31–40 of 79 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought this too, but then realized the humans doing the shooting are also illogical. For instance, I could see how hitting the wings might feel effective and easy, but it's not a great strategy because the bullet holes don't really impact the flight capability.
WW II fighter pilots were very rational about what they aimed at. (I happen to have read a lot about this.)
This reminds me of the story of the US army moving from canvas to metal helmets. To their surprise, they found that the number of head injuries went up, and not down. Why? Because the metal helmets converted fatalities to head injuries.
Same thing with bicycle helmets and seatbelts in cars.
Helmets turn fatalities into head injuries but also head injuries into non-head injuries. You need the real statistics for each case before making a judgment.
Also, a metal helmet has the obvious problem that there's no damping for an impact. A Styrofoam helmet absorbs shock.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition research has shown that cars drive closer to people with helmets than they do to people without them.
Do you have any citations for that? I'm not doubting you, but genuinely curious (and ambivalent about helmets). There seems to be a pervasive attitude in the US that if you're a cyclist hit by a car when you're not wearing a helmet, you're automatically at fault, because you're not being responsible. Which is weird, because the risk isn't coming from the bikes...and there's a good chance that it makes cycling seem mo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WW II fighter pilots were very rational about what they aimed at. (I happen to have read a lot about this.)
What about anti-aircraft ground fire?
It's difficult to believe a WWII era fighter diving into a stream of bombers, at night, while the multiple gun turrets on 100s of bombers were returning fire - were making precise tactical decision about which part of the airframe to target.
The nice thing (statistically) about AA fire is that it's rather uniformly random.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any citations for that? I'm not doubting you, but genuinely curious (and ambivalent about helmets). There seems to be a pervasive attitude in the US that if you're a cyclist hit by a car when you're not wearing a helmet, you're automatically at fault, because you're not being responsible. Which is weird, because the risk isn't coming from the bikes...and there's a good chance that it makes cycling seem mo…
Can't remember the name but an experiment by a prof from UCL showed that cars approached him more closely when he was wearing a helmet - but they gave him more space when he was wearing a long blonde wig. So the safest solution is a transvestite without a helmet.
Edit: Secondary source, still working on the primary - http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/653/blonde-wigs-safer-hel...
Edit': Got it - http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/
American drivers' attitudes may differ from UK/Austrailian drivers', especially regionally (i.e. rural Texas vs. New York City). I'm curious how drivers would behave around bikes with a (scientifically fake) baby / child seat, with a man or a woman riding.
My experience (in the urban midwest) has been that most drivers are agreeable as long as you ride predictably (not weaving erratically, running red lights, etc.), but drivers high on testosterone should be given space - whether it's a red car full of teenagers with something to prove or (in my worst case) a skeezy, ponytailed, balding 40-something man with a considerably younger woman in his convertible. That guy tailgated me for over a mile on a clear two-lane street, trying to prove something (?). I turned off just to let him have his stupid moment and get on with my life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This might be closer to the mark: Under the risk compensation theory, helmeted cyclists may be expected to ride less carefully; this is supported by evidence for other road safety interventions such as seat belts and anti-lock braking systems. Anecdotally, many riders report feeling safer with a helmet: "When I wear it, I feel safe..." One researcher randomized his helmet use over a year of commuting to work and foun…
According to John Forester, being struck by an overtaking car is among the least likely bicycle accidents, even though it is the rationale used to justify mandatory bike lane usage. http://www.johnforester.com/ His book, Effective Cycling is a great way to improve bicycle safety.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to John Forester, being struck by an overtaking car is among the least likely bicycle accidents, even though it is the rationale used to justify mandatory bike lane usage. http://www.johnforester.com/ His book, Effective Cycling is a great way to improve bicycle safety.
Reminds me of Neal Stephenson's character whose strategy for bike safety at night was to assume he was wearing reflective clothing and that everybody in a car would be paid a million dollars to kill him.
An example of a company I think not following this advice: Pivotal Labs. Why are they not building premium options into Pivotal Tracker instead of building WebOS apps?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This might be closer to the mark: Under the risk compensation theory, helmeted cyclists may be expected to ride less carefully; this is supported by evidence for other road safety interventions such as seat belts and anti-lock braking systems. Anecdotally, many riders report feeling safer with a helmet: "When I wear it, I feel safe..." One researcher randomized his helmet use over a year of commuting to work and foun…
According to John Forester, being struck by an overtaking car is among the least likely bicycle accidents, even though it is the rationale used to justify mandatory bike lane usage. http://www.johnforester.com/ His book, Effective Cycling is a great way to improve bicycle safety.