Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Kiwiiano,
It didn't matter how cheap or expensive the helmet was.
Yes, they're designed for one impact only. The same goes for motorbike helmets, which is why you should never buy a second hand one, and be careful with the one you have. They stressed on my training course that it's foolish to leave it sitting on your bike when you pay for your gas, for instance, because if it falls off, it's become many times less effective (and they're bloody expensive). If someone knocks it off, and puts it back, you'd never know. Don't keep it up high, don't throw it around, or let things drop on it.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Russell Brown,
Great videos. But not impressed with the cycleway. It's better than not having one, but there are so many ways it could be improved.
Jeez it must be nice to have a flat commute. There's bugger all like that in Auckland, except for people who actually live on Tamaki Drive.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Bart Janssen,
It's funny how people feel they ought to vigorously recommend helmet usage despite the contra statistics about the compulsory laws and their correlation to greater cycling injury. There's a necessary level of hypocrisy in saying both of those things. If the mandatory helmet laws stopped people cycling, and that is detrimental to social health generally, then why is is such an outrage to say "yeah, actually that goes for me, too. I hate the fucking things and they stopped me cycling a bit"? That should be sayable without being accused of being a fool. If not wearing a helmet gets me on the bike that could actually be an overall win for my health, on the balance, too. I don't have to shift it onto irresponsible kids or vain women.
ETA: Same comment, for Hi-viz.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Russell Brown,
Abstract of a frequently-cited Australian study:
Yeah, I was aware of existing evidence of correlation, but I thought I'd leave that to others, and just point out that Matthew came with a big fat straw man to that discussion. I do actually agree with him that there was a fairly rapid rise in car ownership during that time too, which also reduces the popularity of bikes, for a number of reasons. But that doesn't make it OK to add more factors to make them unpopular.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Matthew Poole,
As a country we don't treat bad driving that results in death as being as serious as we would a less-egregious breach of some other social standard that had the same result (like, say, punching someone once and them tripping over and hitting their head).
You're missing the importance of intention in the law, charges and sentences. When you punch someone, it's highly credible that you intended to hurt them. If you hit someone with a car on purpose it can have severe legal consequences. The car would be considered a deadly weapon, and a resulting death could be considered a murder.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Bollocks.
Note that I used (quite carefully) the word "corresponded". That is most certainly true. So:
I'm going to call bullshit on your assertion that it was all down to the helmet law that suddenly people stopped riding bicycles.
...you'd need to link to where I made that assertion. I'd say it's a contributing factor, though, and quantifying that would be very difficult.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to John Armstrong,
I would be interested to look at the evidence for that.
This one contains evidence of a correlation between helmet use and passing distance.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to John Armstrong,
I just checked: it takes me about 8 seconds to put my vest on, including fishing it out of my bag.
Video or it didn't happen.
ETA: Most of the time when I'm cycling, I don't carry a bag.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to HORansome,
Except that we have a number of safety factors in cars, like mandatory seatbelts and the like, which, amongst other things, reduce the likelihood of someone’s head impacting the dashboard or windscreen.
Countered, of course, by the fact that the car can and usually does travel a lot faster than a bike. Lots of people die from head injuries in cars which they might not have sustained had they been wearing helmets. In particular, a seatbelt doesn't do much to prevent your head colliding with the side windows, or the roof, or flying objects.
Probably more importantly, however, is that just because one mode of transport can be considered unsafe, that doesn’t tell us anything about whether we should take precautions with respect to some other mode of transport.
I think it's still informative about what level of risk balanced against cost and inconvenience we consider normal, which goes to what level of risk is acceptable. Otherwise you have no real way of drawing a safety line, and obviously the safest thing to do with a bike is not get on it in the first place.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to BlairMacca,
Same answer though, surely its better than not having anything at all?
Surely. So do you wear a helmet in every car you get into?
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 375 376 377 378 379 … 1066 Older→ First