Re: What did he do that for!?

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Tom Crispin wrote:

> I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
> in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.

> Why?

Because he wanted one? As a present? A raffle prize?

Does it really matter? And does it really matter to you?

> The owner of OYB has invited Boris to open his new bike garage in late
> June. The new Mayor of London has agreed.

Fair enough.

JNugent wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>> I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
>> in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.

> Does it really matter? And does it really matter to you?

If true, it does matter. Someone who views cycling as a practical
method of transport has apparently been persuaded either
- that it is dangerous
or
- that wearing a helmet sets a good example.

Both are false and will undermine his efforts, reported elsewhere, to
increase cycling levels in London.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Colin McKenzie wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:

>>> I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
>>> in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.

>> Does it really matter? And does it really matter to you?

> If true, it does matter. Someone who views cycling as a practical method
> of transport has apparently been persuaded either
> - that it is dangerous
> or
> - that wearing a helmet sets a good example.

> Both are false and will undermine his efforts, reported elsewhere, to
> increase cycling levels in London.

And?

I am well aware that that is the view of some, apparently including you.

I don't know that it is correct, or that the proponents of helmets are
wrong. I merely note that you say it is correct and that the "other
side" are wrong.

Others, with on the face of it (I have to say) better qualifications,
say something different.

There was a similar long argument about the fitting of seatbelts in
motor vehicles with more than two wheels. Then a longer one about
wearing them. For part of the same period, there was a long public
argument about whether it would be right to force motor-cyclists to wear
helmets. This helmet business is deja vu all over again.

I wonder whether the desire to "look cool" plays a part in it.

As for people - whether influential or not - buying cycle helmets - are
they under a duty to agree with you (and TC) and to do as you choose to
so? Or are they free to make up their own minds?

JNugent wrote:
> Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>>>> I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
>>>> in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.
>
>>> Does it really matter? And does it really matter to you?
>
>> If true, it does matter. Someone who views cycling as a practical
>> method of transport has apparently been persuaded either
>> - that it is dangerous
>> or
>> - that wearing a helmet sets a good example.
>
>> Both are false and will undermine his efforts, reported elsewhere, to
>> increase cycling levels in London.
>
> And?
>
> I am well aware that that is the view of some, apparently including you.
>
> I don't know that it is correct, or that the proponents of helmets are
> wrong. I merely note that you say it is correct and that the "other
> side" are wrong.
>
> Others, with on the face of it (I have to say) better qualifications,
> say something different.

For a start, Colin cycles, whereas many helmet proponents don't

> There was a similar long argument about the fitting of seatbelts in
> motor vehicles with more than two wheels. Then a longer one about
> wearing them.

Did fitting of seatbelts, or their compulsory use stop more than a
handful of people driving?
I doubt it.

Did the compulsory use of seatbelts increase road safety?
Again I doubt it.
(I am not going to look up the figures).

> For part of the same period, there was a long public
> argument about whether it would be right to force motor-cyclists to wear
> helmets. This helmet business is deja vu all over again.

Will helmet compulsion reduce cycling numbers?
Yes, if examples like Australia are anything to go by.

Will helmet compulsion do anything to increase safety for cyclists?
No. It is likely to decrease the safety for individual people who carry
on cycling.


> As for people - whether influential or not - buying cycle helmets - are
> they under a duty to agree with you (and TC) and to do as you choose to
> so? Or are they free to make up their own minds?

They are free to make up their own minds, but in doing so they should
remember that they could be setting an example, e.g. in this case the
dangerisation of cycling.

Martin wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> Colin McKenzie wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:

>>>>> I have heard from a friend that Boris Johnson walked into On Your Bike
>>>>> in Tooley Street today and bought a h*lm*t.

>>>> Does it really matter? And does it really matter to you?

>>> If true, it does matter. Someone who views cycling as a practical
>>> method of transport has apparently been persuaded either
>>> - that it is dangerous
>>> or
>>> - that wearing a helmet sets a good example.

>>> Both are false and will undermine his efforts, reported elsewhere, to
>>> increase cycling levels in London.

>> And?
>> I am well aware that that is the view of some, apparently including you.
>> I don't know that it is correct, or that the proponents of helmets are
>> wrong. I merely note that you say it is correct and that the "other
>> side" are wrong.
>> Others, with on the face of it (I have to say) better qualifications,
>> say something different.

> For a start, Colin cycles, whereas many helmet proponents don't

Well, those who argued for the breathalyser back in the sixties weren't
all drink-drivers (they weren't even all drivers). But more seriously, I
would tend to treat non-expert and unqualified opinion more sceptically
than (for instance) that of experienced A&E doctors.

>> There was a similar long argument about the fitting of seatbelts in
>> motor vehicles with more than two wheels. Then a longer one about
>> wearing them.

> Did fitting of seatbelts, or their compulsory use stop more than a
> handful of people driving?
> I doubt it.

That's absolutely not the issue. If it had, it wouldn't have stopped the
law from being enacted, would it?

> Did the compulsory use of seatbelts increase road safety?
> Again I doubt it.
> (I am not going to look up the figures).

Don't introduce red herrings. "Road safety in general" isn't the issue
(and is always widened far too much for sensible debate). The issue (for
seatbelts was whether injuries to vehicle passengers would reduce and/or
be less serious. The issue for motor-bike helmets was the same.

The only proper measure of whether seatbelts and motor-bike helmets (and
compulsion in either case) have been successful is to look at that outcome.

>> For part of the same period, there was a long public argument about
>> whether it would be right to force motor-cyclists to wear helmets.
>> This helmet business is deja vu all over again.

> Will helmet compulsion reduce cycling numbers?
> Yes, if examples like Australia are anything to go by.

See above. It's not an issue. If cycling is as attractive as many claim
(especially with the way that the price of oil is going), making it
safer (yes, I know you might say it wouldn't be) is going to simply
increase its attractions.

> Will helmet compulsion do anything to increase safety for cyclists?
> No. It is likely to decrease the safety for individual people who carry
> on cycling.

I prefer to trust the submissions of health professionals and
statisticians on that issue.

>> As for people - whether influential or not - buying cycle helmets -
>> are they under a duty to agree with you (and TC) and to do as you
>> choose to so? Or are they free to make up their own minds?

> They are free to make up their own minds, but in doing so they should
> remember that they could be setting an example, e.g. in this case the
> dangerisation of cycling.

Er... exactly.

You aren't related to John Prescott, are you?

JNugent wrote:

> Martin wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>

>> Will helmet compulsion reduce cycling numbers?
>> Yes, if examples like Australia are anything to go by.
>
> See above. It's not an issue. If cycling is as attractive as many claim
> (especially with the way that the price of oil is going), making it
> safer (yes, I know you might say it wouldn't be) is going to simply
> increase its attractions.

And making it appear more dangerous (or be less convenient) is known
to reduce them.

>> Will helmet compulsion do anything to increase safety for cyclists?
>> No. It is likely to decrease the safety for individual people who
>> carry on cycling.

> I prefer to trust the submissions of health professionals and
> statisticians on that issue.

Health professionals, on the whole, do not move on from the default
'it must be better than nothing' position. Good statisticians have
been effective in debunking research that appears to show safety
benefits from helmet-wearing.

>>> As for people - whether influential or not - buying cycle helmets -
>>> are they under a duty to agree with you (and TC) and to do as you
>>> choose to so? Or are they free to make up their own minds?
>
>> They are free to make up their own minds, but in doing so they should
>> remember that they could be setting an example, e.g. in this case the
>> dangerisation of cycling.

More to the point, they should make up their minds on the basis of
evidence rather than misinformation and propaganda.

I am writing to Boris.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

On Thu, 15 May 2008 01:06:18 +0100, Colin McKenzie
<news@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:

>I am writing to Boris.


Poor man!

He pops out of the office during his morning coffee break to do a bit
of private shopping, and within 24hrs his choice in headwear is
plastered all over Usenet, and a few days later his mailbox is stuffed
full of good advice over his personal choices. ;-) Hehehe.

"JNugent" <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
news:H6KdnX-J-cD-_rbVRVnygwA@pipex.net...
> Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>
> And?
>
> I am well aware that that is the view of some, apparently including you.
>
> I don't know that it is correct, or that the proponents of helmets are
> wrong. I merely note that you say it is correct and that the "other side"
> are wrong.
>
> Others, with on the face of it (I have to say) better qualifications, say
> something different.

Then you don't accept that world renowned professors are qualified to
comment? e.g. John Adams, Robinson, Hillman.
>
> There was a similar long argument about the fitting of seatbelts in motor
> vehicles with more than two wheels. Then a longer one about wearing them.
> For part of the same period, there was a long public argument about
> whether it would be right to force motor-cyclists to wear helmets. This
> helmet business is deja vu all over again.

And the evidence for seatbelts and for motorcycle helmets is extremely weak,
and the seat belt law would probably never have been enacted if the research
commissioned by the DfT's previous incarnation had been released. It's
called the Isles report and there is a copy of it posted on the web, just
google for it. It's conclusions were that there would be a reduction in
deaths and injuries to drivers and front seat passengers, but that there
would be more deaths and injuries to cyclists, pedestrians and rear seat
passengers, more than would be saved, so the overall effect would be
negative. Why do you think this report was suppressed?
>
> I wonder whether the desire to "look cool" plays a part in it.

More like not looking a gullible prat.
>
> As for people - whether influential or not - buying cycle helmets - are
> they under a duty to agree with you (and TC) and to do as you choose to
> so? Or are they free to make up their own minds?

Anybody is free to make up their own mind, but they need to be in possession
of the facts to be able to do so. I've just completed a dissertation on
cycle helmets, on people's perceptions of them and the risks of cycling, and
it appears that many people are influenced by the highly inaccurate
advertising about helmets, all of which exaggerates the risks of cycling and
the effectiveness of helmets. People who think that helmets are effective
also think that cycling is much more dangerous than it is. This advertising
is not done by the manufacturers, they would be prosecuted on advertising
legislation, but by the fanatical do-gooders like BHIT, who still claim that
helmets prevent 85% of head injuries, but they are not alone. That figure
and other unprovable statements and exhortations to wear helmets are
repeated by councils, the DfT, charities and many cyclists themselves.

As an ex-helmet wearer, I and many others were persuaded by the facts:
nowhere that has introduced a helmet law, or where large rises in
helmet-wearing have occurred can show any reduction in risk to cyclists,
only a large fall in the number of cyclists, and therefore a large reduction
in the number of people getting regular daily exercise. Given that it is
much more dangerous not to take exercise than it is to ride a bike, by
somewhere between 20 and 250 to one, the health effects of helmet laws and
promotion are highly negative, and I mean highly. It is utterly incredible
that organisations which claim to be promoting public health, e.g. BMA, not
only supports helmet promotion, but wants a law. Hypocrisy doesn't really
cover it.

Colin McKenzie wrote:

> Both are false and will undermine his efforts, reported elsewhere, to
> increase cycling levels in London.

Here we go again, the fuse has been lit for another 50K message thread
about helmets.

On Wed, 14 May 2008 23:58:57 +0100
JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

> But more seriously, I
> would tend to treat non-expert and unqualified opinion more
> sceptically than (for instance) that of experienced A&E doctors.

A panel beater sees plenty of bent cars, but would you trust him to do
the job of an accident investigator?

On May 15, 7:48 am, "burtthebike" <burttheb...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

> As an ex-helmet wearer, I and many others were persuaded by the facts:
> nowhere that has introduced a helmet law, or where large rises in
> helmet-wearing have occurred can show any reduction in risk to cyclists,
> only a large fall in the number of cyclists, and therefore a large reduction
> in the number of people getting regular daily exercise. Given that it is
> much more dangerous not to take exercise than it is to ride a bike, by
> somewhere between 20 and 250 to one, the health effects of helmet laws and
> promotion are highly negative, and I mean highly. It is utterly incredible
> that organisations which claim to be promoting public health, e.g. BMA, not
> only supports helmet promotion, but wants a law. Hypocrisy doesn't really
> cover it.

For the umpteenth time, wearing a helmet is not the same as compulsory
helmet wearing. Yes, it's clear that compulsion reduces cycling
levels, forces more people into cars, increases risk and levels of
poor health etc etc. But that's no reason why someone who has a helmet
should not voluntarily wear the thing to cycle. Anything
(well...almost ) that gets more people cycling is good and if they
won't do it without a helmet then let them get on with it, with one.
The BMA etc would only be hypocrites if they knew one thing was
appropriate but did the other because of some hidden agenda. But they
don't. They simply haven't looked at the evidence and thought it
through properly. Ditto the media.
Tim

On Thu, 15 May 2008 07:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
TimB <timburford@onetel.net> wrote:

> For the umpteenth time, wearing a helmet is not the same as compulsory
> helmet wearing.

But it will likely lead to it - as helmets are seen to be more widely
accepted compulsion looms ever nearer.

Peter Pan <peter.pan@invalid.mail.kom> wrote:

> Colin McKenzie wrote:
>
> > Both are false and will undermine his efforts, reported elsewhere, to
> > increase cycling levels in London.
>
> Here we go again, the fuse has been lit for another 50K message thread
> about helmets.

could try redlight jumping or speed cameras!

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Rob Morley wrote:

> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

>> But more seriously, I
>> would tend to treat non-expert and unqualified opinion more
>> sceptically than (for instance) that of experienced A&E doctors.

> A panel beater sees plenty of bent cars, but would you trust him to do
> the job of an accident investigator?

If the choice lay between him and a driver who repeatedly bent the cars,
yes.

On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:59:25 +0100
JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
>
> > A panel beater sees plenty of bent cars, but would you trust him to
> > do the job of an accident investigator?
>
> If the choice lay between him and a driver who repeatedly bent the
> cars, yes.

That would be silly - the choice is between the panel beater and the
insurance claims adjuster.

Rob Morley wrote:

> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Rob Morley wrote:

>>> A panel beater sees plenty of bent cars, but would you trust him to
>>> do the job of an accident investigator?

>> If the choice lay between him and a driver who repeatedly bent the
>> cars, yes.

> That would be silly - the choice is between the panel beater and the
> insurance claims adjuster.

In that different case, the answer is simple: the qualified professional
who understands the issues.

I don't think an accident investigator and an insurance claims adjuster
are necessarily the same thing, BTW.

JNugent wrote:
> burtthebike wrote:
<snip>
>
>> Then you don't accept that world renowned professors are qualified to
>> comment? e.g. John Adams, Robinson, Hillman.
>
> In what academic disciplines do those no-doubt very distinguished
> persons hold chairs?
>
> I ask because obviously, most professors will actually be laymen on this
> issue. A friend of mine is a (retired) professor of Greek. How that
> qualifies him to speak with authority on anything but Greek would not be
> clear (ITSWIM).
>

A&E doctors are laymen on the issue to a much higher degree. Few of
them will have any experience in the causes of the incidents that they
have to treat, whereas evaluating the accuracy of published research &
statistics is something your average Professor will do, almost by
definition.

John Adams specialises in risk management and is has published work in
this area. That's a pretty good starting point, even if his prime field
is Geography. I haven't checked the others.

Pete

Pete wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> burtthebike wrote:

> <snip>

>>> Then you don't accept that world renowned professors are qualified to
>>> comment? e.g. John Adams, Robinson, Hillman.

>> In what academic disciplines do those no-doubt very distinguished
>> persons hold chairs?

>> I ask because obviously, most professors will actually be laymen on
>> this issue. A friend of mine is a (retired) professor of Greek. How
>> that qualifies him to speak with authority on anything but Greek would
>> not be clear (ITSWIM).

> A&E doctors are laymen on the issue to a much higher degree. Few of
> them will have any experience in the causes of the incidents that they
> have to treat, whereas evaluating the accuracy of published research &
> statistics is something your average Professor will do, almost by
> definition.

I agree. That is one reason why any position taken up by organisations
such as the BMA on promoting cycling (in the claimed interests of wider
improvements in health) are automatically of dubious value (because they
ignore so many relevant points and counter-arguments along the way).

> John Adams specialises in risk management and is has published work in
> this area. That's a pretty good starting point, even if his prime field
> is Geography. I haven't checked the others.

Well, maybe.

I'd be more impressed with studies of the effects of accidents on the
micro-scale, rather than the macro-scale. That's why I would tend to
value studies more highly where they are to do with what happened (and
what might or might not happen in slightly different circumstances) in a
particular cohort of injury incidents.

When a researcher's conclusions are drawn rather too widely on the
macro-scale - "Yes, you could protect this rider and that rider but it
might tend to reduce the amount of cycling, which might lead to an
increase in obesity and a reduction in fitness over the next four
decades" - I take the view that this is an unhelpful diversion which is
being twisted to suit different agenda and to misdirect. That sort of
argument would have been laughed at in the context of the debates about
motor-bike helmets and seat-belts. Indeed, similar arguments ("there was
this bloke whose car caught fire and he couldn't get his belt undone")
*were* derided.

"TimB" <timburford@onetel.net> wrote in message
news:02612b29-e7df-49b3-aeb9-1d5b46c252d4@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On May 15, 7:48 am, "burtthebike" <burttheb...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> The BMA etc would only be hypocrites if they knew one thing was
> appropriate but did the other because of some hidden agenda. But they
> don't. They simply haven't looked at the evidence and thought it
> through properly. Ditto the media.

So people who demand a law without bothering to look at the evidence aren't
hypocrites? What are they then? Merely fools perhaps. Fools rush
in.......

Whether they've looked at the evidence or not, they are calling for a law,
and have encouraged helmet-wearing for many years. As a supposedly
reputable and influential body, they really ought to be looking at the
evidence before they adopt such extreme and unjustified positions, otherwise
they are irresponsible, and in terms of public health, hypocritical.

Perhaps you think that a body concerned with public health which adopts
policies which will seriously negatively affect the public health is not
hypocritical. I beg to differ.

On May 15, 7:30 pm, "burtthebike" <burttheb...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> "TimB" <timburf...@onetel.net> wrote in message
>
> news:02612b29-e7df-49b3-aeb9-1d5b46c252d4@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 15, 7:48 am, "burtthebike" <burttheb...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > The BMA etc would only be hypocrites if they knew one thing was
> > appropriate but did the other because of some hidden agenda. But they
> > don't. They simply haven't looked at the evidence and thought it
> > through properly. Ditto the media.
>
> So people who demand a law without bothering to look at the evidence aren't
> hypocrites? What are they then? Merely fools perhaps. Fools rush
> in.......
>
> Whether they've looked at the evidence or not, they are calling for a law,
> and have encouraged helmet-wearing for many years. As a supposedly
> reputable and influential body, they really ought to be looking at the
> evidence before they adopt such extreme and unjustified positions, otherwise
> they are irresponsible, and in terms of public health, hypocritical.
>
> Perhaps you think that a body concerned with public health which adopts
> policies which will seriously negatively affect the public health is not
> hypocritical. I beg to differ.

I repeat, hypocrisy is a matter of motivation and awareness. They may
be mad, bad and dangerous to listen to, but that isn't necessarily
hypocritical.
Tim