Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discussion

General chat from around the world

Moderator: Traffic warden

atleastinheaven
Power slider
Power slider
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:27 pm

Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discussion

Postby atleastinheaven » Wed May 11, 2011 9:58 am

Following debate on another thread I decided to undertake some research of my own and see to what extent the comments I and other people made there are actually backed up by independent evidence. I also thought it best to start a new thread, with a new angle because, as I predicted (and as we all know) once youÔÇÖve gone beyond the first two or three pages of a thread, debate is side-tracked.

I also wanted to make comment on one or two other matters (see below) which, I thought, may not have been seen had I posted them on the other thread because most posters may well have lost interest in that one.

The first problem I had in trying to get hold of comprehensive independent data relating to rollerblading accidents and injuries is that it doesnÔÇÖt exist. Believe me, I tried, but could not find anything. You might find one or two references to skating in the links I provide below but not in sufficient quantities to be statistically significant. That means that the vast (maybe all) data we have regarding skating is going to be anecdotal which, by its very nature, is inconclusive. However, if nothing apart from anecdotal data exists , then we have to work with it on the basis that it is the best weÔÇÖve got.

The second problem I had was that I had to decide what other data I could find which might shed some light on the skating debate. I thought it best, therefore, to research articles about the relationship between the use of a helmet whilst cycling and injuries sustained in the event of an accident. I chose cycling because, in evolutionary terms, and in the context of street traffic, the cycle is probably the nearest to skates as you can get .

As you may have predicted already there is a huge amount of articles about this matter available on the internet. I could have posted hundreds but have provided eight because they will give you a greater understanding of the topic. Please be patient as it will take you some time to go through them. You will, incidentally, discover that there is, as you would normally expect, a lot of cross-referencing between the various articles.

Anyway, the end result of my research has meant that I have changed my mind on some of the issues debated on the other thread. So the thoughts I have now are:

1 Whilst there is the usual contradictory conclusions between articles (especially the ROSPA one) it is now clear to me that, on the balance of evidence published, the fact that the 40 mph skater was not wearing protection (in particular a helmet) probably meant that, had he crashed, then the use of protective clothing would not have made much, if any, difference to the outcome. At the speeds he is going he would sustained injuries X,Y and Z regardless of what he was or wasnÔÇÖt wearing.

2) There also appears to be some evidence (but not as strong as in 1) above) that, if you are going to do what he did, then the best time of day and location would be a well-lit and little used street with smooth tarmac at night time. This means that when Mick and others suggested that what 40 mph man did, and at the time he did, was probably the best time and place for his behaviour they were probably correct as their contention is, on balance, backed up by independent data.

3 What I could not find is any detailed (and therefore) significant evidence about what damage a cyclist going at 40 mph would inflict on any other person in the event of a crash between the two. That means we have to rely upon anecdotal evidence and that suggests that the consequences of such a crash would be horrendous for all parties involved and that the incident may well result in a fatality as it did in Hyde Park a few years ago when a cyclist and rollerblader crashed and the cyclist died as a result of brain injuries inflicted when she was thrown off her bike and her head smashed the road surface.

On that basis of 1) to 3) above the conclusion I have to draw now about 40 mph man is that what he did was extremely dangerous and irresponsible because he would have had no control over the actions of other road users - including all forms of transport and pedestrians. And you can never predict what othe road users will do or, indeed, when they might suddenly appear.

In short, the articles I have read mean that I have had to partially change my opinion about the 40 mph incident. It was still wrong of him to have done it, but I now accept that those who argued that the speed he was doing and at the time and the place he chose to do what he did (without protection) would have made no difference to his injuries he might have received. The injuries he might have caused others, though, are too appalling to think about.

In the light of the above, I would like to apologise to Mick. I did not address the issues (relating to the video) he raised in the other thread. There were two reasons for this. Firstly, I didnÔÇÖt want to get involved in a long debate where I would have to have said ÔÇÿYou asked X. You will find the answer to that question in second sentence of paragraph three of my post of etcÔÇÖ. This would have been tedious and irritating as, in most cases, the questions asked had already been answered. Secondly, I had at that time not done the research I now have and that meant that I would not have been able to have given an informed answer to the questions asked, in particular his questions relating to the video. However, in the context of regular forum conduct, the etiquette of debate demanded that I should have done the research and I should have answered his questions. Either way, as a poster who is intelligent, articulate and because he is not rude and/or immature , I did not show Mick the respect that he showed towards me. As a result, I would like to offer Mick a sincere and unconditional apology for my behaviour towards him. (Mick ÔÇô I have sent you a PM).

I think that, now, both Mick and others will be able to read through the links I provide and get answers to questions they may have asked themselves in the past. Please do not ask me questions about X,Y and Z because you will probably find the answers in the links or elsewhere and I hope that you will, in the first instance, do your own research in the same way as I have done. But, if you cannot find the answer and you still want to ask me a question, I apologise in advance if I cannot give you an answer, either because I simply do not know the answer or I may have to give you a very brief reply because work is horrendous at the moment. As a High School teacher I am, at the moment, putting in 50-60 hour weeks because I am running extra after-school lessons for my ÔÇÿAÔÇÖ level students and I am snowed under with the marking of relentless mock exams. Becca will almost certainly be doing the same and will back up what I say. ItÔÇÖs probably the busiest time of the year and I have composed this post in the small hours but will not upload it until I have had a chance to reread it in the morning.

Other matters:

1) Tom ÔÇô I definitely know you and, if I remember correctly, you did the same First Aid course as I did at the Vic. It was organised by Asha and run by Ross.

2) Mit ÔÇô please introduce yourself to me.

3) Sparky ÔÇô the language you use in the fourth post from the foot of page five is disgusting. You should know that it is offensive and should be reserved for ÔÇÿFooÔÇÖ. It contravenes the first sentence of the third paragraph of the ÔÇÿTerms of useÔÇÖ relating to these boards. I will ask this boardÔÇÖs moderator to remove it.

4) One of the links below (I will let you read it to find out which one) does offer evidence that the use of a helmet in a cycling accident at less than 12 mph will reduce the incidence of injury to the head. I have been told by one of the Marshalls who monitors such things that the average speed of a Sunday Stroll is between 6-8 mph. We will rarely go above 15 mph though some people may think it is faster because you in direct contact with the road surface. The conclusion I draw from this is that on a Sunday Stroll and on the majority of the Wednesday skate participants would be far less likely to receive significant trauma to the head in the event of an accident if they do wear a properly fitting helmet. I will continue to use mine but it is your lifestyle choice should you decide not to use a helmet.


http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2005.pdf

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf

http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/info/t ... illman1991

http://www.anweald.co.uk/cyclehelmets.html

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/helmet_research.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... says-mp.do

[Subject line edited by Mod to reflect thread content]

mit
New school
New school
Posts: 2114
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:52 am
Location: EC3
Contact:

Re: I have (partially) changed my mind and other matter

Postby mit » Wed May 11, 2011 11:01 am

But...

Why is it that you consider the skater going at 40mph to be "extremely dangerous and irresponsible" to the point that he shouldn't have done it, when the speed limit has been set by the local council (or possibly the highways agency) and deemed to be a safe speed for the conditions? You say it's because he has no control over the actions of other road users, but he has no control of those actions whether he's doing 40mph or 4mph. He can take steps to minimise his risk to himself and to others, which is what he did by performing the activity at night, performing test runs and doing his best to ensure there was nobody else around.

What difference would it make if it was a car, motorbike, lorry, or bus driving at 40mph down the same stretch, or a bicycle? Why is 45mph (or whatever it takes to trigger the camera) so much more dangerous than 40mph. Is there a significant increase in risk? What makes doing it on skates any more dangerous than doing it with any other vehicle, other than your perception of how well (or badly) you would be able to stop yourself under the same circumstances? The operators of any other vehicle have no control over the actions of other road users either, so by your logic it has to be equally dangerous and irresponsible.

As an aside, I am not really sure how I'd introduce myself without knowing what you look like (I have avatars and signatures turned off so no idea if you have a photo there). I'll be in the park this Sunday though, and you may mistake me for a chav cutting through hordes of skaters even though I am not playing skate tag with anyone :)

Eviltwin
New school
New school
Posts: 1948
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 1:41 pm
Location: Just over there ->
Contact:

Re: I have (partially) changed my mind and other matter

Postby Eviltwin » Wed May 11, 2011 11:55 am

WOW these are long posts the job market taken a down turn again :)

Dan B
New school
New school
Posts: 3837
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:01 pm
Location: Seen with sound equipment
Contact:

Re: I have (partially) changed my mind and other matter

Postby Dan B » Wed May 11, 2011 12:13 pm

Damn, I pressed some random key combination and flushed my carefully drafted response. Here's the short form:

1) hoping this will not come across as patronising, but acknowledging you've changed your mind in light of the evidence is admirable: many people would just shift the argument onto some other point without actually admitting they'd been convinced.

2) that said, I still disagree with your overall conclusion. Handwaving argument as follows:
a) research quoted by the "20s plenty" and "speed kills" campaigns is that the potential of death or serious injury (KSI) for a pedestrian colliding with a vehicle drops massively when the speed of the vehicle is reduced from 30mph to 20mph, falling from a 50 per cent chance of death to around five per cent.
b) this research is almost certainly based on 1 tonne+ motor vehicles. The kinetic energy of a 1 tonne 20mph car (using the formula 0.5 * m * v^2 ) as 40kJ, a 30 mph car at 180kJ, and the 40mph skater clocks in at about 25kJ - due to his lower weight, even at double the speed he's only half as dangerous as the "around 5% chance" car driver
c) there are all kinds of other points to argue regarding stopping distances or the ability to avoid a collision by swerving (much easier when you can swerve within the width of your own lane without crossing into oncoming traffic) or the skill and attention paid, which I'm uniformly ignoring
d) and I apologise for not knowing the source of this research or whether it relates to traffic flow speed or actual/estimated impact speed (which would usually be lower)
e) and, yeah, accidents still happen and every death is a tragedy. But some actions are more likely to lead to death than others, and I don't rate this one as especially likely.

Dan B
New school
New school
Posts: 3837
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:01 pm
Location: Seen with sound equipment
Contact:

Re: I have (partially) changed my mind and other matter

Postby Dan B » Wed May 11, 2011 12:15 pm

mit wrote:But...

Why is it that you consider the skater going at 40mph to be "extremely dangerous and irresponsible" to the point that he shouldn't have done it, when the speed limit has been set by the local council (or possibly the highways agency) and deemed to be a safe speed for the conditions?

IIRC the limit was 30 not 40. KE rises with the square of speed, so the step up is significant (although, as I have just posted, arguably offset by the skater's much lower mass)

gummidge
Traffic Warden
Traffic Warden
Posts: 5690
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:50 am
Location: SkateBitch Towers

Re: I have (partially) changed my mind and other matter

Postby gummidge » Wed May 11, 2011 12:30 pm

Indeed, Mit. Dan, KE does increase like that, but he is significantly lighter than a car or person on a bike. [ edit: I take that back, just saw your previous post ]

I don't know of the conditions where this stunt was done, but where I grew up you could get away with this because you'd hear anything coming long before you needed to react to it. Sometimes at 3 or 4 in the morning we'd lie in the middle of the road with our eyes closed and see who could chicken out last once we heard a vehicle (usually a truck) coming. We never even got close - they were always at least 30 seconds away by the time we imagined we were about to be run over.

atleastinheaven
Power slider
Power slider
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:27 pm

Re: I have (partially) changed my mind and other matter

Postby atleastinheaven » Wed May 11, 2011 12:38 pm

I think that at 4 mph - as opposed to 40 mph- he has that split second difference - to be able to stop-swerve (whatever) and thereby not cause harm to any other road user, pedestrian or otherwise. If you have read my post (and the links) you will have noticed two things. Firstly, my research indicates that once you are going over 12 mph the risk of trauma to the head in the event of an accident is significantly lower than if you are going over 12 mph. I therefore accept that at the speed he is going then the use of 'protective clothing' will not make any difference to the outcome in the event of an accident. You will have also noticed (I hope) at the end of my post that I state the use of a helmet is a lifestyle choice of the skater. I am therefore no longer concerned about a 40 mph skater harming themselves provided that they do not put any third party in danger. And, whilst you are on the public highway, that risk is always present in a way that would not be the case if he were skating off road.

The difference between a car or lorry or bus going down that hill and a lone skater going down that hill is that the skater is far less likely to be seen because he doesn't have headlights or any other equipment to allow a third party to note that he is there and take any evasive action that they could. I once turned right and hit a car coming in the opposite direction. It was 10 pm, it was a black car coming down a hill where the surface was black tarmac. I didn't see him. And I was not prosecuted. Why? Because two independent witnesses told police that the car I had hit did not have its lights on. Now, if I could not have seen that car I would suggest that I would not have been as equally unlikely to have seen a skater under exactly the same conditions.

As for speed, it does make a difference if you hit someone. When my son was eleven he ran out into the road and was hit and thrown into the air by a car (whose driver legged it - but that is another story) and became unconscious The police estimated from the tyre marks and also witness statements that the car had been travelling at about 30 mph. When we got my son to hospital the doctor in charge of his care told me this: if a child is hit at 30 mph, 2 out of 10 will be killed; 6 out of 10 will receive serious injuries requiring long term medical intervention and the other 2 out of 10 will be bruised and cut, will stay in hosptial overnight and be discharged the next day. My son was lucky. He was in the last 2 out of 10. However, at 40 mph it all changes. 8 out of 10 will be killed and the other two will suffer long-term (and sometimes permanent) physical, and sometimes mental, trauma.

In short, in the likely event of a third party being unable to see that skater and then being hit by that skater (and don't forget I didn't see that car that I crashed into) then the degree of injury and the outcome of the accident will be determined, to a very large extent, by the speed at which the skater is travelling - though Dan has already told us that the mass of the skater will play a significant part in the outcome of such an accident.

In short, if you cannot be seen, and you crash into someone, then speed is a crucial factor in determining the outcome of any accident as it would be if a motor vehicle was involved. It all goes back to that first driving lesson - assume everyone else is an idiot who could do anything stupid at any time and adjust your speed accordingly. Similarly, as I have pointed out elsewhere, you don't know when a pedestrian will step out onto the road (and any driver will tell you that a very high percentage of pedestrians do not look before they step off the kerb). Lots of pedestrians do not just fail to look. They fail to hear as well because they are either listening to music or or having a phone conversation. Cyclists' behaviour is often unpredictable and, as a driver, I know that some simply pull out from side roads and assume that you will see them and adjust your driving accordingly. So speed and the unpredicatability of other road users combined lead me to the conclusion that what this guy is doing is dangerous but I can see no harm in him doing the same thing off road. That way, if an accident happens, then he will be the only one injured and that would be the result of his own lifestyle choices.

Think of it like this. I don't want to be the victim of someone else's smoking. I do not want to be the victim of someone's drinking. Nor do I want to be victim of another person's wreckless skating. I am sure that you don't either.

By the way, did you read my post in full? And have you had a look at the links I provided? They are long but interesting and have caused me to modify my views. The same might happen to you.

As for saying hello, I am 58 years old with grey/silver hair. I am 5' 8" and have middle aged spread. I nearly always, like Joan and Becca, wear black. I will not be doing the stroll this week but I will be at that end of Serpentine Road as I am giving 'unofficial' lessons to a friend of a friend. The reason I wanted to meet you and say hello is that, unlike other posters, you do not get involved in personal abuse and foul language on the General Boards. And I like that because what goes on on these boards reflects what is going on in society in general - we are becoming a nation of chavs

atleastinheaven
Power slider
Power slider
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:27 pm

Re: I have (partially) changed my mind and other matter

Postby atleastinheaven » Wed May 11, 2011 12:40 pm

Eviltwin wrote:WOW these are long posts the job market taken a down turn again :)


Happy to tell you I am gainfully employed. Have sent e-mail to E. Please inform her. Jonathan

Phil
Old school
Old school
Posts: 7925
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:44 am
Location: Stuck between 2 cones
Contact:

Re: I have (partially) changed my mind and other matter

Postby Phil » Wed May 11, 2011 12:42 pm

gummidge wrote:Sometimes at 3 or 4 in the morning we'd lie in the middle of the road with our eyes closed and see who could chicken out last once we heard a vehicle (usually a truck) coming. We never even got close - they were always at least 30 seconds away by the time we imagined we were about to be run over.


It's a good job that Hybrid cars weren't popular back then :P

Naomi
Admin
Admin
Posts: 10882
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:37 pm
Location: Nowhere in particular

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby Naomi » Wed May 11, 2011 1:08 pm

You know, I'd love to publicise these research links in the USA that Jonathan has posted - but I can't because over there my reputation probably still makes a difference to what I do (slalom comps & Seba distribution). Its quite extraordinary the attitude taken towards the idea of not wearing a helmet over there.

Incidently, I belive that if you fall backwards, your head can be 15mph by the time it hits the ground, making helmets good for clumsy back-falling beginners.

gummidge
Traffic Warden
Traffic Warden
Posts: 5690
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:50 am
Location: SkateBitch Towers

Re: I have (partially) changed my mind and other matter

Postby gummidge » Wed May 11, 2011 1:16 pm

atleastinheaven wrote:As for speed, it does make a difference if you hit someone. When my son was eleven he ran out into the road and was hit and thrown into the air by a car (whose driver legged it - but that is another story) and became unconscious The police estimated from the tyre marks and also witness statements that the car had been travelling at about 30 mph. When we got my son to hospital the doctor in charge of his care told me this: if a child is hit at 30 mph, 2 out of 10 will be killed; 6 out of 10 will receive serious injuries requiring long term medical intervention and the other 2 out of 10 will be bruised and cut, will stay in hosptial overnight and be discharged the next day. My son was lucky. He was in the last 2 out of 10. However, at 40 mph it all changes. 8 out of 10 will be killed and the other two will suffer long-term (and sometimes permanent) physical, and sometimes mental, trauma.

Yeahbut, that's for cars. The numbers go up significantly when hit by trains, planes, and planets; and reduce significantly when hit by skaters or bicycles.

In short, in the likely event of a third party being unable to see that skater and then being hit by that skater (and don't forget I didn't see that car that I crashed into) then the degree of injury and the outcome of the accident will be determined, to a very large extent, by the speed at which the skater is travelling - though Dan has already told us that the mass of the skater will play a significant part in the outcome of such an accident.

The lack of mass of the skater will make a significant impact on the lack of degree of injury to the car driver. From the skater's perspective it is the car hitting him at whatever their relative difference in speed is, so he is likely to be far more injured. Imagine a similar scenario with an ant and a train.

In short, if you cannot be seen, and you crash into someone, then speed is a crucial factor in determining the outcome of any accident as it would be if a motor vehicle was involved.

You're just trying to find a wordy way of not facing up to the lack of mass of the skater compared to a motor vehicle. Your argument would equally apply to an ant being carried along by the wind at 40pmph. Do you think that an ant in a storm poses the same threat as a speeding car? Or is your logic faulty?

gummidge
Traffic Warden
Traffic Warden
Posts: 5690
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:50 am
Location: SkateBitch Towers

Re: I have (partially) changed my mind and other matter

Postby gummidge » Wed May 11, 2011 1:19 pm

atleastinheaven wrote:Think of it like this. I don't want to be the victim of someone else's smoking. I do not want to be the victim of someone's drinking. Nor do I want to be victim of another person's wreckless skating. I am sure that you don't either.

Yeah, and I don't want to be the victim of terrorism neither. Is that relevant as well?

By the way, did you read my post in full? And have you had a look at the links I provided? They are long but interesting and have caused me to modify my views. The same might happen to you.

That would be odd, if the same evidence changed your mind one way, and everyone else's the other.

atleastinheaven
Power slider
Power slider
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:27 pm

Re: I have (partially) changed my mind and other matter

Postby atleastinheaven » Wed May 11, 2011 1:23 pm

Dan B wrote:Damn, I pressed some random key combination and flushed my carefully drafted response has been 'axed'. Here's the short form:

1) hoping this will not come across as patronising, but acknowledging you've changed your mind in light of the evidence is admirable: many people would just shift the argument onto some other point without actually admitting they'd been convinced.

2) that said, I still disagree with your overall conclusion. Handwaving argument as follows:
a) research quoted by the "20s plenty" and "speed kills" campaigns is that the potential of death or serious injury (KSI) for a pedestrian colliding with a vehicle drops massively when the speed of the vehicle is reduced from 30mph to 20mph, falling from a 50 per cent chance of death to around five per cent.
b) this research is almost certainly based on 1 tonne+ motor vehicles. The kinetic energy of a 1 tonne 20mph car (using the formula 0.5 * m * v^2 ) as 40kJ, a 30 mph car at 180kJ, and the 40mph skater clocks in at about 25kJ - due to his lower weight, even at double the speed he's only half as dangerous as the "around 5% chance" car driver
c) there are all kinds of other points to argue regarding stopping distances or the ability to avoid a collision by swerving (much easier when you can swerve within the width of your own lane without crossing into oncoming traffic) or the skill and attention paid, which I'm uniformly ignoring
d) and I apologise for not knowing the source of this research or whether it relates to traffic flow speed or actual/estimated impact speed (which would usually be lower)
e) and, yeah, accidents still happen and every death is a tragedy. But some actions are more likely to lead to death than others, and I don't rate this one as especially likely.



Dan - I do not believe this but the same thing has happened to me ie a long considered response to your post. I think it happened when the mod changed the thread title so I'll try again (in slightly shorter form)

1) Don't worry - your comments are not patronising. I was always taught at University to read widely and draw conclusions from the evidence. And that I should not be afraid to change my mind. It worries me not one jot when other posters indentify deficiencies in my rationale/arguments. It is better to confront those shortcomings and be glad that you have learned something new. Nor do I feel any loss of face when I apologised to Mick. I was 'out of order' and an apology was the least he could expect. On the other thread 'skatekitten' said she thought I was arrogant. That does not concern me either but I would suggest that someone who is prepared to change their mind and apologise when they are wrong is not arrogant. I hope so anyway.

2) I am not concerned about the lack of source references in your post. I know your educational background and I am satisfied that what you are saying is accurate.

3) I hope I am right in drawing the conclusion that the physics you present means that any risk assessment of the activity in question would conclude that a third party hit by a skater going at 40 mph would be 'less injured' than if they were hit by a lorry going at 20 mph. If I read you correctly, the significant factor here is mass - both of the subject and object. In the light of this, I will need to modify my position by a small amount to allow for the characteristics of mass present at the time of an accident.

4) Would you acccept that, ceteris paribus, that if the skater in question conducted the same skating activity off road then the likelihood of injury to a third party would be significantly reduced?

magichow
New school
New school
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:20 pm
Location: W2 now init.

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby magichow » Wed May 11, 2011 1:27 pm

Naomi wrote:Incidently, I belive that if you fall backwards, your head can be 15mph by the time it hits the ground, making helmets good for clumsy back-falling beginners.


I agree fully.

Incidentally, whilst snowboarding lid-less in Whistler, Lan-Lan and I were referred to as 'Organ Donors'. The attitude towards helmet use in North America struck me as rather odd, too.

gummidge
Traffic Warden
Traffic Warden
Posts: 5690
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:50 am
Location: SkateBitch Towers

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby gummidge » Wed May 11, 2011 1:31 pm

Ooo, I just noticed the thread. Better go and buy some lunch...

Naomi
Admin
Admin
Posts: 10882
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:37 pm
Location: Nowhere in particular

Re: I have (partially) changed my mind and other matter

Postby Naomi » Wed May 11, 2011 1:39 pm

atleastinheaven wrote:Think of it like this. I don't want to be the victim of someone else's smoking. I do not want to be the victim of someone's drinking. Nor do I want to be victim of another person's wreckless skating. I am sure that you don't either.


I think that this brings us to a point where we need to acknowledge that there are billions of us co-existing on the planet together, and modern civilisation/culture/whatever has lead us in the direction of wanting to sterilize our experiences of life to the point where we are not inconvenienced by any other being that we share our space with.

It all started with our not wanting to be murdered by anyone else, or have our property stolen. At the other end of the road we're travelling along, is our not being allowed to look at eachother for fear of upsetting the other person by the unwelcome invasion, or maybe it being offensive to speak outloud in public because it is antisocial, or maybe there will be a touching without consent ban - to include brushing while walking down the street, or unsolicited handshake. Running outside of dedicated fitness facilities would also be in such a future, incase one accidently hit someone. We are quite rapidly walking along the road towards this destination.

It leads to a separate and independent discussion - but as you can see, it isn't just a case of having a 'right' to remain unharmed, for with every protection that we are awarded against interferance in our lives by other people, we lose important freedoms. I don't want to have to listen to people singing in the park, but I'd hate for them to not be able to do it, and I want to enjoy the choice to do it myself.

In short, the quoted examples of apparent victimisations aren't a list of no-brainers on which we can all agree followed by a logical continuance.

Dan B
New school
New school
Posts: 3837
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:01 pm
Location: Seen with sound equipment
Contact:

Re: I have (partially) changed my mind and other matter

Postby Dan B » Wed May 11, 2011 1:49 pm

atleastinheaven wrote:4) Would you acccept that, ceteris paribus, that if the skater in question conducted the same skating activity off road then the likelihood of injury to a third party would be significantly reduced?


I would accept that the likelihood of injury to a third party would be substantially reduced if the site was not accessible to third parties (how could it not be?), but I don't think either of us know whether that's a significant reduction - a reduction which should have consequences for the acts we choose to commit - or not. Having agreed that the odds of causing death, given that a collision has occured, are less for a skater at 40mph than a car at 20mph, and society/government has said that cars at 30mph is an acceptable risk in the situation, this all hangs on the probability of there being a collision in the first place, and that depends on visibility, sight lines, the number of people around, the presence of hazards (parked cars etc), road positioning, how much attention he was paying: in short we have too many variables and not enough information. Appropriate speed for Kensington Church St and appropriate speed for Haymarket are very different, and the reason these discussions often run forever is that the pro- and anti- participants just have a different mental image of the setting.

And in any case, at the risk of stating the obvious, but the trick there is in finding a speed camera in such an off-road setting. I've been down hills in a controlled environment[*] at speeds which my GPD said were in excess of 40mph (and I don't even like downhills much: heavier skaters with less imagination than me can go much faster) but the "big deal" here was that he managed to set the camera off, not so much the speed he achieved in doing so.

[*] ish

atleastinheaven
Power slider
Power slider
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:27 pm

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby atleastinheaven » Wed May 11, 2011 1:51 pm

Gummidge - for some reason, your post to me and my reply to you - the post where you made three points relating to mass of objects being of significance, has disappeared. They may re-appear at some stage in the future. If they don't, rest assured that I agree with all three of the points you make and that you can see that I have done as much in 3) in my post to Dan above. and that, as a result of this information, I have made a minor modification to my viewpoint to reflect the importance of this scientific information. Jonathan

atleastinheaven
Power slider
Power slider
Posts: 216
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:27 pm

Re: I have (partially) changed my mind and other matter

Postby atleastinheaven » Wed May 11, 2011 1:54 pm

Dan B wrote:
atleastinheaven wrote:4) Would you acccept that, ceteris paribus, that if the skater in question conducted the same skating activity off road then the likelihood of injury to a third party would be significantly reduced?


I would accept that the likelihood of injury to a third party would be substantially reduced if the site was not accessible to third parties


Thanks.

Naomi
Admin
Admin
Posts: 10882
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:37 pm
Location: Nowhere in particular

Re: Effectiveness of Safety Gear/Further 40mph Skater Discus

Postby Naomi » Wed May 11, 2011 1:59 pm

atleastinheaven wrote:Gummidge - for some reason, your post to me and my reply to you [...] has disappeared.
FYI, I checked the moderator log and no move or removal has been done by a mod. I thought maybe they might have been split off for some reason, but no.


Return to “General skating”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron