Is black clothing compulsory?

On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:20:46 PM UTC, Rob Morley wrote:

I might wear a helmet if I was riding in extra hazardous conditions,
like a stormy night down a dark country road (but that's mainly because
a helmet provides a handy platform for additional lighting, and stops
your cap blowing off) or on ice (because a helmet will probably provide
protection in a low speed fall) but honestly in many years cycling I've
never hit my head hard

In 15 years of cycling 6000 miles a year when I was working, I have never worn a helmet and have hit my head once on the road when I crashed on some spilt diesel.
I just got an "egg" on my bonce for a few days, that's all.

On 30/01/2019 15:37, Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:31:10 +0000, GB wrote:

Seriously, I thought that helmets reduce risk by 70%?

Even the authors of that study don't make the claim any more (they
admitted they cocked up the maths), though they still think helmets
make a significant benefit.

However, if helmets reduced risk by some high proportion, why hasn't
cycling become much safer now so many cyclists wear them?

If helmets reduced risk by some clear high proportion there would be no
need to argue about it.

Perhaps there is some similarity to DRLs on cars. These are claimed by
some to reduce road casualties by 3%. But there is also evidence to
suggest that they increase casualties - across the board, not just to
pedestrians and cyclists.

Given that businesses gain out of it and most car buyers readily accept
them - others see me more easily, innit? - heretics clearly have an
impossible task.

On 30/01/2019 11:30, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:37:05 PM UTC, Rob Morley wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:03:42 +0000
GB wrote:

There are loads of drivers who are worse than me, and in 2016 3500 **
cyclists were killed or seriously injured. I cycle occasionally, and
I take all possible precautions. Is that victim blaming or simply
common sense?

Be careful with "common sense" - turns out it's not very common, and
sometimes not as sensible as it seems. Did you know, for example, that
cyclists who wear helmets can be at greater risk than those who don't?

'Common sense' says I should use the road through town rather than the bypass.
This is because most people think the biggest danger to cyclists is being hit from behind by a large vehicle. In reality it is 'conflict points' that kill cyclists where motor vehicles and cyclists cross paths.

So *stop* when the lights show red ior amber and red, and otherwise when
the signage says or means either "Stop" or "Give Way". The danger then
disappears.

It works, and not just for cyclists.

On 30/01/2019 20:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/01/2019 15:37, Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:31:10 +0000, GB wrote:

Seriously, I thought that helmets reduce risk by 70%?

Even the authors of that study don't make the claim any more (they
admitted they cocked up the maths), though they still think helmets
make a significant benefit.

However, if helmets reduced risk by some high proportion, why hasn't
cycling become much safer now so many cyclists wear them?

If helmets reduced risk by some clear high proportion there would be no
need to argue about it.

Perhaps there is some similarity to DRLs on cars. These are claimed by
some to reduce road casualties by 3%. But there is also evidence to
suggest that they increase casualties - across the board, not just to
pedestrians and cyclists.

Given that businesses gain out of it and most car buyers readily accept
them - others see me more easily, innit? - heretics clearly have an
impossible task.

DRLs?

On 30/01/2019 19:54, wrote:

On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:20:46 PM UTC, Rob Morley wrote:

I might wear a helmet if I was riding in extra hazardous conditions,
like a stormy night down a dark country road (but that's mainly because
a helmet provides a handy platform for additional lighting, and stops
your cap blowing off) or on ice (because a helmet will probably provide
protection in a low speed fall) but honestly in many years cycling I've
never hit my head hard

In 15 years of cycling 6000 miles a year when I was working, I have never worn a helmet and have hit my head once on the road when I crashed on some spilt diesel.
I just got an "egg" on my bonce for a few days, that's all.

You might well think that "that is all".

On 30/01/2019 20:19, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 11:30, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 10:37:05 PM UTC, Rob Morley wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:03:42 +0000
GB wrote:

There are loads of drivers who are worse than me, and in 2016 3500 **
cyclists were killed or seriously injured. I cycle occasionally, and
I take all possible precautions. Is that victim blaming or simply
common sense?

Be careful with "common sense" - turns out it's not very common, and
sometimes not as sensible as it seems.Â* Did you know, for example, that
cyclists who wear helmets can be at greater risk than those who don't?

'Common sense' says I should use the road through town rather than the
bypass.
This is because most people think the biggest danger to cyclists is
being hit from behind by a large vehicle. In reality it is 'conflict
points' that kill cyclists where motor vehicles and cyclists cross paths.

So *stop* when the lights show red ior amber and red, and otherwise when
the signage says or means either "Stop" or "Give Way". The danger then
disappears.

90% of junctions don't have lights. What then?

It works, and not just for cyclists.

The skills learnt over the 90% are easily transferable to the 10%.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:20:43 +0000, Rob Morley wrote:

ISTR someone (I think as part of one of the studies but I forget) tried
wearing a long blonde wig and found he was given more room.

It wasn't blonde (though the accounts normally report it as so).

It wasn't a rigorous study, so it has various flaws, but yes it did
show that in this particulr set of cases having long hair flying in
the wind resulted in drivers passing slightly wider on average.

Seriously, I thought that helmets reduce risk by 70%?

According to one deeply flawed study, I think.

They looked at the severity of injury among cyclists in Seattle A&E
departments (or maybe only one, I don't recall).

They found that, on average, the ones who had been wearing a helmet
had much less severe injuries. They concluded that the helmets caused
this reduction in severity.

They overlooked the fact that the helmeted cyclists were also more
affluent, were less likely to have been riding on a road, and were
more likely to be white. I'm not sure how they managed to avoid
concluding that wearing a helmet makes you richer, whiter, and causes
parks to spring up in your neighbourhood.

The hypothesis that rich people are more likely to buy cycle helmets
and are also more likely to go to A&E for trivial stuff, but poor
people are less likely to buy cycle helmets and only turn up in an
American hospital if the injury was _really_ bad doesn't seem to have
occurred to them.

Their sample size was pitifully small, also.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 30/01/2019 20:21, JNugent wrote:
On 30/01/2019 20:05, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/01/2019 15:37, Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:31:10 +0000, GB wrote:

Seriously, I thought that helmets reduce risk by 70%?

Even the authors of that study don't make the claim any more (they
admitted they cocked up the maths), though they still think helmets
make a significant benefit.

However, if helmets reduced risk by some high proportion, why hasn't
cycling become much safer now so many cyclists wear them?

If helmets reduced risk by some clear high proportion there would be
no need to argue about it.

Perhaps there is some similarity to DRLs on cars. These are claimed by
some to reduce road casualties by 3%. But there is also evidence to
suggest that they increase casualties - across the board, not just to
pedestrians and cyclists.

Given that businesses gain out of it and most car buyers readily
accept them - others see me more easily, innit? - heretics clearly
have an impossible task.

DRLs?


I'm *guessing* it's something like daytime running lights.

On 30/01/2019 20:05, TMS320 wrote:

Perhaps there is some similarity to DRLs on cars. These are claimed by
some to reduce road casualties by 3%. But there is also evidence to
suggest that they increase casualties - across the board, not just to
pedestrians and cyclists.

Given that businesses gain out of it and most car buyers readily accept
them - others see me more easily, innit? - heretics clearly have an
impossible task.


Out of interest, what do businesses gain from DRLs? All new cars have
them, and there's no discernible cost.

On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 9:38:42 PM UTC, Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:20:43 +0000, Rob Morley wrote:

ISTR someone (I think as part of one of the studies but I forget) tried
wearing a long blonde wig and found he was given more room.

It wasn't blonde (though the accounts normally report it as so).

It wasn't a rigorous study, so it has various flaws, but yes it did
show that in this particulr set of cases having long hair flying in
the wind resulted in drivers passing slightly wider on average.


Similar to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ABRlWybBqM

White kid stealing a bike, do nothing.
Black kid stealing a bike, call the cops.
Pretty girl stealing a bike, help her.