Close passes are something most, if not all, UK cyclists, are likely to have experienced and, in a bid to educate drivers a newly-released video shows Chris Boardman explaining how to safely overtake cyclists.
The video, also featuring cycling club Exeter Wheelers and master driving instructor Blaine Walsh, demonstrates how much room a cyclist or group of riders need, and why they might need it, including to avoid imperfections in the road. As Boardman points out, riders aren't just an obstacle to be avoided, they are people's loved ones.
Walsh says overtaking is the most dangerous manoeuvre, and that most drivers don't know rule 163 of the Highway Code says "give a cyclist at least as much room as you give a car" when overtaking, and that you don't have to look too far on YouTube to see many drivers don't realise this.
– Chris Boardman films cycle safety video instructing drivers how to pass safely
Boardman says: “People on bicycles aren't just obstacles, something to be avoided, they're flesh and blood, they’re mums and dads, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters – they need motorists to give them space when overtaking."
He says the dynamic envelope, the space riders need to stay upright, is often bigger than you might think, and stretches when riders need to avoid imperfections in the road. This, he explains, should be thought of as an "exclusion zone, that you must not enter".
The video, by BikeBiz editor, author and campaigner, Carlton Reid, demonstrates what this looks like in the real world with Walsh overtaking a group of Exeter Wheelers riders.
Blaine Walsh says: "Overtaking is one of the riskiest things you can do as a driver. It's critical to get it right, for your safety and the safety of other road users. Sadly you don't have to search YouTube very hard to find some incredibly dangerous and close overtaking of cyclists."
"Clearly these drivers are not aware of what the Highway Code says about the space they are required to give cyclists."
As Walsh overtakes, he points out that he crosses to the other carriageway to do so. When complete, he says: "There. Job done. I'm safe, they're safe."
95 thoughts on “Video: Chris Boardman demonstrating safe overtaking of cyclists”
Bah. Humbug. negativity
Bah. Humbug. negativity etc!
Actually seems good to me. Of course the other half of the job will be to get people to actually watch this – but now we have the film, and we can link to this when we see ‘those’ discussions kick off on facebook, twitter and other internet fora.
I helped a couple of friends
I helped a couple of friends make this about the same subject a little while ago: Ride Wide!
Simple Straightforward, these
Simple Straightforward, these short educational clips should be on main tv channels on an evening like the old green cross code safety videos.
I still remember the advice/guidance more than 40 years ago, so why cant we have them repeated?
Perhaps that should be played
Perhaps that should be played as a public information film on all the channels
A point I make on a motoring
A point I make on a motoring website about this video: http://www.motoring.co.uk/car-news/cyclists-are-flesh-and-blood-give-them-space-when-overtaking_66768
Rather a shame that many of
Rather a shame that many of the instructors teaching driving don’t seem to have absorbed this either.
The video will be sent to
The video will be sent to driving instructors by the Driving Standards Agency. A previous one I did was also distributed in this way.
Can I also highlight that
Can I also highlight that you’re supposed to indicate right when you are overtaking. There is no need to indicate left as you are pulling in – that just screams of left hook.
qwerky wrote:Can I also
Hmm, are you? I don’t believe that it states anywhere in the Highway Code that you MUST indicate before overtaking or turning for that matter.
Decent video, and I guess
Decent video, and I guess they decided to concentrate on one issue only to get one message across. Odd that, during the instructor demo of when/how to pass the cycling group he waits until the solid white line ends in the middle of the road, but makes no mention of it, making me wonder if he’d have overtaken whether it was continuing or not. Maybe that’s the next episode…
Check the Highway Code, it is
Check the Highway Code, it is acceptable to cross the white lines when overtaking cyclists, if the conditions are otherwise safe to overtake.
I suspect the reason he do not overtake there was because of the multiple bends in the road.
Grubbythumb wrote:Check the
You need to check the highway code closer if you believe what you have written to be true.
How many adult cyclists are traveling that slowly?
oh and before some one mentions it
Note the absence of a MUST, so feel free to let cars past if you so wish but if you don’t it isn’t against the law. Same as feel free to ride 3 or 4 abreast, there is nothing that says you can’t.
Grubbythumb wrote:Check the
Rule 129:
Few cyclists do less than 10 mph on the flat.
That said, this rule is a bit silly. My commute involves a busy, twisty road with lots of double white lines. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a driver who has obeyed the above rule to the letter, but it really doesn’t bother me. There are lots of places on the double whites where you can pass a single cyclist doing 20mph or so perfectly safely.
Most drivers overtake safely, and the few that don’t need double white lines in order to overtake badly.
pdw wrote:
That said, this
I don’t mind cars ignoring the rule, If a car can overtake and leave me a couple of metres wobble room, then fine. However on narrow roads I will take the lane and force the driver to wait,
on my commute,
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.9209305,-2.0701503,3a,75y,26.64h,67.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxeYukUKSJATv2L7tpGTxlA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
I have picked this point because it shows how narrow the road is, it is also at times very busy with cars going both ways, has a blind bridge, a blind corner, is on a hill… and you will get cars try and force their way past with on coming traffic.
Good to see Chris wearing a
Good to see Chris wearing a helmet for his safety video. =D>
samkeetleyjohnson wrote:Good
Obviously never heard his (Pretty reasonable.) views on them then.
Though he did wear one when doing his cycling uphill bits of the Tour coverage.
samkeetleyjohnson wrote:Good
[My emphasis]
For the record, i am well
For the record, i am well aware of Chris Boardman’s opinion on the matter. I was being facetious and just happen to disagree. Having been hit by a car last November and being taken to hospital, the surgeons and radiologists determined that my helmet saved me from a serious head injury.
I believe that regardless of going on a long ride or just ‘popping to the shops’ a helmet should be mandatory.
As an ambassador for the sport I believe that he should promote all areas of safety. It isnt hard for him just to pop a helmet on regardless of his own safety opinions.
I do think that he is doing a good job at emphasising safety for cyclists and motorists, but ironically not wearing a helmet in these safety pieces is actually detracting from his main sentiment(s).
samkeetleyjohnson wrote:I
Do you feel the same way about helmets for pedestrians and drivers?
That is quite pedantic.
That is quite pedantic.
samkeetleyjohnson wrote:
I
Agreed, for all road users and pedestrians. It would save many lives, mostly for vehicle occupants.
No, it is not. The magic hat does not stop someone driving into you.
ChrisB200SX
Yes it is. Not because of what it does or does not mean but because it’s what a large number of people tend to concentrate on. It could be a film about a cyclist shooting fluffy kittens in a barrell and if the cyclist is lidless some people will be all ‘did you see that cyclist shooting the kittens? Wasn’t wearing a bloody helmet!’
In my view, the problem with rule 163 is that it’s too flexible. Soome road users pass all other traffic on the road as closely as they pass cyclists (in some instances) so in theory they are giving cyclists as much room as they would a car.
adscrim wrote:ChrisB200SX
“As much space” not “as close to” if they are more than a car width from the kerb and are still too close then I am probably too far out.
Agree wholeheartedly.
It
Agree wholeheartedly.
It seems Chris Boardman overlooks the possibility of simply coming off your bike and banging your head. A helmet will provide a level of protection in those particular instances. Personally speaking, I am prepared to wear a helmet every single ride on the basis that it may just be the difference between walking away and something far, far worse.
Ugh! This was meant to be in reply to samkeetleyjohnson.
spacedyemeerkat wrote:Agree
At risk of this falling into another pointless debate, and detracting from the message of the video AGAIN!!!!, note the child was wearing a helmet. Do you wear a helmet whilst out on the piss? If not why not, surely the risk is far higher falling over when pissed than when riding along at a leisurely bimble?
Can we please agree to disagree on helmets, the debate is achieving nothing constructive. Do we spend hours arguing that women should wear chastity belts and that if they don’t getting raped is their fault? The issue is drivers and the crap driving that too many deem acceptable. The issue is not whether helmets may or may not help in the event of a minor tumble, let alone being hit by a car doing 30+mph.
spacedyemeercat wrote:… A
A helmet *will* provide a level of protection? Well it *may* but that could be true of many day to day activities as a visit to a head trauma unit will reveal. Assault is the second largest cause of head injury after road incidents and we’re all at risk of that, but women in relationships are at particular risk. Perhaps they should be compelled to wear helmets?
spacedyemeerkat wrote:Agree
Helmets have an incredibly low design specification and are only good for propping your bike up to take photos.
Having been driven through by
Having been driven through by a car turning right at speed across/through me, the surgeons and radiographers were glad I hadn’t been wearing a helmet as there is no doubt I would have received a percussion injury and probable whiplash.
26 X-rays later it was determined I had received no broken bones at all.
It took me 3 years to recover.
I am in no doubt that not wearing a helmet saved my live that day, and did not contribute to me being hit in the first place.
I will wear one when I choose to or when I have to when racing.
Chris Boardman is right we should not contribute or get distracted by the helmet debate, helmets do not prevent incidents and as he says, and I agree from personal experience, current helmets do little to help in both percussion or leverage injuries, especially when hit by another vehicle.
samkeetleyjohnson wrote:For
Sadly you’re wasting your breath (or fingertips) on here ‘cos some believe that if you push helmets you somehow discourage people from cycling – yep some really shallow thinkers on some of these pages. You get just a couple of upticks for a sensible, reasoned comment (plus the usual incoming flak) and some wag writes a halfwit line about pedestrians/drivers and gets 8 upticks – says it all.
A helmet saved your bonce. I have seen it save someone else’s bonce in a RTA (bounced off and smashed in a Jag windscreen) and as we saw so graphically at the TdF a helmet saved ‘G’ from having his smacked in by a telegraph pole. Facts like that fly straight over the flat earth dwellers’ heads though ‘cos it mucks up their argument.
samkeetleyjohnson wrote:For
What makes you think that surgeons and radiologists are experts in cycling helmets? They probably have as much of an authority to speak on the matter as you do.
Knowing rule 163 of the
Knowing rule 163 of the Highway Code by heart should be made a compulsory part of the driving test.
Jacobi wrote:Knowing rule 163
Isn’t knowing all the rules of the Highway Code a compulsory part of the driving test? Where the driving theory test fails is it only tests on a few subjects, gives multiple choice answers (doesn’t work like that in the real world : “Sorry, you ran over that child, please turn around and have another go..”) and also that it is not required that you re-test every few years. The Highway Code is updated regularly, but once you’ve passed your test it is forgotten about.
Is that pack of riders at the
Is that pack of riders at the start of the vid going through a red? :O
No.
In addition, it’s a
No.
In addition, it’s a private road circuit, the lights aren’t real.
Great, except it appears that
Great, except it appears that the safe overtake is made on the brow of a hill, where, at least from the camera angle there was not a clear view ahead. Surely a better place could be found to demonstrate this vital information. The other point that could have been made in the same piece is that riding two abreast is also allowed in the highway code.
Deltavelo wrote:The other
Check the end of the video bud 🙂
iUpham, yes, that’ll teach me
iUpham, yes, that’ll teach me to not stop at the first sign of the credits!
Deltavelo wrote:Great, except
I noticed that too. But in fairness, it was a low camera angle so I’m happy to give them the benefit of the doubt!
Of course, the difficult part is getting through to the intended audience. I posted it on a facebook group earlier and was informed that “I’ll start giving cyclists space when they stop jumping red lights…” >sigh<
Gizmo_ wrote:Deltavelo
That sort of attitude is mind boggingly stupid. I’ll start treating muslims with respect when they stop bombing people.
It’s a damning indictment of
It’s a damning indictment of the contempt some drivers have for others’ safety that the video had to be made in the first place.
So this individual is happy to deliberately endanger every person the see simply because of their choice of vehicle? That person needs help.
I like it but why do cycling
I like it but why do cycling videos, TV shows and adverts have to be synonymous with happy-clappy nursery school music?
Slow clap to
Slow clap to samkeetleyjohnson and a 9.5 for his brilliant execution of the tried and tested “Fuck facts, here’s my vague anecdote and unscientific medical worker’s opinion as to why everyone must wear helmets – if it saves one head it must be worth it!!” gambit. (Of course, turns out that logic is only to be applied to cyclists – not pedestrians, joggers, bathers, beer drinkers, etc.).
Bravo samkeetleyjohnson, you win the prize!
Meanwhile, over here in actual, factual, reality land: the Netherlands has lower head injury rates than the UK, with *far* more people cycling than the UK, and barely any helmet use (unlike the UK).
Very eloquently put.
Very eloquently put.
Edit: to PaulJ
Yes. That is
Edit: to PaulJ
Yes. That is because the Netherlands has Dutch drivers and Dutch road infrastructure. We do not.
Again; imagine that we are running a game park in Tanzania, and are worried about lions attacking tourists. I suggest equipping the tourists with a lion-repellent spray which numerous studies have shown to work. You point out that nobody in the Netherlands uses the spray, and nobody gets mauled by lions there. Do we conclude that:
(a) the studies are all wrong and the spray is ineffective?
(b) the Netherlands is a low-risk environment for lion attacks, so the figures there are not applicable to our game park?
Toro Toro wrote:Edit: to
So are Dutch drivers a different species to UK ones, or maybe the training and attitude of drivers is different?
So shall we carry on saying must wear helmets and accept that most people won’t ride because they are shit scared, or should we deal with the shit driving that is deemed acceptable in the UK.
Toro Toro wrote:Do we
(c) providing facilities so that unarmed people don’t have to share the same space with man-eating lions on a daily basis is considerably more effective at preventing lion attacks than lion spray is. (Plus it also works on the elephant attacks too).
And then of course there is the slight issue that applying lion spray to your head isn’t much use if the lion decides to go for your neck, spine or squishy internal organs.
Toro Toro, how about instead
Toro Toro, how about instead of making all cyclists wear helmets we introduce Dutch style cycle infrastructure and legal approach with presumed responsibility so we too can have such stats like the Dutch do which PaulJ pointed out?
Toro Toro wrote:Edit: to
Bravo Toro,
You deserve a prize along with Sam. I award you the special, gold-plated “ignore the elephant in the room” prize (particularly apt given you went off into an african-animal argument-by-analogy) for not just ultimately ignoring the issue, but managing to do so while even stating the issue in your own argument.
Hint: The conclusion isn’t that dutch drivers are different or better (I’m actually half-dutch, I’ve cycled there – dutch drivers can be as bad as british ones, indeed they’re perhaps more aggressive). I’ve bolded the bit of your comment that contains the answer.
Or, to put it in terms of your analogy, the difference is the lack of lions, so you shoot the lions. Except the lions aren’t the drivers, and you shouldn’t shoot lions but build… oh bollocks – I’m just demonstrating why “argument by analogy” is a logical fallacy and a bad idea, amn’t I? 🙂
Once again proving the point
Once again proving the point that helmets and helmet compulsion are a distracting red herring when it comes to cycling safety, as he has explained himself many times. e.g.
Note: Sorry for the sarcasm
Note: Sorry for the sarcasm in some of my comments. I’ve just read these helmet debates a few too many times now. Without sarcasm I think reading the same anecdotes and cliches again and again would have led me to stab myself in the eyes by now.
Look, *of course* we should
Look, *of course* we should have better infrastructure, and better driver training.
My point is not that these things are set in stone. My point is that:
(1) given the conditions we actually do have, helmets do make a demonstrable difference to rider safety, and
(2) the fact that riders are safer with or without helmets under other conditions doesn’t alter that, and doesn’t render helmets “ineffective”.
It actually isn’t a fallacy at all.
The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy is the standard reference work; you’ll find the relevant entry here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/
So yes, perhaps you should tone down the sarcasm, or save it for occasions when you know what you are talking about.
Toro Toro wrote:(1) given the
That’s the point though. Helmets don’t really make anyone safer.
At best they just (slightly) reduce the consequences of being unsafe.
That’s not the same thing.
There are many, many other things we should be focussing our collective energies on if we want to improve things for cyclists in this country, but instead the discussion gets constantly derailed by pointless pontificating about helmets (which is exactly what has happened here).
Toro Toro wrote:Look, *of
Helmets would also make a demonstrable difference to pedestrians too, yet we do not argue that the best way to deal with pedestrian deaths – predominantly caused by motor vehicles – would be to have pedestrians wear helmets, and do nothing about the behaviour of motorists.
Instead, we’d lower motor vehicle speed limits and install traffic-calming measures (well, if at all – pedestrian deaths are also much higher in the UK than in NL, the UK generally has much higher, and more lethal, speed limits in urban areas).
Yet, when it comes to cycling, for some reason some choose to follow a different logic, as you seem to?
I don’t have a background in classical philosophy, but I do have some in logical reasoning (inc. formal).
Analogies do have their place. E.g., what you linked to is about reasoning through analogy, which can be useful to help explain and explore. However, analogies always break down and fall apart somewhere (otherwise it wouldn’t be an analogy but an equivalence). So, you can use an analogy to try find new areas to explore and test, however you can not use an analogy to prove something.
E.g., “A and B have similar properties x, y. A has the property z, which could be useful with B”. Then “Maybe that could mean B also has z – let’s test that” is a valid use of an analogy in reasoning. However, using the analogy to claim “A has z, so B has z” would be a logical fallacy – unless z follows from x and/or y of itself.
From the introduction of the link you posted: “Analogies are widely recognized as playing an important heuristic role, as aids to discovery. … an analogical argument may provide very weak support for its conclusion, establishing no more than minimal plausibility.” (emphasis mine).
So, yes, argument (in the “n therefore m” sense) by analogy is a logical fallacy, given that analogy by many definitions (including classical) implies at least some differences.
Quote:That’s the point
Sorry, this is utter gibberish. If there are no potential consequences to one’s being “unsafe”, then one is not unsafe. If the consequences are reduced, then one is safer. The distinction you are making is incoherent.
I don’t disagree about helmets being way down the list of priorities, particularly wrt this video. And I agree that it’s a shame this discussion has got sidetracked in this way. Still, terrible arguments are terrible arguments in any context; and “Dutch cyclists don’t wear helmets and have fewer injuries, so helmets are ineffective” is a terrible, terrible argument.
Toro Toro wrote:Quote:That’s
100%! Suggest you get your flak helmet on though 😀
Toro Toro wrote:Sorry, this
Would you rather be hit by a car but protected from head injury because you wore a helmet; or not hit by a car at all because the road environment is safe?
Helmets don’t prevent us from being hit. They don’t make us safer.
We should focus on the things that do.
So why do it???
You’re absolutely right – that is a terrible argument and if anyone makes it I’ll pull them up on it. Luckily no one has.
What people have quite correctly said is that other measures such as Dutch infrastructure are magnitudes more effective than helmets at preventing injury.
You more or less said it yourself: not mixing with lions is waaaaay more effective than anti-lion hairspray.
Personally I’ve thought long and hard about the consequences of a mandatory helmet law such as sam proposes. I’ve looked at the figures and research from other countries that have tried it and concluded that it does more harm than good.
Doesn’t muck up my argument at all because I’m not denying that helmets can help. I usually wear one myself.
But even if they were 100% effective, how many cyclist lives a year would they save if they were made mandatory? I’d guess at a number less than 10.
Meanwhile 1 in 10 deaths in the UK are obesity-related and anything that discourages people from the easy cheap daily exercise that cycling provides will only cause more deaths.
Simply put the evidence is that helmet compulsion would harm more people than it helped. In public health terms that makes it a bad idea.
The British Medical Association (more flat earthers?) used to take the same evidence-led position, until it finally caved to pressure from the “just ignore the evidence, it’s common sense” crowd. 🙁
GrahamSt wrote:Toro Toro
Christ. Clearly, I’d rather not be hit by a car because the road environment is safe. *If hit by a car*, like any sensible person, I’d rather be wearing a helmet than not, because that would be safer than the same contact not wearing a helmet.
Thankfully, “helmets or safe roads” are not exclusive alternatives; we can have both. So the choice you offer is obviously spurious. If we had safe roads, wearing a helmet wouldn’t make much of a difference. But we don’t, so it does.
Helmets don’t prevent us from being hit, no. I haven’t ever seen anyone claim otherwise. But it doesn’t follow that they don’t make us safer; they make us safer in contact if we *are* hit.
What anybody who is not an idiot would do is seek to reduce *both* the incidence of collisions *and* the damage done by collisions when they do occur. It’s not either-or, they’re independent of each other.
First, for the same reason that you are. “Tu quoque”, if people are bandying about the names of fallacies.
Second, because *as I actually say*, though you haven’t quoted it, because a terrible argument is a terrible argument in any context.
PaulJ has. So off you toddle to pick him up on it. Someone did earlier in the week, too. I didn’t see you picking them up, so your vigilance may not be all you think.
But what kind of moron would think otherwise? I’ve been quite clear, repeatedly, that we need – like the Dutch have – better driver training and better infrastructure.
But *while we don’t yet have those things*, harm reduction – yes – makes us safer. And it doesn’t stop us getting them.
There are a remarkable number of people who seem to think helmets are completely powerless to reduce impact forces to the skull, yet devastatingly effective at blocking bike-lanes, impairing driver education, and somehow making cyclists invisible.
GrahamSt wrote:
Would you
I really was trying very hard not to bite, but this comment is just insane.
Seatbelts and airbags do not help prevent us from crashing or being crashed into. But they sure as hell help prevent serious life threatening injuries if we do crash or are crashed into.
It seems to me that they therefore make us safer.
If, and I stress, if, helmets reduce the risk of head injury or may reduce the severity of head injuries in the event of a cyclist crashing, falling off, or being hit by a car then surely the helmet has made the cyclist safer?
I remain fairly agnostic as to what difference a helmet actually makes, but a large part of me things that if I had a choice between headbutting the ground helmet off, or helmet on, I’d go for the helmet on option. And I fervently believe that helmets should not be mandatory.
But resorting to idiotic arguments helps no-one.
Toro Toro wrote:Still,
Agreed. I don’t think anyone has made that argument here. Certainly, I did not.
Are helmets effective at reducing the incidence of certain kinds of injuries, of themselves?
Yes, they are. Helmets reduce the risk of head injuries by around 25% to 50%, depending on the study (ignoring the oft quoted but discredited US 85% one).
Are the injuries prevented by helmets significant, relative to the overall number of injuries?
For utility and non-competition road cycling the answer seems to be “not at all”. I’ve found it hard to get precise figures on this, but whatever positive effects helmets have in the UK, that effect clearly is utterly overwhelmed by other negative effects, of at least the environment and possibly even of helmet culture (e.g. reduced cycling), by comparison with controls like NL.
Even for competition road cycling, the answer may be “relatively insignificant”. E.g. figures I got from a doctor involved in Irish road racing were 2 head injuries over a certain period. So, had the racers not worn helmets, assuming the broader cycling studies roughly hold to road competition, there’d have been 2⅔ to 4 head injuries, given the above ranges. So potentially ⅔ to 2 additional people would have had head injuries. 33% to 200% more.
Does that sound like a lot? Well, there were ~600 recorded injuries over all in that same period. So without helmets the 600 would have been 600⅔ to 602 people. The 33% to 200% benefit of helmets when viewed through the narrow lens of head injuries becomes a meagre 0.11% to 0.33% benefit when you look at the big picture of all injuries.
You could ask if the non-head injuries might have been less serious than the head injuries – unfortunately I don’t know, I didn’t get a break-down of the injuries by severity; however in the real-world many fatal injuries are not head related, they are crush injuries to the thorax, because heavy vehicles are disproportionately involved in fatal accidents (certainly in London) – a helmet makes 0 difference then.
Basically, what looks like a significant effect of helmets when you focus just on head injuries in cycling could be a trivial effect overall, because head injuries are relatively rare overall.
In software engineering, this would be like focusing heavily on optimising a piece of code that only very rarely gets run, and never shows up in profiling. 😉
Are helmets a useful tool in general cycling safety?
Perhaps in some types of cycling (downhill mountain biking, other kinds of riskier cycling or competition). Perhaps an individual might feel they are useful to them. Though, personally, if I felt something was risky enough to need a helmet I’d prefer to avoid it altogether – got enough broken bones already. 😉 This is a subjective, personal decision.
However, at a strategic level, the UK’s reliance on helmets for cyclist safety doesn’t seem to be delivering results, relative to other neighbouring countries. Indeed, helmets are likely at least a symptom of the real problem: an unsafe environment. Worse, the reliance on helmets may distract from fixing that real problem (as Chris Boardman has said). Even worse, a culture of pushing the notion that cycling requires helmets may deter some from cycling because of the perceived danger helmets signal and/or inconvenience they bring – as compulsion laws definitely do. With fewer cyclists, there then is less political will to fix the true problem: the (perceived) unsafe environment.
So, at a minimum, this helmet debate distracts from the real issues, and at worst it may even be undermining the political base required to fix the real issues. Which, I’d suggest, means helmets are not a useful strategic tool to achieving real cycling safety (as defined by safety achieved by close neighbours).
Paul J wrote:Toro Toro
Yes, you did. Run back and look, and it’s clear as daylight.
Perhaps you meant to say something else. But you didn’t.
Figures are easy enough to come by. Convenient figures may not be. Here are just a few apposite studies I quoted on another thread:
The fourth and fifth specifically concern *all* fatalities and *all* injuries, respectively.
These virtually all involve control groups of one sort or another, and/or regression analysis. That’s pretty much sine qua non for scientific studies.
“The Netherlands” could not serve as a control for any such study, in any scientifically respectable sense, since there *any number* of confounding variables, on several of whose overwhelming influence we’re in total agreement.
But while negative effects (principally, a few studies indicate that motorists will treat helmeted riders as less vulnerable) do exist, there is no indication at all that they “utterly overwhelm” the protective effect of helmets. Any epidemiological study at all will make that clear.
I’m leaving out the “in competition” stuff; what a doctor told you is not scientific. I’m not sure what it adds to the main point in any case, though; I’d expect a *much lower* percentage of racing injuries than of cycling injuries generally to result from driver collisions. And you’re ignoring the false negative rate; whatever proportion of racing cyclists who will present to a doctor after a crash with abrasions, broken wrists, collarbones, etc., and no mention or indication of head injury since the mandatory use of a helmet in racing prevented any contact to the head from being injurious, or even noticeable.
Sure. Nobody will claim otherwise. But then, heavy vehicle collisions are very rarely of the sort – principally the dangerously close pass at speed – which there is evidence that helmets may even slightly exacerbate. Typically they result from poor visibility and/or insufficient looking by the driver. So there’s no reason to think that they counteract (let alone, again, “utterly overwhelm”) the protective effect of helmets. Indeed, the efficacy of helmets may be one reason why the great proportion of motor vehicles which are not heavy cause such a comparatively small proportion of the fatalities; where helmet use can mitigate injury, helmet use mitigates injury.
Well, look. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. As I said above, it’s not as though wearing helmets means we *can’t have* better bike routes or driver education. While we don’t have them, there’s no question that we’re better off in helmets.
And the distraction point cuts both ways. Diverting the discussion away from the necessary improvements, to the question of whether or not we should all be wearing helmets, is much easier if we are not doing so, and if half of us are willing to divert most of our education-and-infrastructure energy towards vehemently arguing – in the face of virtually all research – that there is no reason to wear them. Again; tu quoque.
Toro Toro wrote:
Yes, you
I’ve re-read my comments, nowhere do I claim helmets are ineffective. I think you’re referring to my first comment, where I left an inference to be drawn by the reader. You’ve chosen to drawn incorrect inference, and one I didn’t intend – I’m not sure you get to attribute it to me though.
Helmets do have positive effects on head injuries. Indeed, if you restrict your view to just serious head injuries and death that effect can look very impressive. In the very comment of mine you’ve quoted I said “Helmets reduce the risk of head injuries by around 25% to 50%” which is inline with some of the studies you quoted, so I don’t know what you’re complaining about! 🙂
However, in a wider view, the positive effect appears to be swamped into insignificance by other effects. Helmets are not ineffective, but their effect on cycling safety appears to be, at best, insignificant at broad population levels.
Further, there may be higher-order social consequences from high rates of helmet use that negatively affect cycling safety. From the more measurable effects on participation, to further order, fuzzier effects of political will. At least, it is quite plausible if you consider the UK v NL – and you don’t blithely try hand-wave away that reality by saying the narrow helmet efficacy studies are rigorous and that the wider, population-level, country comparisons are not.
Well, the epidemiological ones are exactly what I was thinking of when I stated the 25% to 50% risk reduction figure. So, we’re actually roughly in agreement on the science behind the effectiveness of helmets. Though, the 66% to 83% reduction meta-study you cite is at the very high-end. A more recent meta-study detected and corrected for some biases in previous well-known and widely-cited meta-study, see:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457512004253
Note the CMAJ study: 1. is not a meta-study, but a primary study (and pretty simplistic in terms of analysis), 2. has been discussed on road.cc before:
http://road.cc/content/news/69107-canadian-research-claims-cyclists-helmets-three-times-less-likely-die-head-injury
And see my comment on it:
http://road.cc/content/news/69107-canadian-research-claims-cyclists-helmets-three-times-less-likely-die-head-injury#comment-125704
Note that in that study both helmeted and unhelmeted riders were killed by motor vehicles 77% of the time in both cases!
Those seem to be (computational) modelling studies, including the fourth even though you’ve labelled it as an epidemiological one. Not sure they’re relevant – we know styrofoam can absorb energy and prevent some of it getting through to headforms. That isn’t really in dispute.
With all due respect, this is just distraction. You’re arguing that helmets are effective and throwing studies out with numbers inline with figures in a previous comment of mine. Those numbers are just not the issue.
Well, yes, obviously.
So you’re agreed there are variables between UK and NL which overwhelm any positive effect of helmets.
You’re not willing to ascribe any of these overwhelming as being due to the negative effects of helmets however. I can fully understand that reluctance, as it is hard to tease out and prove such effects with scientific rigour.
One of the variables almost certainly is cycling participation – many more people cycle in the Netherlands and so there is much more political will to invest in cycling. However we can not exclude that that particular additional variable of cycling participation is controlled to some degree by helmets. Indeed, we *know* that in other regimes that legally compelled helmet use leads to a reduction in cycling participation. It is not unreasonable to hypothesise that such an effect might also be present to a degree in “weaker” compulsion regimes.
E.g. the UK doesn’t have a helmet law, however it does have a significant proportion of people who believe that helmets should be worn and who do not hesitate to press this view on others, including through mass media (cycling on TV channels and government media is nearly always depicted as with helmets).
Basically, it is some or all of these other variables that are *precisely the interesting ones* and the issue. And it is the less controlled, country-level comparisons that show why they are interesting, because they are at odds with the narrow helmet efficacy studies. As you say, their influence is “overwhelming”!
The interesting questions are, why is it that:
* The helmet studies all show several fold reductions in risk of serious head injuries and fatalities,
* Yet in the real world none of the Anglo-Saxon countries which have (culturally and/or legally) therefore “invested” heavily in relying on these amazing safety benefits of helmets have actually seen any significant increase in safety?
* Yet another country, socio-politically very similar to at least one of the Anglo-Saxon countries (and geographically very close), has taken a different course and achieves amazing safety despite eschewing the wondrous safety benefits of helmets that studies have proven?
The narrow head-injury studies all say helmets should make things safer, yet the countries that rely on them the most have the worst safety (at least, in the developed world).
It’s a paradox! The helmet paradox.
Rather than ignore this paradox, rather than try dismiss it with “Well, the controlled studies say helmets are safer, and so I will just hand-wave away the Netherlands”, someone who was truly interested in cyclist safety (and science) would say “That’s strange, why is that?”.
Why is it that there are effects in the Netherlands that totally overwhelm the negative effects you presumably would say there should be in dutch riders rarely wearing helmets, and totally overwhelm the large positive effects that the UK rider population should see from wearing helmets.
What could it be?
I don’t believe it’s all down to confounding factors that are all completely independent of cycling/road-safety and so can be dismissed. I can think of some possibilities (e.g. differences in administration maybe), however I don’t believe all the difference can be due to independent effects. To just dismiss the safety the NL achieves that way is not useful. Indeed, it’d be harmful… Nor is that something someone with an open, scientific mind should be doing.
It’s not a scientific paper, and the data probably not interesting enough to make a paper from. However, it’s the best I could do to get data on the proportion of head injuries to other injuries – the UK DfT doesn’t publish that in its annual road stats report, and I don’t know how to get such data from, say, the NHS (not my field). However, it wasn’t the doctor’s /opinion/ but *data* he pulled from the Irish Cycling database.
Not rigorous, however the point was to illustrate the magnitude of the difference between injuries in cycling generally – in a more controlled / all-seeing environment of race incidents than hospital admissions data might see – and head injuries, and try explain (some) of the helmet paradox.
E.g. one explanation, as those figures show, is that head injuries may be rare overall. Even if they are not rare amongst serious injuries, as epidemiological studies suggest – though those are rare overall still.
Basically, a big improvement in a rare injury doesn’t do much for safety overall. Indeed, even if the injury is not rare, safety measures that target only that injury may be less effective than other measures that target the cause of all injuries. E.g.:
Say the serious head injury rate is related linearly to the overall, serious non-head injury rate x, in proportion to w for unhelmeted riders, and additionally according to the helmet efficacy z for helmeted riders, with the y the proportion of unhelmeted riders, as:
head injury rate = wyx + w(1-y)(z-1)x = w(2y+z(1-y)-1)/x
Say Country A has 60% helmet use and B 2%, amongst those serious injuries (B might actually have lower per trip helmet use, but helmeted riders in B are over-represented amongst hospital admissions – as is the case in NL – probably because they’re indulging in riskier/faster riding). Say head injuries are 2/3 of those unhelmeted (one of the computational studies you linked to claims roughly this this in its background), i.e. w=2/3. Also, say helmets reduce incidence of serious injury by 2/3 – one of the higher figures from the meta studies out there. Ignore participation for now, z=2/3. Say they have equal rates of serious injury where helmets have a positive effect.
So Country A has a serious head injury rate of .31x and B .65x.
Looks like A is doing the smart thing, by relying on the effectiveness of helmets!
Country B could try make more people wear helmets, and decrease that y value. However as y decreases to 0 that expression tends to w(z-1)x. Helmets may reduce the rate at which injuries produce head injuries, however that ‘z’ variable is fairly constant – we don’t know how to make helmets that can stop all head injuries – so you’re still getting head injuries. If z is 2/3, then relying on everyone wearing helmets can’t get you any better than wx/3 head injuries.
Country A decides that helmets are the be all and end all of bicycle safety. It takes this safety strategy of trying to minimise y – the proportion of unhelmeted riders. Indeed, some people even say you shouldn’t cycle *at all* unless wearing a helmet, and some in authority will even try enforce that (e.g. cycling clubs or school headteachers banning people from cycling unless with a helmet).
Country B decides to do something different. It ignores y. Instead it focuses on minimising x. It builds out its road, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure to segregate more vulnerable road users where ever possible. It generally requires lower speed limits in dense urban areas than country A (30 km/h as opposed to 48 km/h), and even lower again in many residential areas (15 km/h or lower). It implements right of way and liability laws that generally put the onus on motor vehicles to avoid more vulnerable road users (A theoretically has this – but its widely ignored and motor vehicles assume priority).
As a result, Country B manages to decrease its x seven fold, to 7/x (and this is about the proportion reduction NL has in its KSI figures compared to UK btw). Based on the above simplified model, the serious head injury rate in in B is now 0.09x – less than a third the rate of country A, despite the far greater use of helmets in A.
Country B by focusing on reducing *all* injuries by making roads generally safer, and particularly so for more vulnerable road users, achieves *seven times fewer* serious injuries (inc. those that’d lead to death) and, despite next to no helmet use a third the head injury rate of country A – , because it has fewer bad accidents that might lead to serious injury (head or otherwise) to begin with, . (Note I’m not sure exactly what the comparative rate is for UK / NL for head injuries, but I’m pretty sure NL is lower).
Further, because its roads are so much safer, country B’s population go and cycle in much, much greater rates than those in country A, with further population wide health benefits, as well as helping sustain the political will to invest in safe roads for cyclists.
Country B achieves much better results all round, on every measure, by focusing on preventing accidents and ignoring Country A’s beloved helmets.
Equally, there is no reason not to wear helmets when walking along the road, or when going to the pub, or getting in or out of the bath – all sources of head injury in our society (2 of them very significant). But we don’t, why?
Further, as the simple model above shows, and as the NL v the UK shows (and you don’t get to dismiss reality – if it hasn’t been rigorously studied, then it needs studying not dismissing!), you can get better safety by focusing on minimising the *source* of injuries. Making the roads safer, and preventing injuries to begin with, leads to *much better* results – including for head injuries, even when people don’t wear helmets.
The focus on helmets in the UK has patently *failed* to deliver results. Those who keep trying to turn the safety towards the wisdom or even necessity of wearing helmets are very much distracting from the real safety issue, by putting so much focus on *one type of injury*.
Look how much energy others have to put in to counter these derailments of cycling safety discussions from the substantive issues onto the helmet debate! How much better it’d be if that energy was spent on the substantive issue: Engineer the road environment to prevent the serious accidents (predominantly caused by motor vehicles) in the first place, and everything gets better!
*Prevent* _any_ possible injury by preventing the accident to begin with and, as simple math and ball-park figures show, you can do *much* better, both for head injuries and all injuries! This more *genuine* type of safety will also do more to *attract* people to cycling!
I read the results of a
I read the results of a survey recently and a whopping 75% of those quizzed were not confident in their overtaking skills. And a similar number were unhappy with the skills of others overtaking. We see this daily when drivers misjudge the speed at which many of us travel at. They commit to a pass, realise we are doing 20+ mph, panic and cut in or squeeze us when they realise that they have no room due to the oncoming traffic. Others are duped by a slower moving cyclist hugging the kerb and tend not to give any space at all. Even more think it’s ok to overtake on a blind corner because your a cyclist (I gave one of my work colleagues a blinding row for this one morning – he’s never done it since)
Many are also clueless also to the significance of road markings as well. I talked a friend through this who had been driving for twenty years and they never realised what the various markings meant.
Over the years I have found that I need to take an assertive road position – mainly on approach to pinch points, sharp bends, hump back bridges and other hazards forcing the driver to ‘think’ about what they are about to attempt. On pulling in to a secondary position I usually find they do actually give me more room when passing.
Overtaking is a skill that is not taught in depth when learning to drive. Personally once a licence has been granted I believe that the individual should do a further six weeks of lessons on motorway driving and overtaking amongst others. Also I would like to see the police pull in drivers they observe ignoring Rule 163 even if it’s just to have a ‘serious’ chat with the driver.
Anyway……
The video will
Anyway……
The video will only make those idiot drivers more stressed, as this is how they live their life. And for cyclists who live by the legality of 2 side by side, well I’m one for moving in when riding down lanes, which I can say most do not.
Education and tip, use common scense and drive carefully, everyone is in such a hurry these days, the roads are too stressful…
Those drivers should buy a bike and go for a ride, should chill them out and give them another perspective on the matter.
🙂
Jahmoo wrote:Anyway……
The
I find it a little ironic that one person ( usually) complains about 2, or even 6, people taking up almost as much width as them in their car, especially when they aren’t even delayed one second and still complain.
PaulJ – well, first, the
PaulJ – well, first, the article is *titled* “Analogy and Analogical Reasoning”, but if you had bothered to read it, it explicitly concerns *arguments* by analogy too. After all, to quote the third line, laying out the subject matter of the article: “An analogical argument is an explicit representation of a form of analogical reasoning that cites accepted similarities between two systems to support the conclusion that some further similarity exists.”
A “logical fallacy” (“fallacy” will do, there isn’t any other kind) is after all just an argument which depends on invalid reasoning. The argument that I made doesn’t.
You say you have “some background” in “logical reasoning (incl. formal)”. Well, I lecture on the subject at a top 5 UK university. So you’ll have to trust me when I tell you:
You are simply wrong. An argument by analogy is not a fallacy of any sort. You can show that the analogy does not hold, and that the conclusion in one case depends on features not replicated in the other. But you haven’t done so. You’ve simply dismissed the mode of argument – incorrectly – as fallacious.
I mean, you don’t *have* to trust me. You could read the article carefully and try to understand it fully, rather than scan the title, then skim for a quote which you reckon, out of context, might well support your position. But I doubt you’ll bother, tbh.
Toro Toro wrote:You are
A is “like” B (for a definition of “like” which explicitly doesn’t admit perfect equivalence). A has property x. Any argument that tries to claim B must have x based on that I can definitely dismiss as fallacious, and I don’t need to read up on classical philosophy to know that.
I’m not denying analogies have a place, but, as a further skim of that article continues to suggest to me, there’s no reasonable way you can use an analogy of A to B to assert a claim about B given a property of A, based on my understandings of the words “argument” and “analogy” (which I’ve tried to state; note that for me an A where all its properties map onto B, even if B has further properties not in A, is not an analogy to my mind – A is a subset, simplification and/or model of B, depending on context).
Maybe the problem is we have different views of that word, and maybe that article provides a definition at odds with mine, but I didn’t see it from a skim. Perhaps you could point it out.
Generally I have found that arguments by analogy can be a distraction. You waste time arguing over the analogy and whether and how it fits, what its gaps are, rather than the actual issue. We’ve taken that to an even more meta-level! 🙂
Paul J wrote:Toro Toro
A is “like” B (for a definition of “like” which explicitly doesn’t admit perfect equivalence). A has property x. Any argument that tries to claim B must have x based on that I can definitely dismiss as fallacious, and I don’t need to read up on classical philosophy to know that.
I’m not denying analogies have a place, but, as a further skim of that article continues to suggest to me, there’s no reasonable way you can use an analogy of A to B to assert a claim about B given a property of A, based on my understandings of the words “argument” and “analogy” (which I’ve tried to state; note that for me an A where all its properties map onto B, even if B has further properties not in A, is not an analogy to my mind – A is a subset, simplification and/or model of B, depending on context).
Maybe the problem is we have different views of that word, and maybe that article provides a definition at odds with mine, but I didn’t see it from a skim. Perhaps you could point it out.
Generally I have found that arguments by analogy can be a distraction. You waste time arguing over the analogy and whether and how it fits, what its gaps are, rather than the actual issue. We’ve taken that to an even more meta-level! 🙂— Toro Toro
Paul, I’m afraid you have no idea what you’re talking about. This is all gibberish.
You will need more than a skim. You will need to sit down, carefully, and read it until you understand it. I can’t do that for you. I could talk you through it, but it would take a significant amount of my time and effort as well as yours, and I don’t work for free.
But without you taking the trouble to more than barely acquaint yourself with argument forms, fallacies, and the like, I’m afraid that anything you say about them will continue to be gibberish. So if you’re only prepared to skim I’d advise you to let it go. Either tackle the analogy, or accept it. The argument form is not problematic.
Toro Toro wrote:
Paul, I’m
I don’t work for free either. My time might even be more expensive than yours.
You’re basically arguing to accept your authority, even though it should be quite easy to state what you mean by “analogy”. And no, I’m not interested in wading through reams of philosophical takes on it – I’ll happily take a succinct definition though, preferably erring towards formal. It really shouldn’t be difficult.
I’m wondering, do you lecture on the formal, mathematical sciences side or the philosophical side?
Can we please give up on the
Can we please give up on the Helmet debate, IT IS POINTLESS!!!!!
Can we please deal with the f***ing elephant!
Drivers are, usually, not deliberately dangerous, they are just stupid. Teach drivers share the video, make people understand why cyclists do what they do.
Drivers do not set out to kill people, but they, far too often behave in a way that does kill people.
something like 5 people have been killed on the roads today, most of those deaths were totally avoidable if someone didn’t act like a dick.
I can remember a H&S talk i had where i used to work, it started by saying that at one time British Steel virtually accepted people died, steel plants were dangerous, shit happens. At some point some one started to realise that you can’t just kill employees, they are people, they go to work, they expect to go home. They have families, parents,kids. Do you want to be the person who knocks on the door and tells someone that there partner/father/etc isn’t coming home.
Also you NEVER use PPE as a first line defence, it is always the last option!
So why the f*** do we accept that people will die on the roads and blame the victim?
What’s depressing is that CB
What’s depressing is that CB isn’t making this video for us,cyclists,readers of this forum ,but the general public whose helmet hysteria he anticipates by issuing a disclaimer
Judging by the helmet distraction comments on this forum suggests CB has got a far harder job on his hands thN he thought
Forget helmets folks-wear one,don’t wear one-just focus on the driver education/shit infrastructure issue-every post moaning about helmets is a distraction from the real topic
Personally I think CB should be PM- I think eventually though he will give up and go live in Holland
Look, CLEARLY British Steel
Look, CLEARLY British Steel should have taken more responsibility for their safety record, and done whatever they could to prevent accidents.
But I’d also wear a hard hat if I was going to a steel plant. ESPECIALLY if I knew it to be unsafely and irresponsibly run.
Toro Toro wrote:Look, CLEARLY
And your missing the whole point, some one decided that it had to stop. The same as at Dupont and other dangerous work places. It didn’t start with hi viz, steel toe caps ( or at Ijmuiden wooden clogs!) and hard hats. It started by looking at working practices, by training, by segregation, where nothing else worked then PPE came out. BUT it was always the last line of defence.
And accidents like this make you think, http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/web34.pdf
mrmo wrote:Toro Toro
And your missing the whole point, some one decided that it had to stop. The same as at Dupont and other dangerous work places. It didn’t start with hi viz, steel toe caps ( or at Ijmuiden wooden clogs!) and hard hats. It started by looking at working practices, by training, by segregation, where nothing else worked then PPE came out. BUT it was always the last line of defence.
And accidents like this make you think, http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/web34.pdf— Toro Toro
Yes, I AGREE that it has to stop. And that mostly has to do with culture, driver education, and infrastructure.
The point is that none of that means one should not ALSO wear a helmet.
Toro Toro wrote:
Yes, I AGREE
SO WTF ARE YOU WASTING SO MUCH BANDWIDTH ON HELMETS!!!!!!
most road deaths are nothing to do with head injuries! What is the F***ing point arguing helmets!!!!
I am out.
A nice positive story about someone trying to address the elephant and……
mrmo wrote:Toro Toro
SO WTF ARE YOU WASTING SO MUCH BANDWIDTH ON HELMETS!!!!!!
most road deaths are nothing to do with head injuries! What is the F***ing point arguing helmets!!!!
I am out.
A nice positive story about someone trying to address the elephant and……— Toro Toro
Bravo. =D> Well said mrmo. A number of cyclists pull this clip together to distribute amongst driving instructors and show to motorists and a number members end up squabbling about helmets. It’s unreal. We should be posting a link to the clip on any social media sites we are part of. I’m keen to see the other clip as well once released.
mrmo wrote:Toro Toro
SO WTF ARE YOU WASTING SO MUCH BANDWIDTH ON HELMETS!!!!!!— Toro Toro
No more than you are. It’s not a very scarce resource.
I lecture logic. There is
I lecture logic. There is such a thing as the philosophy of logic, but logic is logic. Formal logic is formal, whether done by philosophers or mathematicians. Indeed, there is no clear distinction between philosopher and mathematician where logic is concerned. You find logicians, doing the same work, in both kinds of department.
I’m not asking you to accept my authority. I’ve pointed you to exactly where you can find the relevant information.
If you don’t want to take the time to, that is absolutely your own decision. But you will not understand the issues if you do not.
Toro Toro wrote:I lecture
Looks like you’re laying claim to being an authoritative source based on logic. Well you’re up against tough opposition. Both David Spiegelhalter and Ben Goldacre have made their views on helmets clear. Both have found sufficient logical argument to pen a joint opinion against helmet legislation in an Oct 2013 editorial of the BMJ.
I’m bored of this futile
I’m bored of this futile helmet debate, I’m not hearing anything new. But I’m going to throw a grenade in here:
Wasn’t there a recent study which showed that cyclists wearing helmets were given LESS room when vehicles overtook them? And it’s known that closer overtakes are MORE dangerous. So, one could argue that helmet-wearing makes you less safe.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
I’m bored
Not exactly a grenade, it’s been discussed already. Indeed, I was the one who brought it up.
Not particularly recent, either; it was 2006.
The question would be whether that increase in danger outweighs the protective effect helmets have when collisions do take place. All the evidence suggests that it doesn’t even come close.
“Not with a bang, but with a whimper.”
Wish you winkers would shut
Wish you winkers would shut the feck up about fecking helmets. Go play somewhere else.
Did somebody say, “helmets”?
Did somebody say, “helmets”?
So how do we get the general
So how do we get the general public to see this? Perhaps we need to team up with others who will benefit from this rule being applied properly – school children riding to school, horseriders, pedestrians walking on country lanes, etc. I miss the old public information films that used to do this, that one with those kids playing with their frisbee near the electricity substation still gives me nightmares!!
doubledex wrote:So how do we
If your on Facebook, Twitter, etc, just share it, I know it won’t get it to everyone and I know a lot of people may not watch it. But as facebook by default autoplays videos, you may just capture a few peoples attention.
Every little helps as Tesco say.
Beyond that I guess we need CTC and BC to push for a wider circulation, maybe Carlton can answer what the bigger plan is.
A real shame that the thread
A real shame that the thread went off the point the video is making about trying to make roads safe for all users irrespective whether your an individual driving a car, riding a bike or as they do in my neck of the woods riding a horse on the road.
well I’m glad you chaps said
well I’m glad you chaps said it – we are used to motorists deliberately missing the point Chris is making but for our own to do it “shish!!” – can we get back to the point please?
“Overtaking is the most dangerous driving manoeuvre” and that is so for anyone using the road
First, I’m explicitly not
First, I’m explicitly not making an argument from authority – I’ve told Paul where and how he can find the information for himself, if he’s willing to invest the time and effort.
Second, that’s an empirical study; it has nothing to do with logic. Paul accused me of making a fallacious argument, an error of logic. That doesn’t depend on evidence. A factual error is something quite different, if that’s what I’m making. (I’m not: see below)
Third, you know what *is* a fallacy? And *is* an argument from authority? “These people are famous and say X, therefore X”.
Fourth, nobody is talking about helmet *legislation* here, and I don’t support it. That’s what they come out against. In fact, they state that the evidence *supports* my point, which is that helmet use confers a protective benefit.
Tip: always *read* the study you’re citing. It’s embarrassing when you just hand your opponent free evidence.
Toro Toro wrote:First, I’m
That’s a cop-out. It should be easy to state your definition of “analogy” and how it an argument based on one about A to B allows one to make claims about B based on A. Shouldn’t take more than a few lines to get the gist across, either in english or whatever formalised version you want. “It’s there somewhere, but I’m not telling you where” doesn’t cut it – and I have skimmed most of that article now, I don’t really see anything that contradicts what I said that you can’t claim one thing has a property just because some other analogous thing does.
Anyway, it’s not relevant to the original topic.
Helmets are like arguments by analogy: a massive distraction from the substantive issues. Also, I guess this must mean that arguments by analogy are therefore made from styrofoam and often sweaty after use. QED.
Please don’t feed the
Please don’t feed the helmet-obsessed troll.
ChrisB200SX wrote:Please
You were quite happy to, Chris, until it turned out you didn’t know what you were talking about, and had only the loosest idea what the study you cited meant.
Toro Toro wrote:ChrisB200SX
FTFY 😀
Plenty to like about this
Plenty to like about this video, not least Chris Boardman’s wonderful calm delivery. Am I the only one surprised by the chosen example of how and where to overtake? Check from around 1:45 to 2.00. Great so far as giving sufficient space to cyclists goes, but the car appears to be overtaking not only a short way before the start of the brow of a hill, but also over a crossroads.
It’s not my definition,
It’s not my definition, Paul.
And it’s not a cop-out. If I try to give you a simple definition, you’ll fail to understand it, fail to realise you’ve not understood it, and quote it back in a way you don’t understand is out of context. Just like when you “skimmed” the article.
The cop-out is thinking that understanding can be achieved on the cheap. It can’t. You either make the effort to understand, or you fail to know what you are talking about.
It’s not a difficult article.
When Boardman decided not to
When Boardman decided not to wear a helmet in this video I’m sure he was more concerned with public safety than his own personal safety. If we want to guess whether he was right and not wearing a helmet was safer for the public we need to consider the dangers of inactivity — heart disease etc, and the dangers caused by driving — pollution and crashes.
There’s an argument that by wearing a helmet he would have potentially made cycling look more dangerous, and put people off, leading to more physical inactivity and driving, and greater overall danger.
Nice video – I hope it’s
Nice video – I hope it’s shown to both learner and existing drivers somehow.