Helmet...

Bassboxxx

Hi, getting my first helmet this week and looking for a bit of feedback. I'm looking at this one.

http://eurocycles.com/ie/product/abus/scraper-black

Looking for advice on price, suitability, better options etc...:)

I normally cycle in the city center and cycle lanes/roads.

One concern would be how this would pan out in the warmer weather.

Thanks.

tomasrojo

You see a lot of these less TdeF-looking helmets now. I did wonder how the ventilation compared with the sporty ones. My interest is academic, so to speak; can't help you, alas.

The Guardian mentioned the Bern helmet a little while ago, which is somewhat similar in look.

Bern helmet
The only helmet to be seen in. The simple, clean design is a welcome move away from the Power Rangers look.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/gallery/2012/sep/21/cycling-apparel-in-pictures

I seem to have a fashion blind spot, so I have no idea whether they have a point.

Cee-Jay-Cee

You can buy helmets from anything from a tenner to €250+ so decide how much you want to spend and have a look on chainreaction, wiggle, bike24 etc and see whats in your budget. At the end of the day most peoples choice of helmets is down to looks and price. I went for a BBB Hawk as I liked the look of them. I got it for €45 on CRC, think theyre back up at €56 now though.

RobertFoster

tomasrojo wrote: »

Bern helmet
The only helmet to be seen in. The simple, clean design is a welcome move away from the Power Rangers look.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...el-in-pictures

I seem to have a fashion blind spot, so I have no idea whether they have a point.

Moving away from the Power Rangers look... toward the Beastie Boys look? Get some wellies and a Sam Browne to complete the look

Lumen

That type of helmet is commonly referred to as a "piss pot" helmet. If you're not cycling very hard then the ventilation issue is a bit academic.

If your objection to a conventional vented helmet is style, just don't wear a helmet. Crashing is easy enough to avoid for most people.

Bassboxxx

Thanks for the replies. I found one or two I like on chainreaction, and free delivery...nice...

@Lumen, it is a bit of a style issue, just don't like the look of the "racing" looking helmets.:o So is your take on it that it's not essential to wear a helmet?? I'm also toying with that idea..

galwaycyclist

Bassboxxx wrote: »

@Lumen, it is a bit of a style issue, just don't like the look of the "racing" looking helmets.:o So is your take on it that it's not essential to wear a helmet?? I'm also toying with that idea..

I was curious about this myself - I never wear a helmet unless I am participating in an event that requires them. Did something in particular happen that made you decide to wear a helmet? It seems you are already cycling without one. What has triggered a change of mind?

Bassboxxx

galwaycyclist wrote: »

I was curious about this myself - I never wear a helmet unless I am participating in an event that requires them. Did something in particular happen that made you decide to wear a helmet? It seems you are already cycling without one. What has triggered a change of mind?

What got me thinking was hearing a few stories in the space of a week or so of people coming off bikes and dying and injuring themselves. And this wasn't because I was bringing up the topic with people. It just got me thinking.
Looking at other cyclists around it seems to be the older lads that don't wear helmets...and they should know:)

Have you had many falls Galway??

buffalo

Bassboxxx wrote: »

Looking at other cyclists around it seems to be the older lads that don't wear helmets...and they should know:)

Oh they know. Just don't crash, or let anyone else crash into you. Sorted.


Really hope I haven't jinxed my homeward journey.

galwaycyclist

Bassboxxx wrote: »

What got me thinking was hearing a few stories in the space of a week or so of people coming off bikes and dying and injuring themselves. And this wasn't because I was bringing up the topic with people. It just got me thinking.
Looking at other cyclists around it seems to be the older lads that don't wear helmets...and they should know:)

Have you had many falls Galway??

As an adult? I can count them on one hand and only once did my head come in contact with the ground. However I was wearing a thick wooly hat that cushioned the blow.

blorg

There is certainly nothing wrong with deciding to wear a helmet and while not a magic hat it does add something to your safety. There are some other benefits such as stopping sunburnt forehead and the traditional ones are very good at keeping you cool. I only object to being forced to wear one.

I've crashed plenty both with and without including hitting my head but in my case at least the helmet never made any difference to the outcome. But I can imagine a situation where it would help, I just haven't (luckily) been in that situation.

Bassboxxx

@buffalo...let us know you got home ok will ya??:)

@galway...might go with the wooly hat

@blorg...unfortunately I'm not living in Thailand and the prospect of a sunburnt forehead is dream at the mo:(

I might just hold off for a while...

el tel

this helmet FTW

buffalo

Bassboxxx wrote: »

@buffalo...let us know you got home ok will ya??:)

Not out the door five minutes (which is about halfway through my commute), when I pull up at a junction behind a waiting SUV. Bus comes around the corner, but there's not enough room to make the manoeuvre, so the SUV starts reversing. "HERE IT COMES!! THIS IS WHAT I BROUGHT ON MYSELF!", I think. Then I backed up a bit, and we all lived happily ever after.

Lusk Doyle

blorg wrote: »

There is certainly nothing wrong with deciding to wear a helmet and while not a magic hat it does add something to your safety. There are some other benefits such as stopping sunburnt forehead and the traditional ones are very good at keeping you cool. I only object to being forced to wear one.

I've crashed plenty both with and without including hitting my head but in my case at least the helmet never made any difference to the outcome. But I can imagine a situation where it would help, I just haven't (luckily) been in that situation.

Do you object to being forced to wear a seatbelt while in a car or on a plane?

manwithaplan

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Do you object to being forced to wear a seatbelt while in a car or on a plane?

I usually ask my fellow passengers whether they mind me rattling round in the event of a crash. They're usually OK about it.

Run_to_da_hills

Abus Aduro is not a bad lid and comes with a built in led lamp.

http://www.cyclesportsuk.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=7354

Canis Lupus

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Do you object to being forced to wear a seatbelt while in a car or on a plane?

In a car there is plenty of verifable evidence to show it saves lives.

In a plane, frankly it's mostly a ridiculous thing unless you're protecting against sudden and unexpected violent turbulence. I have never looked into this but I imagine a seatbelt on a plane does very little when the plane drops out of the sky and hits the ground.

I'm currently in Australia and it's bloody annoying being forced to wear a helmet.

tomasrojo

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Abus Aduro is not a bad lid and comes with a built in led lamp.

http://www.cyclesportsuk.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=7354

I was thinking about helmet-mounted rear lights recently: I've noticed quite a few people have them, but an awful lot of people who use road bikes and a back pack are largely or completely obscuring the light. Similar issue with hi-viz tabards draped over backpacks pointing mostly towards the sky.

Not that it matters all that much, provided they also have a primary red light on the bike.

Max_Charger

*clicks on thread

"oh,op is only looking for advice on a helmet to buy and not a debate, how refreshing!"

*scans down through posts

"fcukin hell..."

Canis Lupus

Max_Charger wrote: »

*clicks on thread

"oh,op is only looking for advice on a helmet to buy and not a debate, how refreshing!"

*scans down through posts

"fcukin hell..."

:pac::pac::pac:

Tar.Aldarion

Canis Lupus wrote: »

In a car there is plenty of verifable evidence to show it saves lives.

In a plane, frankly it's mostly a ridiculous thing unless you're protecting against sudden and unexpected violent turbulence. I have never looked into this but I imagine a seatbelt on a plane does very little when the plane drops out of the sky and hits the ground.

I'm currently in Australia and it's bloody annoying being forced to wear a helmet.

Aeroplane seat belts are there for certain types of crashes/incidents where they help you, not a magic thing that saves your life in all occasions. I view bike helmets the same

galwaycyclist

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Do you object to being forced to wear a seatbelt while in a car or on a plane?

Yes I do object. As a walking and cycling advocate I am an opponent of compulsory seatbelt wearing for drivers and have lobbied against such laws. In my view there is a compelling argument for a prohibition on the fitting or wearing of seatbelts for drivers of motor vehicles.

For the sake of speed I append the text of a letter I had published in the electronic version of the British Medical Journal some years back. Apologies for the cutting and pasting.

In his piece "Three lessons for a better cycling future" (23 December) Malcom Wardlaw raises the issue that the UK seatbelt legislation may have resulted in a more dangerous road environment for cyclists(1). The history of seatbelt legislation is of drastic effects for those outside cars such as pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. The imposition of the UK seatbelt law was accompanied by increases in deaths to pedestrians of 135 per year and of deaths to cyclists of 40 per year(2). Similar effects for non-car occupants are reported from Australia(3), New Zealand(4) and Canada(5). In 1981 the UK Department of Transport commissioned a study on the effects of seatbelt legislation in Sweden, West Germany, Denmark, Spain,Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands and Norway. The study, "the Isles report"(6,7) which was subsequently suppressed, used the UK and Italy as controls for non-seatbelt countries.

When the wider effects were examined the author was alarmed to find that the predominant effect was of increased numbers of injuries to non-car users. In fact the author tentatively predicted that in the UK deaths to other road users would climb by 150 per year in the event of compulsory seatbelt wearing legislation. In terms of injuries the prediction was for a 11% increase in pedestrian injuries with injuries to other road users climbing by 12 to 13% (numerically 7,000 and 36,000 respectively). A recent analysis of the rise in injuries seen following the UK law suggests that drivers who started wearing seatbelts were 11-13% more likely to injure pedestrians and 7-8% more likely to injure cyclists(8).

Vehicle occupants

In countries such as Ireland(9), Sweden(10) and New Zealand(4) compulsory seatbelt wearing legislation was accompanied by increases in deaths among car occupants. The "Isles report" on the experiences of eight European countries predicted that in the UK a seatbelt law would be followed by a 2.3% increase in fatalities among car occupants.

Mr. Wardlaw repeats the common claim that the UK's seatbelt legislation actually resulted in a 25% reduction in deaths among drivers and front seat passengers. However, there were two major road safety interventions in the UK in 1983. A major drink driving campaign using evidential breath testing also accompanied the compulsory seatbelt law. In 1983, 23% of the fall in road deaths occurred between 10pm and 4am, 3% of the fall occurred at other hours of the day (11). Was this predominantly an effect of seatbelts or of breathalysers? Or was there some other underlying trend?

What about car passengers?

In the UK the introduction of compulsory seatbelts for front seat occupants was accompanied by a 75 per year increase in deaths among rear seat occupants (2). This suggests that seatbelt wearing by drivers had a negative effect on survival expectancies for rear seat passengers. This also seems to provide an argument for making these passengers wear seatbelts as well. However this issue is not clear-cut. In crashes, small children who wear adult seatbelts suffer characteristic "seat-belt syndrome" injuries including severed intestines, ruptured diaphragms and spinal damage. Recent research suggests that children in inappropriate restraints are also at significantly increased risk of head injury (12).

Indeed, one of the authors of that study has publicly stated that "The early graduation of kids into adult lap and shoulder belts is a leading cause of child-occupant injuries and deaths."(13) In 1989 the UK extended compulsory seatbelt wearing to child passengers under the age of 14.

Among these children, this measure was accompanied by a 10% increase in fatalities and a 12% increase in injuries(11). I cannot claim cause and effect but the suggestion would be no more or less tenuous than some of the claims that have been made for cycling helmets.

Why does seat belt legislation have this effect?

For adults the protective effect of seatbelts is generally accepted so explanations have focused on driver behaviour. There are two related theories, the Risk Homeostasis and Risk Compensation hypotheses (14). These both argue that drivers adjust their driving behaviour in response to an increased sense of personal safety.

A slightly different emphasis was recently offered via the British Psychological Society(15). This proposes that during near misses the actual physical restraint experienced by seatbelt wearers leads to a reduced sense of threat to life. A reduced sense of threat may then lead to the adoption of a more dangerous driving style.

Other researchers have attempted to explain the failure of seatbelt laws by appealing to the Selective Recruitment hypothesis. This argues that seatbelt laws haven't had the expected results for vehicle occupants because those drivers who take the most risks are also the least likely to use seatbelts(16). Unfortunately the Selective Recruitment hypothesis does not explain why road deaths should remain unchanged or even go up following seatbelt laws.

The evidence in favour of seatbelt legislation.

The advocates of seatbelt legislation tend to rely on two types of study, experiments using crash test dummies and hospital based studies. Experiments using crash test dummies do not allow for any effect of seatbelt wearing on driving behaviour. In hospital based studies one or more hospitals may report a reduction in fatalities and injuries to car occupants. However there is an inconsistency between individual hospital based studies showing one effect and the larger, and for deaths more reliable, population based studies that show no such effect or even the opposite effect. This suggests that for some reason other hospitals are choosing not to publish their results(17).

It is now accepted that there can indeed be a problem of bias in how results from medical and other studies actually get offered for publication(18). This "missing data problem"(19) has prompted journals including the British Medical Journal and the Lancet to set up a special register for documenting unpublished studies. If this bias has been found with studies of therapeutic interventions then it is no less likely to occur with studies of "road safety" interventions. The advocates of seatbelt laws must also choose to disregard the effects of such measures for people outside cars.

A historical curiosity or pressing problem?

In the UK the effect of seatbelt legislation might be seen as a historical curiosity. In my own country, Ireland, the issue is extremely current as the authorities are currently trying to raise seatbelt-wearing rates by Irish motorists from app. 55% to 85% or higher by using new "on the spot fines". Seatbelt wearing is being pushed at a time when there is an apparent policy of non-enforcement of the speed regulations in Irish towns. In residential areas 68% of drivers break the existing, excessively high, speed limits. On main roads in 30mph limit zones the average free speed of cars is 45 mph(20). In impacts occurring at these speeds a pedestrian has a less than 1 in 10 chance of survival. Ireland already has the highest child pedestrian death rate and third highest pedestrian death rate in the EU.

In my home town of Galway 28% of accidents involve pedestrians but these account for 43% of the fatalities in the city. In Galway City it has been found that in 71% of injury accidents involving motor vehicles the driver is unscathed(21), this amply demonstrates where car centred "road safety" policies have placed, and continue to place, the burden of death and injuries. Ireland has among the highest levels of heart disease and obesity in the EU and is facing a public health crisis as government policy forces more and more cyclists and pedestrians off the roads. About 13,000 Irish citizens die of heart disease and related conditions annually. Things get even worse when western, car centred, "road safety" practices get exported to the third world. In developing countries death rates per vehicle are up to a hundred times higher than in rich countries(22).

A time for leadership.

Mr. Wardlaw takes a light-hearted dig at helmet wearing initiatives. Others have noted that cyclists tend to react with anger and vituperation to calls for us to use cycle helmets(23). We would point out that the environment of threat we experience on the public roads was created with the complicity of many, including medical professionals, who would now have us wear helmets. It is a reasonable human reaction to view calls for helmet wearing as the ultimate in hypocrisy and victim blaming.

It is time for a change in attitudes to road safety and traffic management. The environmental and public health imperatives such a change are well established. There is a wider issue however. There is something fundamentally wrong with a society, which places a premium on one person's life over another's, purely on the basis of their choice in transportation. It is time for the wider medical profession to offer leadership in changing this situation.

References

1. Wardlaw MJ, Three lessons for a better cycling future, BMJ 2000;321:1582-1585

2. West-Oram F, Casualty Reductions whose Problem?, Traffic Engineering and Control, Sept. 1990

3. Coneybeare JAC, Evaluation of Automobile Safety Regulations: The case of Compulsory Seat Belt Legislation in Australia, Policy Sciences 12:27-39, 1980

4. Hurst P, Compulsory Seat Belt Use: Further Inferences, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 11: 27-33, 1979

5. Wilde GS, Risk Homeostasis and Traffic Accidents Propositions , Deductions and Discussion of Dissension in Recent Reactions, Ergonomics, 1988 Vol, 31, 4:439

6. Davis R, Death on the Streets, Cars and the Mythology of Road Safety, Leading Edge Press, North Yorkshire UK, 1992

7. Hamer M, Report questions whether seat belts save lives, New Scientist, 7/2/1985 p7

8. Dulisse B, Methodological Issues in Testing the Hypothesis of Risk Compensation, Accident Analysis and Prevention Vol. 25 (5): 285-292, 1997

9. Hearne R, RS 255 The initial impact of seat belt legislation in Ireland, An Foras Forbatha, Dublin, 1981

10. Adams J, The efficacy of seatbelt legislation: A comparative study of road accident fatality statistics from 18 countries, Dept of Geography University College, London 1981

11. Adams J, Risk, UCL Press Ltd. University College, London 1995

12. Winston FK, Durbin DR, Kallan MJ, Moll EK, The Danger of Premature Graduation to Seat Belts for Young Children, Pediatrics, Vol. 105, No. 6, June 2000, pp. 1179-1183

13. Karp H, Kids at Risk: When Seatbelts are NOT Enough, Reader's Digest (US Edition), November 1999

14. Wilde GS, Target Risk, PDE Publications, 1994

15. Press Release of the Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society, The Puzzle of Seat Belts Explained, April 1999

16. Dee TS, Reconsidering the effects of Seatbelt Laws and Their Enforcement Status, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 30(1): 1-10, 1998

17. Adams J, Risk and Freedom, The Record of Road Safety. Transport Publishing Projects, Cardiff, 1985

18. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C, Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test, BMJ 1997;315:629-634

19. Mathews R, Hidden Truths, New Scientist 23/5/99 pp 28-33

20. National Roads Authority, RS 453 Free Speeds on Urban Roads, Dublin, 2000

21. Brennan MJ, Connolly D, The Pattern of Traffic Accidents in Galway City Over a Decade, Local Authority News , Vol 14 No. 4 pp 39-43, 1997

22. Pearce F, Collision Course, New Scientist 1/8/98 p44

23. Rivara P, Thompson DC, Thompson RS, Reply to critics of bicycle helmet editorial, 8 December 2000, Electronic responses to: Bicycle helmets: it's time to use them (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/321/7268/1035#EL17)

HivemindXX

Max_Charger wrote: »

*clicks on thread

"oh,op is only looking for advice on a helmet to buy and not a debate, how refreshing!"

*scans down through posts

"fcukin hell..."

Try reading more carefully next time! You should see a follow up post from the OP saying he was interested in the idea of skipping the helmet altogether.

rp

Canis Lupus wrote: »

In a car there is plenty of verifable evidence to show it saves lives.

I've never had my life saved by a seatbelt in a car (or airbag, for that matter), perhaps you have to be driving in a certain way to get the benefit of them?

Lumen

rp wrote: »

I've never had my life saved by a seatbelt in a car (or airbag, for that matter), perhaps you have to be driving in a certain way to get the benefit of them?

I have, and you do.

I drove my car off a motorway into a field and rolled it repeatedly at about 120kph. Given the state of the car afterwards, I would likely have suffered more serious injuries (than cuts, whiplash and a minor brain haemorrhage) had I not been wearing a seatbelt. Seatbelts seem to do a reasonable job of keeping the occupants inside the safety cell and away from each other, and there seems to be no significant downside to wearing one, unlike other safety measures like massive A-pillars which obstruct vision and possibly make accidents more likely.

galwaycyclist

Lumen wrote: »

I have, and you do.
Seatbelts seem to do a reasonable job of keeping the occupants inside the safety cell and away from each other, and there seems to be no significant downside to wearing one

From memory the introduction of compulsory seatbelts in Ireland was accompanied by a 4% increase in deaths among car occupants.

A distinction needs to be drawn between the possible protective effect in a crash versus the possibility that wearing the seatbelt (or other PPE) is making it more likely that you will crash in the first place.

monkeybutter

I would suggest you try on a few helmets first before buying online or at least measure your head, if you have a big bonce it can be hard enough to get one to fit.

The Snowboarding/Skateboarding helmets are warmer and keep the rain off better, but you will sweat more

If you are lucky enough to have a big head then you can make up your own mind on whether you should or should not try to protect it.

You'll also realize you can do everything possible to avoid an accident and still have one as you aint perfect and others on the road aren't either.

And don't take any fashion advice from people who like to run around in lycra

Lumen

galwaycyclist wrote: »

From memory the introduction of compulsory seatbelts in Ireland was accompanied by a 4% increase in deaths among car occupants.

A distinction needs to be drawn between the possible protective effect in a crash versus the possibility that wearing the seatbelt (or other PPE) is making it more likely that you will crash in the first place.

Is that 4% statistically significant?

I'm not familar with the history in Ireland, having only recently arrived. Are you talking about the introduction of mandatory front belts only, or front and rear belts?

I can imagine how deaths would increase if front passengers are belted and feel safer, despite then being decapitated by flying rear passengers when they crash.

Lumen

monkeybutter wrote: »

And don't take any fashion advice from people who like to run around in lycra

That's disgusting, he has a saddlebag!

monkeybutter

galwaycyclist wrote: »

From memory the introduction of compulsory seatbelts in Ireland was accompanied by a 4% increase in deaths among car occupants.

A distinction needs to be drawn between the possible protective effect in a crash versus the possibility that wearing the seatbelt (or other PPE) is making it more likely that you will crash in the first place.

Have you any stats for number of people killed per year since 1979 to 1992 and then onwards (hard to find). Is there a downward trend? Seatbelts are only part of the picture.

Next people will be arguing against ABS, against using good well tested tyres with good grip, against airbags, against ESP, against NCAP testing, against crumple zones, we should get rid off all these things, they are causing accidents cause people feel invincible.

What you are missing is the people they save aren't showing up in the stats as they aren't having accidents. When the unexpected happens and your brain overreacts, these things cover for you. We just don't have the skills to break perfectly every time under stress, the computer can. And you don't have that accident in the first place, you don't end up in A&E and you don't end up in stats.

Would I prefer to have ABS or not? Would I prefer to wear a helmet or not?

I am not in favour of making them mandatory though, you are hurting no one by not wearing them, so it should be personal choice for adults.

Lumen

monkeybutter wrote: »

Would I prefer to have ABS or not?

Actually, not having ABS makes certain types of accident easier to avoid.

ABS allows you to steer under heavy braking, but when the car goes into unrecoverable spin you can end up shooting off in odd directions, like across the carriageway and into oncoming traffic.

When driving a car without ABS you can use the approach "when you spin, both feet in", which allows you to gracefully pirouette to a halt in a straight line.

Fortunately, ABS is not a legal requirement.

Off-topic, but it is Friday.

smacl

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I'm currently in Australia and it's bloody annoying being forced to wear a helmet.

Sounds like you need the 'in denial about having to wear a helmet, helmet'

galwaycyclist

monkeybutter wrote: »

Have you any stats for number of people killed per year since 1979 to 1992 and then onwards (hard to find). Is there a downward trend? Seatbelts are only part of the picture.

Next people will be arguing against ABS, against using good well tested tyres with good grip, against airbags, against ESP, against NCAP testing, against crumple zones, we should get rid off all these things, they are causing accidents cause people feel invincible.

What you are missing is the people they save aren't showing up in the stats as they aren't having accidents. When the unexpected happens and your brain overreacts, these things cover for you. We just don't have the skills to break perfectly every time under stress, the computer can. And you don't have that accident in the first place, you don't end up in A&E and you don't end up in stats.

In most industrialised countries you will find an overall downward trend for all kinds of reasons - the Dutch and the Danes made their roads safer. In contrast we chose to remove vulnerable roads users, particularly children, from the roads environment. There will be improvements in medical interventions, the golden hour etc.

The interesting thing is would that downward trend be greater without things like seatbelts? My money says yes. Also we have to add in the premature deaths that result in part from a "car occupant centred" model of road safety - the thousands of obese people and cardiac patients, type 2 diabetes cases and so on.

As it happens studies have been done on ABS and it was found that drivers would use smaller gaps to the vehicle in front, brake later and so on. Their behaviour changed negatively in reaction to the intervention.

monkeybutter

Lumen wrote: »

Actually, not having ABS makes certain types of accident easier to avoid.

ABS allows you to steer under heavy braking, but when the car goes into unrecoverable spin you can end up shooting off in odd directions, like across the carriageway and into oncoming traffic.

When driving a car without ABS you can use the approach "when you spin, both feet in", which allows you to gracefully pirouette to a halt in a straight line.

Fortunately, ABS is not a legal requirement.

Off-topic, but it is Friday.

I'm not sure what you mean here exactly, you are saying you can recover from an unrecoverable spin if you car doesn't have abs and that being able to control the car more under heavy breaking is a bad thing?

Is this the kind of maneuver you are referring to? Whats to stop you doing this with ABS? F1 cars have traction control and can pull similar recovery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sodOfcz-Pg

And this is manouver you are going to do on a public road in an emergency break situation on a public road. You weren't doing this when you drove your car off the motorway were you Just kidding

You have ESP to try and prevent a spin and ABS is far likely to keep the car straight and true on heavy breaking that in a car without it.

ESP is particularly brilliant as it can do something a human can never do apply the brakes selectively.

monkeybutter

galwaycyclist wrote: »

In most industrialised countries you will find an overall downward trend for all kinds of reasons - the Dutch and the Danes made their roads safer. In contrast we chose to remove vulnerable roads users, particularly children, from the roads environment. There will be improvements in medical interventions, the golden hour etc.

The interesting thing is would that downward trend be greater without things like seatbelts? My money says yes. Also we have to add in the premature deaths that result in part from a "car occupant centred" model of road safety - the thousands of obese people and cardiac patients, type 2 diabetes cases and so on.

As it happens studies have been done on ABS and it was found that drivers would use smaller gaps to the vehicle in front, brake later and so on. Their behaviour changed negatively in reaction to the intervention.

Smaller gaps break later and they still have less chance of crashing, thats the point.

How do you conduct a study like this with any accuracy

You can't the only thing I will concede is ABS has made it more dangerous for people without it, as braking distance is shorter for ABS than non ABS.

All your anti safety equipment arguments stem from you saying people act more stupidly when they think they are safe, if that was the case we'd have more death now than in the 1970s.

Fat people make a choice, they have permission to exercise, to cycle to walk if they so chose, that is no argument against helmets or ABS.

Helmets are not putting fat people off cycling. Laziness is, my money is on most of these people were never going to think about cycling in the first place.

The danes have made the roads safer? In what ways? You mean cycle lanes? So have we, putting motorways in where the chances or head on collisons are taken out of the picture dramatically reduces the number of fatal accidents. Should we get rid of the motorways because it makes people too safe?

No we should keep on improving both, we should try to progress, these things cost money so somethings won't get done, thats just life

Lumen

monkeybutter wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean here exactly, you are saying you can recover from an unrecoverable spin if you car doesn't have abs and that being able to control the car more under heavy breaking is a bad thing?

Is this the kind of maneuver you are referring to? Whats to stop you doing this with ABS? F1 cars have traction control and can pull similar recovery

I didn't think you could spin cleanly in a straight line with ABS, since to do a neat spin you have to be fully locked up.

I tried to find some videos demonstrating this but only managed to disprove my own point.

I've only ever spun cars without ABS, but there's more correlation that causation there.

monkeybutter

This beautifully crafted graph based on my life experiences so far deftly illustrates why I don't believe obese people are put off cycling because of helmets, there just aren't enough fashion conscious hipster cyclists to make a difference.

rp

monkeybutter wrote: »

But there's nowhere for me in your venn diagram, as a heart-attack'd/hipster/nerd/non-obese/non-fashion-concious/cyclist. I demand some gerrymandering!