Cycling to the gym is a "stroke of genius"

John Kane

On Jun 16, 7:20*pm, "Adam Lea" <asr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "John Kane" <jrkrid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:866bd8d3-1eb9-45dc-844d-256c25018f94@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > but since wearing my helmet nearly killed me a couple of times
>
> Isn't this statement just as speculative as the statement "a helmet saved my
> life"?
>
> If you know for a fact that the helmet nearly killed you, I would be
> interested to know how?

It may be an exaggeration but anything that blinds me at 70 km hours
is a real danger. I was cycling on a hot day and while decending a
long hill at roughly 70 km/hr, tucked in, and suddenly the sweat in
the helmet sponges ran into my eyes and I was effective blind for a
few seconds-- more than long enough to endanger me. Blind cycling on
a cruving hill at that speed in probably not safe.

Something similar happened about year later when I was in a group
ride. I thought I was taking precautions that time

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

Peter Clinch

John Kane wrote:

> Sorry Tom I misread your intend. I don't know of any population
> studies without the impetus of a mandatory helmet law. I have seen
> maybe one small study where the accident rate for helmet wearers was
> higher but the n-size was small.

Hewson's 2005 work was based on the UK STATS 19 figures and looked at
changing helmet rates and how thy might be in any way correlated with
serious injury rates. No correlation (either way) stood out.

IIRC in one of the pieces, looking particularly at children, it was
noted how girls wore helmets twice as much but managed the same serious
head injury rates.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch

Peter Clinch wrote:

> IIRC in one of the pieces, looking particularly at children, it was
> noted how girls wore helmets twice as much but managed the same serious
> head injury rates.

.... as boys, that is.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Tom Crispin

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:45:45 GMT, _
<jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote:

>Indeed - and such scams tend to take in those who cannot think things
>through - for example we have Crspin saying that he thinks that helmet laws
>would both reduce cycling and improve the general health of the nation.

Eh!?

I have said no such thing.

Tom Crispin

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:57:20 GMT, _
<jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:54:01 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>> _ wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed - and such scams tend to take in those who cannot think things
>>> through - for example we have Crspin saying that he thinks that helmet laws
>>> would both reduce cycling and improve the general health of the nation.
>>
>> That's not really a fair representation.
>>
>> While I agree there are logical anomalies in his posts on the matter,
>> you're not really helping anyone by putting implied words in his mouth
>> that didn't come from them.
>
>But they did:
>
>"> I am equally convinced that mandotary helmet use, in the population as
>> a whole, would lead to a reduction in cycle use and an increase in the
>> health of the nation."

Apologies. That was a typo!

I meant "*decrease* in the health of the nation".

God knows what I must have been on. Caffine, perhaps.

Tom Crispin

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:29:06 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:45:45 GMT, _
><jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote:
>
>>Indeed - and such scams tend to take in those who cannot think things
>>through - for example we have Crspin saying that he thinks that helmet laws
>>would both reduce cycling and improve the general health of the nation.
>
>Eh!?
>
>I have said no such thing.

Hmmm - perhaps I did!

....But I didn't mean to!

_

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:32:29 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:57:20 GMT, _
> <jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:54:01 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:
>>
>>> _ wrote:
>>>
>>>> Indeed - and such scams tend to take in those who cannot think things
>>>> through - for example we have Crspin saying that he thinks that helmet laws
>>>> would both reduce cycling and improve the general health of the nation.
>>>
>>> That's not really a fair representation.
>>>
>>> While I agree there are logical anomalies in his posts on the matter,
>>> you're not really helping anyone by putting implied words in his mouth
>>> that didn't come from them.
>>
>>But they did:
>>
>>"> I am equally convinced that mandotary helmet use, in the population as
>>> a whole, would lead to a reduction in cycle use and an increase in the
>>> health of the nation."
>
> Apologies. That was a typo!
>
> I meant "*decrease* in the health of the nation".
>
> God knows what I must have been on. Caffine, perhaps.

Good - that does make more sense.

And your opinion on the wearing of helmets being a silent vote for
compulsion?

Tom Crispin

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:43:53 GMT, _
<jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> wrote:

>And your opinion on the wearing of helmets being a silent vote for
>compulsion?

No. It is the same as my opinion on the use of SPDs. A choice for
the individual.

Peter Clinch

Mark McNeill wrote:
> Response to Tom Crispin
>>> And your opinion on the wearing of helmets being a silent vote for
>>> compulsion?
>> No. It is the same as my opinion on the use of SPDs. A choice for
>> the individual.

> One glaring difference is that the Government has never had the policy
> of counting SPD users, with the intention of making SPDs compulsory when
> usage levels are high enough. Another is that people don't make
> kneejerk ethical assessments of one's clipless pedals.

Yup, this is the real bugbear for me. I would very much like to be in a
position where I could ignore helmet issues and leave it up to
individuals, but the fact is that in the current atmosphere of distinct
pressure to wear you can't actually ignore it. Ignoring the issue and
pretending to be neutral about it doesn't work, and the fact that it
shouldn't be like that doesn't alter the fact that it *is* like that.

> We've been here before. We all make judgements of other people's
> actions, often not at all what the other person would approve of! A
> helmet-wearer can state honestly that he's not intending any message,
> subtext, recommendation or whatever: however, even if we ignore the
> possibility of legal compulsion, which is a fairly big thing to ignore,
> the fact that a lot of cyclists wear helmets can only increase social
> pressure on us non-wearers. (How many of us have had "Where's your
> helmet?" shouted at us? And how often would that happen if nobody wore
> a helmet?)

Exactly!
The reason I have become more partisan about helmets is the "leave it to
individuals" alternative /is/ letting them get forced onto us. Look at
Boris if you want a good example of how people are pressured (I do hope
he's a sufficiently free and informed spirit to resist).

I don't want to stop anyone who wants to wear one, but I will comment on
their reasoning where I can see holes in it, so as to maximise the data
on which an informed choice is made. Increased relative though still
low absolute risk, not seeing proof they harm so they must do good, that
head injuries can be fatal, that they /might/ prevent discouragement to
cycling after a head-hit, are all examples of reasoning that doesn't
really stand up when applied to equally risky alternatives, so it
doesn't really stand up for cycling either. It remains the case that I
think the best reason to wear a lid for transportational cycling is
"because I want to": it doesn't require any kidding of oneself about
other merits that when it comes do it are pretty dubious.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Mark

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:26:17 +0100, Mark McNeill
<markonnewsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Response to Tom Crispin
>> >And your opinion on the wearing of helmets being a silent vote for
>> >compulsion?
>>
>> No. It is the same as my opinion on the use of SPDs. A choice for
>> the individual.
>
>
>One glaring difference is that the Government has never had the policy
>of counting SPD users, with the intention of making SPDs compulsory when
>usage levels are high enough. Another is that people don't make
>kneejerk ethical assessments of one's clipless pedals.

I can just imagine the Daily Mail Headlines. "If I hadn't been using
SPDs I would be dead" says Mrs Miggins, who one saw someone fall off a
bike riding through the park. "She is now starting a organisation to
campaign for the compulsory use of SPDs for the under fives called
'SPIT'" says Larry Liar, motoring journalist.

>We've been here before. We all make judgements of other people's
>actions, often not at all what the other person would approve of! A
>helmet-wearer can state honestly that he's not intending any message,
>subtext, recommendation or whatever: however, even if we ignore the
>possibility of legal compulsion, which is a fairly big thing to ignore,
>the fact that a lot of cyclists wear helmets can only increase social
>pressure on us non-wearers. (How many of us have had "Where's your
>helmet?" shouted at us? And how often would that happen if nobody wore
>a helmet?)

I stopped wearing a helmet when I found out about the proposal for
compulstion.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Jeremy Parker

"Peter Clinch" <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote

Look at
> Boris if you want a good example of how people are pressured (I do
> hope
> he's a sufficiently free and informed spirit to resist).

Boris has just (accidentally) ridden his bike without a helmet. See
his article in the Daily Telegraph Tue 17 June 2008.

Is it on the web?

Jeremy Parker

Ian Smith

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Mark McNeill <markonnewsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Response to Tom Crispin
> > >And your opinion on the wearing of helmets being a silent vote for
> > >compulsion?
> >
> > No. It is the same as my opinion on the use of SPDs. A choice for
> > the individual.
>
> One glaring difference is that the Government has never had the policy
> of counting SPD users, with the intention of making SPDs compulsory when
> usage levels are high enough.

And if it did, I would strongly oppose use of SPDs - they are very bad
for my knees. (But ATACs are better than clips & straps, so I use
them).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

John Kane

On Jun 17, 10:43*am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> John Kane wrote:
> > Sorry Tom I misread your intend. *I don't know of any population
> > studies without the impetus of a mandatory helmet law. *I have seen
> > maybe one small study where the accident rate for helmet wearers was
> > higher but the n-size was small.
>
> Hewson's 2005 work was based on the UK STATS 19 figures and looked at
> changing helmet rates and how thy might be in any way correlated with
> serious injury rates. *No correlation (either way) stood out.
>
> IIRC in one of the pieces, looking particularly at children, it was
> noted how girls wore helmets twice as much but managed the same serious
> head injury rates.

I forgot about that one since I've never read it and don't even seem
to have a reference. Could you supply one plead Peter?
Thanks
John Kane Kingston ON Canada

Tom Crispin

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:26:17 +0100, Mark McNeill
<markonnewsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Response to Tom Crispin
>> >And your opinion on the wearing of helmets being a silent vote for
>> >compulsion?
>>
>> No. It is the same as my opinion on the use of SPDs. A choice for
>> the individual.
>
>
>One glaring difference is that the Government has never had the policy
>of counting SPD users, with the intention of making SPDs compulsory when
>usage levels are high enough. Another is that people don't make
>kneejerk ethical assessments of one's clipless pedals.

Should I stop carrying my driving licence around with me in case it
encourages the government to make the carrying of personal ID
compulsory?