Please don't wear helmets*!!

[david k]

So we agree it's not 100% of the time as suggested in the OP?

 

[david k]

So we agree it's not 100% of the time as suggested in the OP?

Further to this, is suggesting that misleading which will probably further entrench drivers views of cyclist being arrogant? Is it inciting a 'victim' status were cyclist feel everyone is after them and over compensate? Therefore driving a wedge deeper between cyclists and drivers?

This could lead to a pack mentality were any driver is rounded on and anyone who doesn't agree 100% on a forum would be rounded upon by the 'pack' who have been influenced by the emotive 'drivers always at fault' hysteria?

This could be dangerous and irresponsible as cyclists could ride very casually not paying attention to any dangers as it's never their fault.

 

[mjr]

Oh dear.....

You clearly said 80% of truck and car drivers were at fault. How can YOU prove they were at fault if the courts cant.
Where did your 80% come from?

The 80% claim shouldn't be news to anyone who's looked into road dangers.

The courts fail to prove things for all sorts of reasons, including juries of unsympathetic non-cycling motorists. That's part of the reason for the www.roadJustice.org.uk campaign.

This is mostly observations and experiments, so we can post evidence, but what counts as "proof" in experimental science? The MOST LIKELY explanation is that motorists are mostly to blame, but there's always a small probability that it's the phase of the moon or something.

 

[steveindenmark]

I am a driver and a cyclist and if I see a cyclist I give them plenty of room regardless of a helmet or not. I really cannot imagine drivers going through the thought process of "He has a helmet, he must be experienced, I dont need to give him that much room". It really doesnt make much sense to me.

Just as an add on. I dont believe motorists are to blame for everything. I have seen some awful cycling. We are certainly not blameless.

 

[Dan B]

The fact that it still hurts would make this improbable.

Who says it hurts? Provide a source for that please. I think we're done dealing with figures simply plucked from the air.

 

[Dan B]

There, apparently, an oft repeated virtual experiment involving a brick wall and melon which demonstrates the point to an accuracy of some.

One brick wall? That's not evidence, that's anecdote

 

[Profpointy]

There, apparently, an oft repeated virtual experiment involving a brick wall and melon which demonstrates the point to an accuracy of some.

...and the corresponding example where you swing a cricket bat to.miss a bare head by 1/2" - the try again wearing a helmet

 

[Drago]

The Honda C90 (also knoen as teh "Cub") WAS "typical" in that it has sold more units than any other motorcycle in History and at one point was the most prevalent motorcycle on the road


In fact with 60 million produced it is the best selling vehicle (of all types) in history

The engine is a stressed member, albeit not to the high degree of load bearing that some modern bikes have. Therefore crash testing one with no engine is about as atypical as it is possible to manage. For their next trick they did the crash testing a BMW flat twin with the pots removed. Seriously.

They're really not a reliable or authoritative source, and to be fair to them that's probably down to the miserly funding they get.

 

[Profpointy]

The engine is a stressed member, albeit not to the high degree of load bearing that some modern bikes have. Therefore crash testing one with no engine is about as atypical as it is possible to manage. For their next trick they did the crash testing a BMW flat twin with the pots removed. Seriously.

They're really not a reliable or authoritative source, and to be fair to them that's probably down to the miserly funding they get.

Umm, you do realise a motorcyclist sits on top of the bike, not protected inside it

 

[Tim Hall]

If this is the Bristol 'study' that srw referred to, it wasn't even really a study just an idle exercise by an academic with an interest in cycling. It only had one participant, the experimenter himself, and it's quite likely that the drivers who gave him a wide berth thought he was a madman in fancy dress - he's said as much himself. I believe he did it to suggest an issue that could be taken up and studied properly, but it's become a 'research study' that gets quoted as if it is in some way significant, which it never was.

Ahem. Bath, not Bristol (I realise it was srw who originally put Bristol). Anyway, carry on.

 

[david k]

[QUOTE 3824770, member: 9609"]the OP never suggested that at all.[/QUOTE]
That's how it reads, if that wasn't the intention it should have been worded better

It's their behaviour that kills not ours suggests that how we ride is irrelevant, as it's not our behaviour that's the issue. That's misleading, there are also bad cyclists

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I think they were designed as a product for cyclists to buy. If they're were designed as genuine piece of PPE, they'd be designed to withstand far greater impacts.

Hmm, Bell started it didn't they, I think they were considering them as PPE but bear in mind the burden of proof was much lower when they brought them out. There was definitely then marketing etc, but I'd be surprised if the design team weren't actually trying to help (potentially purely using perceived wisdom and 'evidence' from cycle racing) rather than just looking for a thing that cyclists weren't buying yet.

I woke up this morning with no replies and thought I'd got away with it(!)
Pesky kids...

Although the tone and vitriol has been lighter, I'd call that a win. Or at least interesting.

...and the corresponding example where you swing a cricket bat to.miss a bare head by 1/2" - the try again wearing a helmet

You could give it a go, but the words Laurel, Hardy, Hammer & Nail come to mind. I'd avoid phrases such as "when I nod my head, you hit it."

 

[w00hoo_kent]

It would be relatively easy to do properly. Fit x cyclists with cameras and laser measuring devices and record the figures for a while.

One of these you mean?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I'm not sure it would be that easy, which is probably why it hasn't been done. There would be so many uncontrollable confounding variables (all the cyclists would need to wear identical clothes and equipment, and ride identical bikes, in an identical way as regards road positioning, speed etc, in identical weather and light conditions ...) that any conclusions would be speculative at best.

Not sure, you outfit across the demographic male, female, helmet wearer, non-helmet weared, lycra, not lycra, speedy commuter, child seat carrier. Etc. Get them to use the kit for a fortnight, or a month then move it on. Record weather conditions, etc (probably have a camera in conjunction with the measuring kit.) You'd get usable first pass data and if there were bits that needed more examination you could do it in a second sweep. Grinding the data would be a pain, but I'd not have thought the results would be pointless, and much more sensible than the one guy wearing a wig we have so far.

 

[swansonj]

Although his experiment wearing a wig may well be suspect, is there any serious challenge to his experiment measuring passing distances whilst wearing or not wearing a helmet?