiting to turn right into a
private entrance way. Otherwise it looked just like another light at
the junction. The bike was dark, his clothing was black and he was
wearing a black hood. His visibility and the safety hazard would have
been totally transformed by a high-visibility flourescent/reflective
jacket. Fortunately for both of us, I'm a cautious driver drive at
moderate speeds, and slow down as soon as there is a hint of a hazard.
If I'd been cycling on an evening like that, visibility would have
been a high priority for me.
I take no issue with the 'right' to have only the legal amount of bike
lighting and to otherwise dress as you wish, only with the
advisability of it.
Please feel free to ignore the basic issue, pick one or two if the
words I use at random, and makes points about them which are important
to you, but otherwise objectively totally inane and irrelevant.
Toom
Toom Tabard
> Toom Tabard wrote:
> > I've made some recommendations in relation to what is a brief overview
> > text, and can be easily incorporated by minor alteration. If done
> > matter-of-fact and casually it can improve perception of cycling as a
> > safe activity, rather than overemphasis danger and have a deterring
> > effect.
>
> > There are many areas of work and leisure activity where high-
> > visibility and use of basic and available safety equipment are
> > recommended, and this is no different.
>
> 1. I know of no evidence that hi-vis makes you safer, only that it
> enables you to be seen from further away. If you know of some, please
> share it. By definition the driver of the car that hits you is rather close.
>
In general when mixing with moving motor traffic, the sooner a
potential hazard is visible, the sooner action can be taken to safely
allow for and negotiate that hazard, or to react to avoid a collision
or to ameliorate it's effects. Even an extra fraction of a second for
reaction can make a substantial difference to the outcome,
particularly given that the relation between collision speed and the
momentum dispersed is not linear, but quadratic.
And, it's not only distance, it also draws attention to your presence
and position. I, like many other cyclists, have had the experience of
wearing a high-visibilty jacket, but having a motorist waiting at the
side road, pull out in front of me, when the 'traffic' has passed, but
I'm only yards away. That is the extreme, but high-visibility is a
factor in your presence and position actually being noticed and
obvious to other road users.
> 2. There are many areas of work and leisure activity, no safer than
> cycling and often less safe, where no-one would even consider wearing a
> helmet. Any helmet promotion strongly implies, no matter what has been
> said before, that cycling is more hazardous than these activities
> (walking, playing football, going up stairs, running, etc etc).
>
You invited comments and I've given mine in good faith. I've had 40+
years experience and interest, some of it professional, in road safety
issues, including several years investigating and settling road
accident claims. That may give me different, wider and non-partisan
views and perceptions. I work by them: others have other perceptions
or need things 'proved'.
Toom
judith smith
<ne...@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:
>Colin McKenzie
--
>No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
>Why do you keep spouting this rubbish - is the truth unpalatable?
Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers in a
year
Pedal Cyclists: 533 Killed or seriously injured in the year
Pedestrians: 384 killed or seriously injured in the year
Pedal Cyclists: all injuries - 3739
Pedestrians: all injuries - 1795
Clive George
news:71f6ed30-2c43-4248...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
> You invited comments and I've given mine in good faith. I've had 40+
> years experience and interest, some of it professional, in road safety
> issues, including several years investigating and settling road
> accident claims. That may give me different, wider and non-partisan
> views and perceptions. I work by them: others have other perceptions
> or need things 'proved'.
I do wonder if your long standing experience and interest is also proving a
barrier. Many facets of road safety aren't necessarily obvious - eg the
effects of such things as bike helmets and bike lanes. If you're talking
about 40 years, that means the more widespread knowledge of the problems is
relatively recent, and it's not entirely surprising that you're struggling
to accept the ideas this new knowledge presents.
Toom Tabard
> "Toom Tabard" <t...@tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
Thanks, It's ongoing and fully up-to-date. And I'm not struggling. You
might just have to allow the possibility that others have different
yet valid views. And, indeed many facets of road safety aren't
necessarily obvious - that's where the advantage of wider knowledge
and experience can be a help. Too much and too little knowledge can be
both be dangerous things, as can entrenched certainty rather than
balanced objectivity. In the trite yet true words of the song - there
are more questions than answers, and the more I find out the less I
know. My personal experience is that it is usually better to trust
reasoned and balanced judgement rather than those who 'know' or need
'proof'.
Toom
Toom Tabard
> Toom Tabard wrote:
> > I've made some recommendations in relation to what is a brief overview
> > text, and can be easily incorporated by minor alteration. If done
> > matter-of-fact and casually it can improve perception of cycling as a
> > safe activity, rather than overemphasis danger and have a deterring
> > effect.
>
> So what is your suggested wording?
>
Based on the current space/wording, I'd suggest the two relevant
paragraphs be replaced by:-
' No special clothes are needed but, as for all road use, bright high-
visibility colours are best. Ensure that loose clothing cannot get
caught in moving parts.
The use of an approved, properly-fitting cycle helmet is recommended.'
Toom
Tom Crispin
<to...@tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>I've made some recommendations in relation to what is a brief overview
>text, and can be easily incorporated by minor alteration. If done
>matter-of-fact and casually it can improve perception of cycling as a
>safe activity, rather than overemphasis danger and have a deterring
>effect.
The leaflet is titled "Cycling and Your Child". It is an information
leaflet to parents to allow their child to cycle more safely and more
often.
The leaflet deals in facts, not opinion.
Fact - No special clothing or safety equipment is necessary or
required to ride a bicycle
Fact - Wearing a correctly fitted helmet cannot reduce the risk of a
fall or collision
Fact - Wearing a correctly fitted helmet may reduce the severity of a
direct impact to the top part of the head
Fact - Full face helmets reduce a cyclist’s field of vision
It is up to the parent to make an informed choice for their child on
the use of helmets based on facts.
My opinion - the benefits of regular cycling outweigh the risks by so
much that not cycling is more dangerous than cycling
My opinion - at a population level compulsory cycle helmet use would
have a detrimental effect on life excpectancy due to it discouraging
casual cyclists
Señor Chris
> Toom Tabard wrote:
>>
>> There are many areas of work and leisure activity where high-
>> visibility and use of basic and available safety equipment are
>> recommended, and this is no different.
>
> 1. I know of no evidence that hi-vis makes you safer, only that it
> enables you to be seen from further away. If you know of some, please
> share it. By definition the driver of the car that hits you is rather
> close.
>
The real danger arises when you are less visible than you think you are.
The problem with high visibility clothing such as fluorescent green
jackets is that they tend to increase your sense of your own visibility
more than your actual visibility to others.
The safest cyclist of all is the completely invisible cyclist - as long
as he knows he's invisible.
Tom Crispin
<to...@tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>It amazing that some people either can't recognise, or think it
>wothwhile to take issue with, the use of modest hyperbole commonly
>used to emphasise a point.
Try answering the questions on this web page. I'd appreciate your
opinion and your reasoning to each of the points.
_
>
> The leaflet is titled "Cycling and Your Child". It is an information
> leaflet to parents to allow their child to cycle more safely and more
> often.
>
> The leaflet deals in facts, not opinion.
>
>
> Fact - Wearing a correctly fitted helmet may reduce the severity of a
> direct impact to the top part of the head
>
Interesting how you declare the above both as FACT and as only possible
("...may reduce...").
And if it does, the lack of any overall effect on injury rates at the
population level then implies that other injuries become more likely.
Tom Crispin
<jtayNO...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:17:06 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>>
>> The leaflet is titled "Cycling and Your Child". It is an information
>> leaflet to parents to allow their child to cycle more safely and more
>> often.
>>
>> The leaflet deals in facts, not opinion.
>>
>>
>> Fact - Wearing a correctly fitted helmet may reduce the severity of a
>> direct impact to the top part of the head
>>
>
>
>Interesting how you declare the above both as FACT and as only possible
>("...may reduce...").
The wording was deliberate. To use the would *will* instead of *may*
suggests a zero fatality rate for cyclists wearing a helmet.
>And if it does, the lack of any overall effect on injury rates at the
>population level then implies that other injuries become more likely.
No. At population level life expectancy you need to consider how
increased helmet use will affect cycling rates, and therefore
cardiovascular heath and other life extending benefits from cycling.
Purely considering head injuries is wrong.
Danny Colyer
> ... the
> pettiness of the one or two small-minded peole who have endless time
> to sit waiting to snipe on this group.
LOL.
--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis
Mike
<ne...@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:
>Toom Tabard wrote:
>> I've made some recommendations in relation to what is a brief overview
>> text, and can be easily incorporated by minor alteration. If done
>> matter-of-fact and casually it can improve perception of cycling as a
>> safe activity, rather than overemphasis danger and have a deterring
>> effect.
>>
>> There are many areas of work and leisure activity where high-
>> visibility and use of basic and available safety equipment are
>> recommended, and this is no different.
>
>1. I know of no evidence that hi-vis makes you safer, only that it
>enables you to be seen from further away. If you know of some, please
>share it. By definition the driver of the car that hits you is rather close.
Certainly in an industrial environment there have been a number of
studies that show that high visibility clothing has positive benefits
particularly in the case of construction sites where the accident rate
continues to be very high.
Dark clothing and non reflective clothing (together with poor or
non-existent lighting riding on the wrong side of the road or on the
pavement) has been a significant factor in many near misses I've had
with bikes both as a driver and a pedestrian. Even with good lighting
you can very easily become invisible in a sea of red or white lights.
Not wearing high visibility clothing with reflectors is just plain
stupid.
One effect that seems to get little attention is the drawback of
flashing light sources (not just bikes but emergency vehicles)
particularly in a very dark environment. They distort depth perception
and appear to attract passing vehicles almost like a moth to a flame.
I've observed the effect probably appears worse with zero to maximum
flashing rather than from an intermediate light level. as anyone else
observed this or seen any formal research on the problem?
--
Colin McKenzie
Colin McKenzie wrote:
> In happier times, this group produced this leaflet for parents. Main
> production was by Simon Bennett, who has indicated willingness to do
> updates but doesn't read this group any more.
>
> I want to get some printed, but would like to suggest some minor changes
> first. I hope the group will concur or suggest improvements.
>
> The leaflet is available at
> <www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/cyclingchild.htm>
> The changes I propose are:
> Page 2, grey background, para 2. Reword sentences 2 and 3 ...
Still no consensus on this: some say not to mention fatalities at all; I
think zero since 2004 is so much better than people think that it may be
worth it.
The TfL version which doesn't mention fatalities is:
"Cycling is a safe healthy activity which mile for mile is
every bit as safe as walking. The long term health benefits of
regular exercise, especially among children, are well proven by health
professionals, and cycling to school is an excellent way to ensure
your child has that regular exercise. Young children can be
accompanied on their bikes to school by parents or carers; older
children can cycle with friends or independently."
I would replace 'every bit' with 'about'.
The version that does mention fatalities would be:
"Cycling is a healthy everyday activity. National records show it to be,
mile for mile, about as safe as walking. While accidents can happen,
they are rare: there have been no child cyclist fatalities in the whole
of London since 2004." [Plus date of printing somewhere to avoid a
hostage to fortune.]
Votes, please, for these two alternatives.
> Page 4, green background, para 1. Reword to:
The child should be able to stand astride the bike *comfortably* with
both feet flat on the ground, and when sitting on the
> saddle should be able to touch the ground with toes of both feet.
> Page 4, yellow background, para 3. Reword para 5 to:
> When the rear brake is applied and the bike pulled back, the front wheel
> should rise
And page 2, yellow background, add:
Be fun!
after the last line.
> NB: suggestions for changes to helmet wording will not be entertained!
I mean it.
So only one issue to resolve before doing the update.
Colin McKenzie
--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> said in
<6-ydnZbmptDpV9rU...@posted.plusnet>:
>I do wonder if your long standing experience and interest is also proving a
>barrier. Many facets of road safety aren't necessarily obvious - eg the
>effects of such things as bike helmets and bike lanes. If you're talking
>about 40 years, that means the more widespread knowledge of the problems is
>relatively recent, and it's not entirely surprising that you're struggling
>to accept the ideas this new knowledge presents.
True. Like the business of being seen being more about placing
yourself where people are looking than about the colour of your
clothing.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt>
Tom Crispin
<ne...@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:
>The TfL version which doesn't mention fatalities is:
>"Cycling is a safe healthy activity which mile for mile is
>every bit as safe as walking. The long term health benefits of
>regular exercise, especially among children, are well proven by health
>professionals, and cycling to school is an excellent way to ensure
>your child has that regular exercise. Young children can be
>accompanied on their bikes to school by parents or carers; older
>children can cycle with friends or independently."
>
>I would replace 'every bit' with 'about'.
>
>The version that does mention fatalities would be:
>"Cycling is a healthy everyday activity. National records show it to be,
>mile for mile, about as safe as walking. While accidents can happen,
>they are rare: there have been no child cyclist fatalities in the whole
>of London since 2004." [Plus date of printing somewhere to avoid a
>hostage to fortune.]
>
>Votes, please, for these two alternatives.
TfL's version with your minor change.
>> Page 4, green background, para 1. Reword to:
>The child should be able to stand astride the bike *comfortably* with
>both feet flat on the ground, and when sitting on the
>> saddle should be able to touch the ground with toes of both feet.
Yes.
>> Page 4, yellow background, para 3. Reword para 5 to:
>> When the rear brake is applied and the bike pulled back, the front wheel
>> should rise
Yes.
>And page 2, yellow background, add:
>Be fun!
>after the last line.
Yes.
>> NB: suggestions for changes to helmet wording will not be entertained!
>I mean it.
>
>So only one issue to resolve before doing the update.
I've had two leaflets printed: Cycling and Your Child and Lewisham and
Greenwich Youth Cyclists.
CaYC was printed on good quality paper, probably 160 gsm. LaGYC was
printed on 130 gsm paper. The quality of the latter is poor.
LaGYC leaflet can be seen at:
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/downloads/downleaf.htm
For those interested in such things, it was designed using MS
Publisher.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<jxd4qhwc4mqo.1talaxvsuj9rd$.d...@40tude.net>:
>Interesting how you declare the above both as FACT and as only possible
>("...may reduce...").
Correct use of English, I'd say. And the contrast between the
honesty of this and the "BIKE DANGER!!!! WEAR A HELMET!!!!"
propaganda is stark.
Toom Tabard
wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:11:30 -0800 (PST), Toom Tabard
>
> >It amazing that some people either can't recognise, or think it
> >wothwhile to take issue with, the use of modest hyperbole commonly
> >used to emphasise a point.
>
> Try answering the questions on this web page. I'd appreciate your
> opinion and your reasoning to each of the points.
>
> http://www.britishschoolofcycling.com/images/hiviz.htm
"Is the bare headed lady wearing a skirt and blouse more at risk than
the girl in Lycra shorts, high visibility top and wearing a helmet?"
Opinion: It seems a very badly designed question. Is it intended the
informant balance the age differences and all the implied factors of
experience, attitude to risk, bike type, cycling speed etc, etc, etc?
Or, is it a question about the hi-vis clothing and helmet? if so why
have the age and style differences, rather than two girls equipped and
dressed differently. Is it all factors? if so, why not just ask
whether the lady is at more risk than the girl? Mentioning the
clothing and the helmet factors loads the question and distracts from
all the other factors.
Reasoning: As a professional survey and questionnaire designer, I'm
defeated by it. I'd be genuinely interested in knowing the purpose of
this question, what the answer is, and why. Either it's a very subtle
design, or it's a classic of amateur questionnaires eliciting useless
information.
"Would you recommend that the lady wear a helmet?"
Opinion(?): I'd make no recommendation.
Reasoning: She looks mature enough to make her own informed choice.
"Do you think that mandatory helmet laws would discourage the lady
from cycling?"
Opinion: If you wanted to know, why didn't someone stop her and ask
her;-)
Reasoning: The experience is that mandatory requirements would
discourage some from cycling. That, however, is to be expected because
the issue is weighted only one way and would have only the effect of
discouraging some existing or intending cyclists who do not wish to
wear one
"Do you think that regular cycling will shorten or lengthen the lady’s
life expectancy?"
Opinion: If she has a fatal accident when cycling, then it will
shorten it. If she has a serious accident when cycling, than it may
shorten it. Otherwise, on balance it is likely to improve her
cardiovascular health which would be factor in prolonging life,
particularly if combined with impact exercise for bone health.
Reasoning: I'd have to check any available data, but my expectation
would be, on balance, that the positive health factors, would far
outweigh the accident risk factors.
Toom
Toom Tabard
wrote:> <6-ydnZbmptDpV9rUnZ2dnUVZ8vudn...@posted.plusnet>:
>
> >I do wonder if your long standing experience and interest is also proving a
> >barrier. Many facets of road safety aren't necessarily obvious - eg the
> >effects of such things as bike helmets and bike lanes. If you're talking
> >about 40 years, that means the more widespread knowledge of the problems is
> >relatively recent, and it's not entirely surprising that you're struggling
> >to accept the ideas this new knowledge presents.
>
> True. Like the business of being seen being more about placing
> yourself where people are looking than about the colour of your
> clothing.
>
Or, as I've clarified, not true. I'm well aware of positioning as a
visibility issue, but the issue under discussion was whether high
visibility clothing was a significant factor. Nothing in that
precludes the importance of other factors.
All you need to grasp is that 40 year's experience (good) is different
from experience that is 40 years out of date (bad).
Toom
Paul Rudin
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:07:06 GMT, _
> <jtayNO...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> said in
> <jxd4qhwc4mqo.1talaxvsuj9rd$.d...@40tude.net>:
>
>>Interesting how you declare the above both as FACT and as only possible
>>("...may reduce...").
>
> Correct use of English, I'd say.
In general I don't really like "may" ... it's makes things more or less
meaningless.
It *may* be that the moon in made of green cheese... It *may* be that
the universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great
Green Arkleseizure.
If you have something to say then say it... if you need to qualify it
with "may" then you're more or less saying that you don't really know
one way or the other and you might as well omit it.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<paul....@rudin.co.uk> said in <87prjr8...@rudin.co.uk>:
>In general I don't really like "may" ... it's makes things more or less
>meaningless.
>It *may* be that the moon in made of green cheese... It *may* be that
>the universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great
>Green Arkleseizure.
I don't think that is right. There is no evidenced to support
either of those propositions, but the evidence does support use of
the word "may" in this context.
Peter Clinch
> Based on the current space/wording, I'd suggest the two relevant
> paragraphs be replaced by:-
>
> ' No special clothes are needed but, as for all road use, bright high-
> visibility colours are best.
The problem with "x is best" above is it puts colour/brightness above
other things which may be more relevant. I'd much rather a child was
wearing something suitably warm and weatherproof in nasty cold dreich
than wearing something bright if it was one or the other, but since
"bright is /best/", that's apparently a second choice.
It's more important IMHO to say what is /needed/ (nothing, a slong as
what you do have doesn't get in the way) than to make artificial priorities.
The leaflet shows a child in hi-viz. I think we can leave it up to
parents' discretion as to if that's wirth having, based on what they can
/see/ in the leaflet, having reassured them that it is up to them.
> The use of an approved, properly-fitting cycle helmet is recommended.'
Once I see a proven track record for them being any use I'll be happy to
put that in, until then it's speculation based on faith. In the
meantime check Hewson's 2005 work which specifically relates to children
in the UK, finding no obvious benefit against serious injuries for
children on the roads from wearing helmets.
Peter Clinch
> The wording was deliberate. To use the would *will* instead of *may*
> suggests a zero fatality rate for cyclists wearing a helmet.
Up to a point: being cracked into 100 pieces is less severe than
"vapourised", neither implies survival...
But as you say, it's what is suggested to the impressionable reader that
is important.
Peter Clinch
> "Is the bare headed lady wearing a skirt and blouse more at risk than
> the girl in Lycra shorts, high visibility top and wearing a helmet?"
>
> Opinion: It seems a very badly designed question. Is it intended the
> informant balance the age differences and all the implied factors of
> experience, attitude to risk, bike type, cycling speed etc, etc, etc?
> Or, is it a question about the hi-vis clothing and helmet? if so why
> have the age and style differences, rather than two girls equipped and
> dressed differently. Is it all factors? if so, why not just ask
> whether the lady is at more risk than the girl? Mentioning the
> clothing and the helmet factors loads the question and distracts from
> all the other factors.
>
> Reasoning: As a professional survey and questionnaire designer, I'm
> defeated by it. I'd be genuinely interested in knowing the purpose of
> this question, what the answer is, and why. Either it's a very subtle
> design, or it's a classic of amateur questionnaires eliciting useless
> information.
Perhaps the point is to get you thinking, realising that the answers
aren't clear cut?
Peter Clinch
> OK, this is where I think we've got to. Thanks for all responses.
> Still no consensus on this: some say not to mention fatalities at all; I
> think zero since 2004 is so much better than people think that it may be
> worth it.
>
> The TfL version which doesn't mention fatalities is:
> "Cycling is a safe healthy activity which mile for mile is
> every bit as safe as walking. The long term health benefits of
> regular exercise, especially among children, are well proven by health
> professionals, and cycling to school is an excellent way to ensure
> your child has that regular exercise. Young children can be
> accompanied on their bikes to school by parents or carers; older
> children can cycle with friends or independently."
>
> I would replace 'every bit' with 'about'.
>
> The version that does mention fatalities would be:
> "Cycling is a healthy everyday activity. National records show it to be,
> mile for mile, about as safe as walking. While accidents can happen,
> they are rare: there have been no child cyclist fatalities in the whole
> of London since 2004." [Plus date of printing somewhere to avoid a
> hostage to fortune.]
>
> Votes, please, for these two alternatives.
I think the TfL version, agreeing positive is good. While the zero
fatalities is also good I think it's more for the followup website, and
I'll have a look at doing that when I've a moment whatever the vote says.
>
>> Page 4, green background, para 1. Reword to:
> The child should be able to stand astride the bike *comfortably* with
> both feet flat on the ground, and when sitting on the
>> saddle should be able to touch the ground with toes of both feet.
>
>> Page 4, yellow background, para 3. Reword para 5 to:
>> When the rear brake is applied and the bike pulled back, the front
>> wheel should rise
>
> And page 2, yellow background, add:
> Be fun!
> after the last line.
Aye, happy with all of that.
David Hansen
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote this:-
>Not wearing high visibility clothing with reflectors is just plain
>stupid.
Ah, anyone who thinks differently is stupid. A convincing argument
indeed.
The Department of/for Transport have been asked for evidence that
high visibility clothing makes cyclists safer, but have been unable
to provide any that is convincing.
One thing to ponder on. In a war of ever escalating brightness
(which is what the road "safety" lobby wants) who is going to lose?
The answer to that question is easy to work out, the person who has
no vehicle to cover in bright paint and the person whose vehicle has
a small area to be painted brightly [1]. The same is true after
night, the loser is the one who is unable to generate or store large
amounts of electricity [2]. A war of escalating brightness favours
motorists, which is why the road "safety" lobby is in favour of it.
[1] we'll assume that everyone, pedestrian, cyclist, horse rider and
motorist is wearing bright clothing too.
[2] this does assume that every advance in producing light is
applied fairly evenly, which it always has been. If things become
covered in electro-luminescent panels then this is back to the
daytime situation.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
Peter Clinch
> Not wearing high visibility clothing with reflectors is just plain
> stupid.
It's the rule, rather than the exception, for folk to just cycle in
everyday clothes in the place with the lowest serious accident rate for
cyclists. Amazing they can manage that if they're mostly numpties...
judith
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>Toom Tabard wrote:
>
>> Based on the current space/wording, I'd suggest the two relevant
>> paragraphs be replaced by:-
>>
>> ' No special clothes are needed but, as for all road use, bright high-
>> visibility colours are best.
>
>The problem with "x is best" above is it puts colour/brightness above
>other things which may be more relevant. I'd much rather a child was
>wearing something suitably warm and weatherproof in nasty cold dreich
>than wearing something bright if it was one or the other, but since
>"bright is /best/", that's apparently a second choice.
Not at all - it sums up admirably why you are a knob.
How about nice warm clothing with a hi-viz band over it - who said it
was one or the other.
There - that wasn't too hard was it?
--
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
Toom Tabard
wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 03:17:17 -0800 (PST), Toom Tabard
>
> >I've made some recommendations in relation to what is a brief overview
> >text, and can be easily incorporated by minor alteration. If done
> >matter-of-fact and casually it can improve perception of cycling as a
> >safe activity, rather than overemphasis danger and have a deterring
> >effect.
>
> The leaflet is titled "Cycling and Your Child". It is an information
> leaflet to parents to allow their child to cycle more safely and more
> often.
>
> The leaflet deals in facts, not opinion.
>
> Fact - No special clothing or safety equipment is necessary or
> required to ride a bicycle
>
> Fact - Wearing a correctly fitted helmet cannot reduce the risk of a
> fall or collision
>
> Fact - Wearing a correctly fitted helmet may reduce the severity of a
> direct impact to the top part of the head
>
> Fact - Full face helmets reduce a cyclist’s field of vision
>
It is indeed a factsheet and 'some children choose to wear a helmet'
is indeed and indisputably a fact. Why it has been chosen as the
leading fact on the issue and what good it is another matter, but is
of no consequence. The main thing is that it is a fact.
'"Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach those parents nothing but Facts.
Fact alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else and root out
everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon
Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the
principle on which I inform these parents and this is the principle on
which they will inform their children."
'The speaker, and the schoolmaster, and the third grown person
present, all backed a little, and swept the inclined plane of little
vessels then and there arranged in order, ready to have imperial
gallons of of facts poured into them until the were full to the brim.'
Toom
Peter Clinch
> It is indeed a factsheet and 'some children choose to wear a helmet'
> is indeed and indisputably a fact. Why it has been chosen as the
> leading fact on the issue and what good it is another matter, but is
> of no consequence. The main thing is that it is a fact.
Given the amount of bollocks talked about lids it was felt that while
they are basically irrelevant as far as the Facts (TM) go, they are
widely /perceived/ as being important in advance of doing a lot of duyll
reading and trying to sweep them completely under the carpet where they
generally deserve to be left wouldn't actually be a Cunning Plan.
It was found to be very difficult to get a wording everyone was happy
with. In the end we compromised with something that wasn't too
offensive to anyone, even if it isn't great. What it does (along with
the picture content) do is acknowledge they exist and it isn't
particularly mad or bad to either wear them or not wear them.
Toom Tabard
> Toom Tabard wrote:
> > "Is the bare headed lady wearing a skirt and blouse more at risk than
> > the girl in Lycra shorts, high visibility top and wearing a helmet?"
>
> > Opinion: It seems a very badly designed question. Is it intended the
> > informant balance the age differences and all the implied factors of
> > experience, attitude to risk, bike type, cycling speed etc, etc, etc?
> > Or, is it a question about the hi-vis clothing and helmet? if so why
> > have the age and style differences, rather than two girls equipped and
> > dressed differently. Is it all factors? if so, why not just ask
> > whether the lady is at more risk than the girl? Mentioning the
> > clothing and the helmet factors loads the question and distracts from
> > all the other factors.
>
> > Reasoning: As a professional survey and questionnaire designer, I'm
> > defeated by it. I'd be genuinely interested in knowing the purpose of
> > this question, what the answer is, and why. Either it's a very subtle
> > design, or it's a classic of amateur questionnaires eliciting useless
> > information.
>
> Perhaps the point is to get you thinking, realising that the answers
> aren't clear cut?
>
The answer isn't clear cut - no thinking was involved in the making of
this decision.
And why load the question, rather than simply ask whether the lady is
at more risk than the girl.
Toom
Toom Tabard
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:18:11 +0000, Peter Clinch
>
> >Toom Tabard wrote:
>
> >> Based on the current space/wording, I'd suggest the two relevant
> >> paragraphs be replaced by:-
>
> >> ' No special clothes are needed but, as for all road use, bright high-
> >> visibility colours are best.
>
> >The problem with "x is best" above is it puts colour/brightness above
> >other things which may be more relevant. I'd much rather a child was
> >wearing something suitably warm and weatherproof in nasty cold dreich
> >than wearing something bright if it was one or the other, but since
> >"bright is /best/", that's apparently a second choice.
>
> Not at all - it sums up admirably why you are a knob.
>
> How about nice warm clothing with a hi-viz band over it - who said it
> was one or the other.
>
> There - that wasn't too hard was it?
>
Oh, for God's sake - don't introduce the concept that something can be
*both* bright and warm. You'll be asked to provide proof and cite
studies before that concept can be entertained.
Next thing we know they'll be producing flourescent reflective
waistcoats that you can wear over anything. They might even be selling
them at market stalls - for a whole pound. And many thought the
problem would be insurmountable.
Toom
Rob Morley
_ <jtayNO...@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:17:06 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
> >
> > The leaflet is titled "Cycling and Your Child". It is an
> > information leaflet to parents to allow their child to cycle more
> > safely and more often.
> >
> > The leaflet deals in facts, not opinion.
> >
> >
> > Fact - Wearing a correctly fitted helmet may reduce the severity of
> > a direct impact to the top part of the head
> >
> Interesting how you declare the above both as FACT and as only
> possible ("...may reduce...").
>
Why interesting? In a situation that exceeds the design limitations of
a helmet, its use will at best have usefulness quite rapidly tending to
zero. In those circumstances apply just a little risk compensation and
you're more likely to experience an incident that is more likely to be
serious.
> And if it does, the lack of any overall effect on injury rates at the
> population level then implies that other injuries become more
> likely.
No, it just makes the helmet at best irrelevant.
Rob Morley
Señor Chris <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> The safest cyclist of all is the completely invisible cyclist - as
> long as he knows he's invisible.
Assume that every other road user is blind and stupid, and you'll get by
just fine. :-)
Peter Clinch
> Oh, for God's sake - don't introduce the concept that something can be
> *both* bright and warm. You'll be asked to provide proof and cite
> studies before that concept can be entertained.
Families often have limited budgets. Children often like to have some
say in what they wear, and it's also possible that cycling won't be the
only thing done in a general purpose coat.
While in an ideal world every child would have a large collection of
garments perfect for every possible use, it isn't an ideal world. Many
kids wear what they've available as hand-me-downs.
> Next thing we know they'll be producing flourescent reflective
> waistcoats that you can wear over anything. They might even be selling
> them at market stalls - for a whole pound. And many thought the
> problem would be insurmountable.
Like the one illustrated in the leaflet, in fact, being a picture that
may be worth many words.
But it's still the case that some kids won't want to wear one, and
actually that's not the end of the world, and experience suggests they
won't be in particularly terrible danger by not having one.
_
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:20:11 +0000, Paul Rudin
> <paul....@rudin.co.uk> said in <87prjr8...@rudin.co.uk>:
>
>>In general I don't really like "may" ... it's makes things more or less
>>meaningless.
>>It *may* be that the moon in made of green cheese... It *may* be that
>>the universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great
>>Green Arkleseizure.
>
> I don't think that is right. There is no evidenced to support
> either of those propositions, but the evidence does support use of
> the word "may" in this context.
>
True - but placing a state of affairs in a list of FACTs is not on.
Toom Tabard
> Toom Tabard wrote:
> > It is indeed a factsheet and 'some children choose to wear a helmet'
> > is indeed and indisputably a fact. Why it has been chosen as the
> > leading fact on the issue and what good it is another matter, but is
> > of no consequence. The main thing is that it is a fact.
>
> Given the amount of bollocks talked about lids it was felt that while
> they are basically irrelevant as far as the Facts (TM) go, they are
> widely /perceived/ as being important in advance of doing a lot of duyll
> reading and trying to sweep them completely under the carpet where they
> generally deserve to be left wouldn't actually be a Cunning Plan.
>
> It was found to be very difficult to get a wording everyone was happy
> with. In the end we compromised with something that wasn't too
> offensive to anyone, even if it isn't great. What it does (along with
> the picture content) do is acknowledge they exist and it isn't
> particularly mad or bad to either wear them or not wear them.
>
That indeed explains it. To those in the know it is obviously
disingeneous obfuscation. However for those not in the know, it
obscures a matter relating to child safety which involves concepts of
ethics and integrity.
"Something that wasn't too offensive to anybody" avoids the issue,
rather than acknowledging the existence of and presenting some balance
of the bollocks.
And if it is a matter of dispute then unless there is clear evidence
that helmets cause more harm than good, there is meantime a case for
recommending or suggesting their use if they are arguably of benefit.
I was aware from the beginning exactly what the likely scenario was
and that the leaflet seemed obviously partisan. As usual the outcome
lives down to my expectations.
Toom
Peter Clinch
> That indeed explains it. To those in the know it is obviously
> disingeneous obfuscation. However for those not in the know, it
> obscures a matter relating to child safety which involves concepts of
> ethics and integrity.
If you bother reading the leaflet you'll note it points to the
accompanying website, which explains in more detail and provides direct
links to well researched reference material published by the National
Children's Bureau to back up what it says.
The National Children's Bureau are not in the business of obscuring
matters relating to child safety, and in pointing out their publication
nor is the leaflet.
> "Something that wasn't too offensive to anybody" avoids the issue,
> rather than acknowledging the existence of and presenting some balance
> of the bollocks.
> And if it is a matter of dispute then unless there is clear evidence
> that helmets cause more harm than good, there is meantime a case for
> recommending or suggesting their use if they are arguably of benefit.
That takes a default position that if in doubt, they must be good. The
reality is that since there is doubt we don't know, so such a default is
ridiculous. It would be equally ridiculous to say you shouldn't wear
one, but that's not done. Fact is it appears there's no real effect (as
can be seen well in Hewson's 2005 work, read that yet?) so it doesn't
matter much one way or the other. Which is why it's acknowledged that
some choose to wear them but there's not much to say beyond that.
Presenting some balance is not something that can reasonably done in the
space at a useful level of detail. Which is why the accompanying
website points folk at the NCB's work on the matter.
> I was aware from the beginning exactly what the likely scenario was
> and that the leaflet seemed obviously partisan.
Your opinion doesn't square with TfL asking to use it. And unless the
NCB are "obviously partisan" then the fact that's where the immediate
trail from the leaflet takes you conflicts with your opinion. Are the
NCB "obviously partisan" about it?
You are clearly partisan in stating unknowns as best practice, but that
doesn't mean anyone else has to be.
Daniel Barlow
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:17:06 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:
>> Fact - Wearing a correctly fitted helmet may reduce the severity of a
>> direct impact to the top part of the head
>
> Interesting how you declare the above both as FACT and as only possible
> ("...may reduce...").
"When approaching a roundabout there may be vehicles already on the
roundabout, to which you must give way" - impossible? nonfactual?
The best alternative I can think of which avoids "may" would be "A
correctly fitted helmet will reduce the severity of some kinds of
direct impact to the top part of the head", which is unarguable but
also slightly uninformative as it says nothing about the degreee of
reduction nor the likeliness of those kinds of injury. The version
with "may" seems just as good to me.
-dan
Toom Tabard
We'll agree to differ. The only two points I would make, is that it's
an information leaflet and pointing to something two steps away is not
going to clarify the situation for most - the leaflet points you to a
website which you say will lead you to the National Children's Bureau
information. (and on the version I'm looking at it does list one
website in isolation and very small print, and it's not clear it is a
source of further info on the issues)
And the default position is not that if there is doubt, they *must* be
good - it is that they *may* be good and any default to recommend use
or point this out is not ridiculous, but arguably advisable. The
largest part of the problem here is the extreme positions adopted and
the proclaimed certainties, both of which are, in my view, misplaced,
but then certainty is a stranger to me.
Toom
Daniel Barlow
> And if it is a matter of dispute then unless there is clear evidence
> that helmets cause more harm than good, there is meantime a case for
> recommending or suggesting their use if they are arguably of benefit.
Frankly you could make the same argument about elbow and knee pads.
Or homeopathy.
-dan
Peter Clinch
>
> We'll agree to differ. The only two points I would make, is that it's
> an information leaflet and pointing to something two steps away is not
> going to clarify the situation for most
You've only got so much space. if I go to the Health Shop (few minutes
walk from my desk) and pick up a leaflet about some potentially very
nasty issue I don't get blanket details straight away, I get an overview
and I get avenues of exploration if the overview isn't enough. It's a
completely normal way of information dissemination in public health
circles judging from all the evidence I can see.
> And the default position is not that if there is doubt, they *must* be
> good - it is that they *may* be good and any default to recommend use
> or point this out is not ridiculous, but arguably advisable.
Though given there is not clear evidence either way, it is exactly as
reasonable to say the opposite. It is not clearly inaccurate to say
they *may* cause harm and any default not to use them is /arguably/
fair. I'm not going to have that, and since it has just as much
evidence going for it as your preferred wording, I'm not having that either.
> largest part of the problem here is the extreme positions adopted and
> the proclaimed certainties, both of which are, in my view, misplaced,
> but then certainty is a stranger to me.
That the matter is uncertain is *exactly* why the leaflet doesn't make a
certain pronouncement, either way, about the efficacy of helmets.
You say that certainties are misplaced, yet you want the leaflet to say
it's best to wear a helmet. Saying it's best to wear a helmet is a
position of certainty, so while on the one hand you say certainty is a
stranger to you, on the other, at the same time, you issue a certain
proclamation as to what is best. I don't really see that you can square
the two, and if you think really certainty based on incomplete evidence
is a Bad Thing then the leaflet as it stands would appear to conform to
that belief. It tells the reader what we know, it doesn't indulge in
speculation that boils down to misplaced certainty.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Alan Braggins
>And if it is a matter of dispute then unless there is clear evidence
>that helmets cause more harm than good, there is meantime a case for
>recommending or suggesting their use if they are arguably of benefit.
Would you like to see St Christopher medals and lucky rabbit feet
recommended or suggested too? There's no clear evidence they do
more harm than good.
jsmith
<ne...@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:
<snip - exaggerations and outright untruths>
Why do you continue to be so dishonest with this "as safe as walking"
- you know that you are wrong.
Did you go to the Chapman school of honesty?
--
>No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
>Why do you keep spouting this rubbish - is the truth unpalatable?
Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers in a
year
Pedal Cyclists: 533 Killed or seriously injured in the year
Pedestrians: 384 killed or seriously injured in the year
Pedal Cyclists: all injuries - 3739
Pedestrians: all injuries - 1795
--
judith <judit...@live.co.uk>
js
Braggins) wrote:
Hello Bilbo
Here's a band-waggon
Anything to contribute?
No.
Well jump on any way.
--
Does Chapman recommend his kids wear cycle helmets?
judith <judit...@live.co.uk>
Colin McKenzie
...
> And the default position is not that if there is doubt, they *must* be
> good - it is that they *may* be good and any default to recommend use
> or point this out is not ridiculous, but arguably advisable.
I take it you wear a helmet all the time then.
Your proposition is ridiculous.
Colin McKenzie
--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.
Ian Smith
> Toom Tabard wrote:
> ...
> > it is that they *may* be good and any default to recommend use
> > or point this out is not ridiculous, but arguably advisable.
>
> I take it you wear a helmet all the time then.
Along with his lucky rabbit foot - it *may* save his life, so it is
apparently advisable to recommend always carrying one. Along with,
presumably, a survival bag, whistle, set of flares, life jacket,
parachute, elephant gun and portable stove, all of which stand a
rather higher chance of saving his life in various circumstances.
> Your proposition is ridiculous.
That much is clear, I think.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Mike
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:37:20 +0000 someone who may be Mike
><nos...@nospam.com> wrote this:-
>
>>Not wearing high visibility clothing with reflectors is just plain
>>stupid.
>
>Ah, anyone who thinks differently is stupid. A convincing argument
>indeed.
Well keep eating the carrots and hope everyone around you keeps eating
them and you'll be safe in matt black head to toe. But for added
safety you could also use IR absorbent clothing. Then you'd be
invisible from the motorists who use night vision goggles.
Having said that the RAF paint their training aircraft black to
improve visibility. So if you wish to emulate the kid in ET you'll be
really safe.
--
Mike
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>Mike wrote:
>
>> Not wearing high visibility clothing with reflectors is just plain
>> stupid.
>
>It's the rule, rather than the exception, for folk to just cycle in
>everyday clothes in the place with the lowest serious accident rate for
>cyclists. Amazing they can manage that if they're mostly numpties...
A dark coating really does improve visibility of objects in low light
conditions as per my comment above on the RAF painting their training
aircraft in black. But you have to be either against a sky or
relatively light coloured background.
As a choice for cycling then to intimate that not wearing high
visibility clothing improves visibility of cyclists then you've
obviously been at Santa's midnight tipple, but you didn't claim that
did you? you said everyday clothes, and that could mean almost
anything and any shade and any combination of shades.
In some areas the wearing of bright pink shell suits is completely
normal everyday clothing and massively increases their visibility
under certain conditions, although in a sea of bright pink shell
suits they tend to disappear into the crowd.
--
Clive George
news:7u6jk4ls1uuki8e7a...@4ax.com...
> In some areas the wearing of bright pink shell suits is completely
> normal everyday clothing and massively increases their visibility
> under certain conditions, although in a sea of bright pink shell
> suits they tend to disappear into the crowd.
The latter problem is starting to happen with hi-viz - in a lot of ways it
makes you invisible.
For me, specific hi-viz clothing (eg waistcoats) fails for the same reason
as for helmets - I just cannot be arsed with the extra faff. Utility cycling
should be as practiced in areas where it is the norm - get on bike, ride,
get off. No special clothing, just do it.
That said, I do make sure my cycling gear for non-short distance utility
riding is bright - but I don't tend to cycle on the same roads as for the
more pottery riding, and the benefits are likely to be higher.
Daniel Barlow
> apparently advisable to recommend always carrying one. Along with,
> presumably, a survival bag, whistle, set of flares, life jacket,
> parachute, elephant gun and portable stove, all of which stand a
> rather higher chance of saving his life in various circumstances.
I'm sure that list should include a cigar humidor and some cleft sticks
-dan
David Hansen
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote this:-
>Well keep eating the carrots and hope everyone around you keeps eating
>them and you'll be safe in matt black head to toe. But for added
>safety you could also use IR absorbent clothing. Then you'd be
>invisible from the motorists who use night vision goggles.
Ah, a "funny" comment.
I note that you were unwilling or unable to answer the other points
I made.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
Peter Clinch
Up to a point, Lord Copper...
A collapsible canoe is clearly going to be more useful! ;-)
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Dave Larrington
Daniel Barlow <d...@telent.net> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
And, in hot weather, the driver's door from a 1957 Vauxhall Victor. If you
start to overheat, you can wind the window down.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger
Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger Badger
Badger Badger
Peter Clinch
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:53:48 +0000, Peter Clinch
> <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>>> Not wearing high visibility clothing with reflectors is just plain
>>> stupid.
>> It's the rule, rather than the exception, for folk to just cycle in
>> everyday clothes in the place with the lowest serious accident rate for
>> cyclists. Amazing they can manage that if they're mostly numpties...
>
> A dark coating really does improve visibility of objects in low light
> conditions as per my comment above on the RAF painting their training
> aircraft in black. But you have to be either against a sky or
> relatively light coloured background.
>
> As a choice for cycling then to intimate that not wearing high
> visibility clothing improves visibility of cyclists then you've
> obviously been at Santa's midnight tipple, but you didn't claim that
> did you? you said everyday clothes, and that could mean almost
> anything and any shade and any combination of shades.
I didn't make any claim for particular levels of visibility, what I said
was that in everyday clothes, which includes drab business clothes,
jeans and dark tops with no reflectives, there is a track record of
people managing to cycle safely.
I'm not actually knocking hi-viz, just pointing out that people really
*do* manage very well without it, including a large proportion of the
folk cycling in the country with the best safety record going. Which
rather suggests that you don't need to be an "idiot" not to go down the
hi-viz route.
Personally I like bright clothing and reflectives, but that's not the
same as saying they're necessary or you're an idiot not to wear them.
The same argument would apply to pedestrians, and to driving bright
coloured cars.
Toom Tabard
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Colin McKenzie <n...@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:
> > Toom Tabard wrote:
> > ...
> > > it is that they *may* be good and any default to recommend use
> > > or point this out is not ridiculous, but arguably advisable.
>
> > I take it you wear a helmet all the time then.
>
> Along with his lucky rabbit foot - it *may* save his life, so it is
> apparently advisable to recommend always carrying one. Along with,
> presumably, a survival bag, whistle, set of flares, life jacket,
> parachute, elephant gun and portable stove, all of which stand a
> rather higher chance of saving his life in various circumstances.
>
Given the topic, its rather interesting that the headbangers are now
out in force. Perhaps if they'd been wearing helmets their logic
circuits might not have been so damaged.
Toom
Toom Tabard
> Toom Tabard wrote:
>
> > We'll agree to differ. The only two points I would make, is that it's
> > an information leaflet and pointing to something two steps away is not
> > going to clarify the situation for most
>
> You've only got so much space. if I go to the Health Shop (few minutes
> walk from my desk) and pick up a leaflet about some potentially very
> nasty issue I don't get blanket details straight away, I get an overview
> and I get avenues of exploration if the overview isn't enough. It's a
> completely normal way of information dissemination in public health
> circles judging from all the evidence I can see.
>
Indeed, I'm merely pointing out that in the version I looked at, I
could only see your own sight, in very small letters at the bottom of
what was basically the 'admin' info. If further information on the
actual topics is available then it would help to have it more
prominently pointed to (posssibly with a suitably worded URL). That, I
thought was non-contentious.
[....]
>
> You say that certainties are misplaced, yet you want the leaflet to say
> it's best to wear a helmet. Saying it's best to wear a helmet is a
> position of certainty, so while on the one hand you say certainty is a
> stranger to you, on the other, at the same time, you issue a certain
> proclamation as to what is best. I don't really see that you can square
> the two, and if you think really certainty based on incomplete evidence
> is a Bad Thing then the leaflet as it stands would appear to conform to
> that belief. It tells the reader what we know, it doesn't indulge in
> speculation that boils down to misplaced certainty.
>
We're getting into disingenuous word twisting here.
Toom
Just zis Guy, you know?
<8t6jk4lk66ea06a05...@4ax.com>:
>Well keep eating the carrots and hope everyone around you keeps eating
>them and you'll be safe in matt black head to toe.
Good analogy: there is no evidential basis for the idea that carrots
improve night vision, and there is no evidential basis for the idea
that wearing high visibility clothing improves cyclist safety. I
think it might be a bit too subtle, though.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt>
Just zis Guy, you know?
<7u6jk4ls1uuki8e7a...@4ax.com>:
>A dark coating really does improve visibility of objects in low light
>conditions as per my comment above on the RAF painting their training
>aircraft in black. But you have to be either against a sky or
>relatively light coloured background.
Like a lighted streetscape, you mean?
Marc
> And if it is a matter of dispute then unless there is clear evidence
> that helmets cause more harm than good, there is meantime a case for
> recommending or suggesting their use if they are arguably of benefit.
Why?
Peter Clinch
> Given the topic, its rather interesting that the headbangers are now
> out in force. Perhaps if they'd been wearing helmets their logic
> circuits might not have been so damaged.
While the suggestions are apparently facetious[1] the *logic* is exactly
the same as that which you applied to helmets. They /may/ be beneficial
and there is anecdotal evidence that they work, so what's the real
difference?
It is an article of faith that a rabbit's foot brings you luck. Until
you have a good supporting track record it's an article of faith that
helmets make you particularly safer. While there is the argument that a
rabbit's foot isn't /designed/ to make you safer, it's the case that
cycle helmets are designed to a very low specification and are only
really designed to take blows that aren't really likely to lead to
serious injuries. While a stab-vest is surely protective, how much
would you trust it against high velocity rifle fire, well beyond its
specification? And while it is arguable it is worth avoiding minor
injuries from the falls involving no other vehicles at low speeds for
which helmets are designed, why doesn't that apply to running around in
a playground, where I expect people fall over at least as much as when
they're cycling?
In summary you need to do two things:
1) show a proven track record of safety improvement;
2) demonstrate why the argument for cycling should be different from
similarly risky activities where you think helmets aren't particularly
worth pushing.
Until that happens then the logic to advise them isn't there.
Pete.
[1] the cleft sticks, humidor and canoe are references to Scoop! as a
long-time urc tradition and really are facetious, but aren't so much a
dig at your ideas either.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Ian Smith
Ho ho. Gosh we've never heard the "obviously people with no brains
don't need to wear helmets" reposte before. That Toom character, he
must be an intellectual giant to have figured that one out. And in
under a month too. What intellect! What wit! Oh I am laid low by
the magnificence of his argument. Woe, woe is me and all my logic.
Peter Clinch
> Indeed, I'm merely pointing out that in the version I looked at, I
> could only see your own sight, in very small letters at the bottom of
> what was basically the 'admin' info. If further information on the
> actual topics is available then it would help to have it more
> prominently pointed to (posssibly with a suitably worded URL). That, I
> thought was non-contentious.
Fair comment. I'd have liked the site shown more prominently myself,
but it wasn't just my show. What was published was what was agreed upon
by manu collaborators, with Tom showing most of the initiative and drive
and providing the basics.
>> You say that certainties are misplaced, yet you want the leaflet to say
>> it's best to wear a helmet. Saying it's best to wear a helmet is a
>> position of certainty, so while on the one hand you say certainty is a
>> stranger to you, on the other, at the same time, you issue a certain
>> proclamation as to what is best. I don't really see that you can square
>> the two, and if you think really certainty based on incomplete evidence
>> is a Bad Thing then the leaflet as it stands would appear to conform to
>> that belief. It tells the reader what we know, it doesn't indulge in
>> speculation that boils down to misplaced certainty.
>>
>
> We're getting into disingenuous word twisting here.
So you say, but I really don't see that. You really *have* put forwards
suggestions that are based on what I see as misplaced certainty. The
leaflet as it stands is less partisan and more certainty-based than your
views as expressed thus far, and at the same time you are claiming it is
partisan and suggesting it is based on misplaced certainty.
js
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>there is no evidential basis for the idea
>that wearing high visibility clothing improves cyclist safety.
I love it - keep them coming.
You really are a knob head aren't you.
--
Have you advised your children to wear cycle helmets?
Any reason why you fight shy of answering that one?
Would the answer be "hypocrisy"?
judith <judit...@live.co.uk>
js
<snip>
>Ho ho. Gosh we've never heard the "obviously people with no brains
>don't need to wear helmets" reposte before. That Toom character, he
>must be an intellectual giant to have figured that one out. And in
>under a month too. What intellect! What wit! Oh I am laid low by
>the magnificence of his argument. Woe, woe is me and all my logic.
You missed off the fact that you are a fuckwit.
Was that because you assume we all know that as a fact?
--
there is a 39% greater chance of being killed or seriously injured as
a cyclist compared to as a pedestrian
judith <judit...@live.co.uk>
Rob Morley
"There's absolutely no solid proof that wearing a helmet will do you any
significant good, but you'd better wear one anyway just in case."
Likewise never be without an umbrella no matter what the weather
forecast (we /know/ that an umbrella works in some atmospheric
precipitation situations, a helmet will probably prevent the odd
bump and scrape - surely it's worth the inconvenience?). We should
probably all have pacemakers fitted too, just in case we develop
arrhythmia (it's a bit inconvenient, but would undoubtedly save lives -
ah, but what about the risk of fitting it in the first place, and the
cost?).
Toom Tabard
> Toom Tabard wrote:
> > Indeed, I'm merely pointing out that in the version I looked at, I
> > could only see your own sight, in very small letters at the bottom of
> > what was basically the 'admin' info. If further information on the
> > actual topics is available then it would help to have it more
> > prominently pointed to (posssibly with a suitably worded URL). That, I
> > thought was non-contentious.
>
> Fair comment. I'd have liked the site shown more prominently myself,
> but it wasn't just my show. What was published was what was agreed upon
> by manu collaborators, with Tom showing most of the initiative and drive
> and providing the basics.
>
Yes, but just a couple of messages ago you said
"If you bother reading the leaflet you'll note it points to the
accompanying website, which explains in more detail and provides
direct
links to well researched reference material published by the National
Children's Bureau to back up what it says."
I had, of course, read your leaflet in detail, and when this becomes
obvious, and that it doesn't reasonably point to anything, your
flaccid excuse now is that you allow your website to be used as others
dictate.
> >> You say that certainties are misplaced, yet you want the leaflet to say
> >> it's best to wear a helmet. Saying it's best to wear a helmet is a
> >> position of certainty, so while on the one hand you say certainty is a
> >> stranger to you, on the other, at the same time, you issue a certain
> >> proclamation as to what is best. I don't really see that you can square
> >> the two, and if you think really certainty based on incomplete evidence
> >> is a Bad Thing then the leaflet as it stands would appear to conform to
> >> that belief. It tells the reader what we know, it doesn't indulge in
> >> speculation that boils down to misplaced certainty.
>
> > We're getting into disingenuous word twisting here.
>
> So you say, but I really don't see that. You really *have* put forwards
> suggestions that are based on what I see as misplaced certainty. The
> leaflet as it stands is less partisan and more certainty-based than your
> views as expressed thus far, and at the same time you are claiming it is
> partisan and suggesting it is based on misplaced certainty.
>
Well, there you go again; doing more of the same. The problem with
your certainty, as with all who are certain. is that it is so fragile
it has to be bolstered by self-justifying re-interpretation of what
others clearly did not say or imply. You are so simplistically
certain, that you cannot conceive of other merely voicing beliefs,
opinions, or recommendation on the balance of probability. You'd have
some difficulty pointing out where I've done otherwise. Chapter 11 of
Bronowski's The Ascent of Man is an illuminating read.
Toom
Toom Tabard
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:44:10 -0800 (PST)
>
And, when we have no reasonable counter argument we should make a
dive for reductio ad absurdum, and be satisfied that that is
sufficient.
Geeez; it's like a turkey shoot; and so close to Christmas too!!
Toom
Rob Morley
The umbrella example isn't absurd, but I don't even need a reasonable
counter argument when you don't make a reasonable argument in the first
place. Given that there's no provable significant advantage to changing
what we've been doing for decades, why change?
Peter Clinch
> And, when we have no reasonable counter argument we should make a
> dive for reductio ad absurdum, and be satisfied that that is
> sufficient.
We do have a reasonable argument: until you show a benefit, and with the
presence of evidence that directly shows no apparent benefit, it is
foolish to recommend wearing them.
What is actually unreasonable about that?
The reduction to the absurd is simply to illustrate the discontinuity in
your logic that you don't appear to be able to see yourself.