Re: Helmets: Do you wear one? Why? When?
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, Mikefule <> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> >
> > cycling is generally so safe (in the UK it is safer per mile than
> > walking)
>
> On the public road (including pavements and sidewalks, rather than
> tracks and paths in the hills and forests) it is almost certainly
> true that interaction with other road users is a factor in most
> accidents involving pedestrians or cycles.
Indeed.
> Therefore the “accidents per mile” statistic is completely misleading.
>
> - A cyclist does a mile in, say, 5 minutes (12 mph).
> - A pedestrian does a mile in, say, 15 minutes (4 mph).
>
> There are many other arguments that could be advanced, but for now,
> I’ll say only that the “time exposed to risk” is more important than
> the distance travelled when comparing accident statistics.
Not necessarily - because most journeys have some function that depends
on distance, not duration. That is, people practically never say “I
shall go for a walk of 18 minutes duration” - they normally walk to
some destination (walk to school, to work, to the library, whatever).
Thus, if safety on the journey were to be a factor in choosing the
mode, using danger-per-hour is an indirect indicator also requiring
consideration of speed, but danger per distance is direct.
Danger per distance is thus a much better measure for transport
activities. Whether it is for unicycling probably depends most upon
whether you do it for play, or for transport. If play, you are
probably much more likely to go out for 30 minutes (or whatever)
riding, regardless of the distance that involves.
But, if you really are determined to stick with danger-per-time, I
could alternatively observe that cycling is very safe (in the UK it is
safer per hour than driving).
Normal A-to-B cycling (bicycling), even in proximity to motor traffic,
is safer than lots of other activities that don’t seem to regard
specific protective equipment. Trials, racing and so on is rather
different, but the automatic assumption (by most people, it seems)
that it is crazy to cycle without a helmet has little rational
justification (or at least, no more rational justification than
wearing a helmet to walk in the street, or drive, or walk down
stairs).
I suspect that no-one knows whether easy A-to-B unicycling is more or
less dangerous than walking or driving or skateboarding or
camel-riding, because I doubt the statistics are collected, let alone
collated or analysed. I think it’s reasonable, however, to believe
it’s not much more dangerous than A-to-B bicycling, and could well be
safer (it’s slower, I find I get a wider berth from motorists, I tend
not to mix as closely with motorists). I think sedate unicycling is
safe enough that it does not justify dressing up in special protective
clothing.
regards, Ian SMith
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |
wasn’t suggesting that those statistics were made up.
But please enlighten us with the “various evidence” that you referred to. There will always be exceptions to just about everything, like airbags that have caused deaths, but to simply not wear a helmet because you think it might not protect you 100% is a poor excuse not to wear one.