Parents For Helmets

John B said:

It is interesting that Carlie Annetts is asking for examples of cycling
accidents, by e-mailing her at:
[email hidden]

Actually, she seems to be asking about accidents parents have personal
experience of while their children were not wearing helmets.

I burnt my fingers in a coffee-roaster chamber earlier this week, and
neither of my daughters was wearing a helmet at the time.

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

John B said:

it seems this comes from the Annetts case and has been reported heavily
in our local paper.
It has BeHit stamped all over it.

I've put the articles here (temporarily), I hope they are readable.
If you want to take copies do so as I'll remove the link fairly soon.

It is interesting that Carlie Annetts is asking for examples of cycling
accidents, by e-mailing her at:
[email hidden]

http://www.velotree.co.uk/parentsforhelmet.html

I've informed her that my daughter broke her arm on a clubrun and badly
gouged her side at a track meet. Neither time did a helmet help.

John B

Remember when this woman is trying to force your children to wear
helmets that the Coroner said in the case of her son ""The law is very
strict when it comes to cars but there are no laws when it comes to
bikes. It is up to owners to ensure bikes are safe. The consequences at
not getting round to routine maintenance can, and in this case were,
tragic and fatal." Nothing about her not making him wear a helmet but
everything about letting him ride a defective bike that hadn't had basic
maintenance so that the brakes were not working. Parents for Mandatory
Bike Maintenance anyone?

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Ian Smith said:

John B said:

It is interesting that Carlie Annetts is asking for examples of cycling
accidents, by e-mailing her at:
[email hidden]

Actually, she seems to be asking about accidents parents have personal
experience of while their children were not wearing helmets.

Yes I miswrote my last post. In neither cases I quoted was my daughter
wearing a helmet - and in neither case would one have helped.

Quoted message said:

I burnt my fingers in a coffee-roaster chamber earlier this week, and
neither of my daughters was wearing a helmet at the time.

I hope you've told her.

You are a Bad Bad Man.

John B

John B said:

Ian Smith said:

John B said:

It is interesting that Carlie Annetts is asking for examples of cycling
accidents, by e-mailing her at:
[email hidden]

Actually, she seems to be asking about accidents parents have personal
experience of while their children were not wearing helmets.

Yes I miswrote my last post. In neither cases I quoted was my daughter
wearing a helmet - and in neither case would one have helped.

Quoted message said:

I burnt my fingers in a coffee-roaster chamber earlier this week, and
neither of my daughters was wearing a helmet at the time.

I hope you've told her.

How about accidents when not wearing a helmet leading to children?
How about asking her about mandatory working brakes laws, or looking
where you are going and not just riding out in front of cars laws?

John B said:

it seems this comes from the Annetts case and has been reported heavily
in our local paper.
It has BeHit stamped all over it.

And by a strange coincidence is promoted in BHIT's latest comic, sent
to RSOs (road safety officers) and Cycling Officers.

Quoted message said:

...
It is interesting that Carlie Annetts is asking for examples of cycling
accidents, by e-mailing her at:
[email hidden]

It sounds like BHIT is collecting anecdotes.

The comic I've seen mentions two more child cycle casualties whose
parents appear to have signed up. One was a fatality hit by a car,
with no explanation of how a helmet would have helped - so it probably
wouldn't.

The other was a low-speed fall followed by undiagnosed concussion
(non-fatal). A helmet might well have helped - but the child could
have got the injury just as easily by tripping over on foot.

But if you don't think about it, it all looks quite convincing.

Colin McKenzie

Ian Smith said:

Actually, she seems to be asking about accidents parents have personal
experience of while their children were not wearing helmets.

Maybe I should dig out my families cycling accidents history of the past
35 years. It features some damaged toes (one of us on the rear of my
mother's bike managed to stick a foot into the spokes), some bruised
crotches (my brother when he hit a car, me when I hit a grass verge), some
scraped hands, various bruised hips, elbows, knees, a sprained ankle
trying to brake with my foot, sunburn, hmmm... can't seem to remember any
head injuries....

Roos

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:43:23 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Remember when this woman is trying to force your children to wear
helmets that the Coroner said in the case of her son ""The law is very
strict when it comes to cars but there are no laws when it comes to
bikes. It is up to owners to ensure bikes are safe. The consequences at
not getting round to routine maintenance can, and in this case were,
tragic and fatal." Nothing about her not making him wear a helmet but
everything about letting him ride a defective bike that hadn't had basic
maintenance so that the brakes were not working. Parents for Mandatory
Bike Maintenance anyone?

Tony,

I had eleven 8/9 year old novice cyclists in the school playground and
six (including me) National Standard instructors. There were,
perhaps, twenty crashes, mostly trivial, but at least two involving
sliding on tarmac. It is highly unlikely that the fact that all the
children were wearing helmets did a single thing to protect them on
this occasion, but the very fact that they were wearing helmets made
me feel more comfotable as the person responsible for their safety.

As you may know, a low speed fall onto a flat surface, such as a
playground, is where helmets offer most protection.

While I am against legislation compelling all, or any section of
society, to wear helmets, I am in favour of organisations, such as
schools, making an informed choice over helmet use for their charges -
this will usually mean compulsion while a novice or under instruction.
I think that such compulsion would be wrong for travel to and from
school - that is a choice to be made between the child and parent.

As a postscript, of the eleven children, 8 were cycling confidently
around the playground within the 2 hour session. A further 2 were a
bit wobbly, but making rapid progress. One was still having
difficulties, mainly due to the fact that his bike was an expensive
BMX and not really appropriate for learning to ride.

There were smiles all round!

I'll offer the three wobbly children a further hour session next week.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:43:23 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Remember when this woman is trying to force your children to wear
helmets that the Coroner said in the case of her son ""The law is very
strict when it comes to cars but there are no laws when it comes to
bikes. It is up to owners to ensure bikes are safe. The consequences at
not getting round to routine maintenance can, and in this case were,
tragic and fatal." Nothing about her not making him wear a helmet but
everything about letting him ride a defective bike that hadn't had basic
maintenance so that the brakes were not working. Parents for Mandatory
Bike Maintenance anyone?

See http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/two-children.html :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Colin McKenzie said:

John B said:

it seems this comes from the Annetts case and has been reported heavily
in our local paper.
It has BeHit stamped all over it.

And by a strange coincidence is promoted in BHIT's latest comic, sent to
RSOs (road safety officers) and Cycling Officers.

Quoted message said:

...

Quoted message said:

It is interesting that Carlie Annetts is asking for examples of cycling
accidents, by e-mailing her at:
[email hidden]

It sounds like BHIT is collecting anecdotes.

The comic I've seen mentions two more child cycle casualties whose
parents appear to have signed up. One was a fatality hit by a car, with
no explanation of how a helmet would have helped - so it probably wouldn't.

The other was a low-speed fall followed by undiagnosed concussion
(non-fatal). A helmet might well have helped - but the child could have
got the injury just as easily by tripping over on foot.

But if you don't think about it, it all looks quite convincing.

Colin McKenzie

I was not moved to anger until I read this woman's pleas! What gives
her the right to place my kids at risk because she can't be bothered to
look after her own child properly by maintaining his bike?
Children are a responsibility for which the parent has a 24hour duty of
care which includes among many other things maintaining their bikes.
Had his brake been working he may well have avoided the collision, had
it been the back brake that was faulty instead of the front he may also
avoided the collision. Had he impacted the vehicle with a cycle helmet
there is no evidence he would have survived.

Sniper8052

Tom Crispin said:

Tony,

I had eleven 8/9 year old novice cyclists in the school playground and
six (including me) National Standard instructors. There were,
perhaps, twenty crashes, mostly trivial, but at least two involving
sliding on tarmac. It is highly unlikely that the fact that all the
children were wearing helmets did a single thing to protect them on
this occasion, but the very fact that they were wearing helmets made
me feel more comfotable as the person responsible for their safety.

Not sure how your comment is relevant to what I wrote but given the
choice would you rather they rode with poorly maintained bikes without
working brakes but wore a helmet or rode well maintained and working
bikes without a helmet?

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

I was not moved to anger until I read this woman's pleas! What gives
her the right to place my kids at risk because she can't be bothered to
look after her own child properly by maintaining his bike?

That's not so hard to see. Her negligence[1] led to the death of
her child. What a crushing burden of guilt! So when someone
seemingly-respectable offered her something else to blame, she
latched right on to it. Her mind won't let her think rationally
about it or stop campaigning: the guilt would simply overwhelm her.

(Anyone with more than beer-glass-level psychology care to comment?)

If anyone gets to debate this somewhere it matters, this is a point
that needs making. The martlecamp are cynically *exploiting* this
child's death, and so long as the mother is with them, she must
forfeit the sensitivity one would normally show.

[1] If it had been a teacher such as our Tilly/Bertie/Tom letting
his charges out with no brakes, he'd probably be out of a career
and in serious trouble with the law.

--
not me guv

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:13:04 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tom Crispin said:

Tony,

I had eleven 8/9 year old novice cyclists in the school playground and
six (including me) National Standard instructors. There were,
perhaps, twenty crashes, mostly trivial, but at least two involving
sliding on tarmac. It is highly unlikely that the fact that all the
children were wearing helmets did a single thing to protect them on
this occasion, but the very fact that they were wearing helmets made
me feel more comfotable as the person responsible for their safety.

Not sure how your comment is relevant to what I wrote but given the
choice would you rather they rode with poorly maintained bikes without
working brakes but wore a helmet or rode well maintained and working
bikes without a helmet?

Nine of the eleven bikes were school bikes, the other two were the
children's own bikes. The other instructors and I spent some time
checking all the bikes over before the children cycled on them: we
clearly felt that a well-maintained bike was essential.

I hope you will be further satisfied to know that when the children
take part in the full six week course, the first ten minutes of each
session is spent teaching the children to check bikes over for faults,
including, but not exclusively, tyre pressures, valve position
(sticking straight out to the hub), rear brakes, seat post, bottom
bracket, lubrication, headset and handlebars. The final scheduled
2-hour lesson is bike maintenance and puncture repair, however, in the
case of very poor weather this lesson may replace any earlier lesson.

Are you in agreement that it is right for those responsible for young
children's safety to make a decision on helmet use on behalf of their
charges, usually in favour of compulsion in the case of novice
cyclists and those under instruction?

A roadworthy bike is a given necessity, so need not confuse the issue.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:52:27 GMT someone who may be
"Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I was not moved to anger until I read this woman's pleas! What gives
her the right to place my kids at risk because she can't be bothered to
look after her own child properly by maintaining his bike?
Children are a responsibility for which the parent has a 24hour duty of
care which includes among many other things maintaining their bikes.
Had his brake been working he may well have avoided the collision, had
it been the back brake that was faulty instead of the front he may also
avoided the collision. Had he impacted the vehicle with a cycle helmet
there is no evidence he would have survived.

I hope you will send her a suitably toned down version of this
posting. Difficult as it may be people like this need to be
challenged.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Not sure if im getting the gist of this thread, but are you saying you are
against compulsary helmet wearing while on a public road?

Cheers,
Kristian

Quoted message said:

Got it in one.

It should be a matter of individual choice, not compulsion.

Weird... I don't agree at all.

When I was a teenager, I didn't want to wear one because it was un-cool.
Now I wouldn't dream of not wearing one. Surely it's the minimum safety
precaution to take whether effective or not.

I also remember a doctor friend of mine saying his colleagues referred to us
cyclists as 'organ donors' or some such...

Erm... I think it should be compulsory for all, and not just as the article
calls for, under 14 year olds.

Cheers,
-Kristian

Kristian Davies said:

Not sure if im getting the gist of this thread, but are you saying you are
against compulsary helmet wearing while on a public road?

Got it in one.

It should be a matter of individual choice, not compulsion.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"To communicate with Mars, converse with spirits, To report the
behaviour of the sea monster, Describe the horoscope,
haruspicate or scry, Observe disease in signatures." (T.S.Eliot)

"Kristian Davies" <Post to Newsgroup!!> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Got it in one.

It should be a matter of individual choice, not compulsion.

Weird... I don't agree at all.

When I was a teenager, I didn't want to wear one because it was un-cool.
Now I wouldn't dream of not wearing one. Surely it's the minimum safety
precaution to take whether effective or not.

I also remember a doctor friend of mine saying his colleagues referred to
us cyclists as 'organ donors' or some such...

Erm... I think it should be compulsory for all, and not just as the
article calls for, under 14 year olds.

Cheers,
-Kristian

I wear a helmet all the time because I believe it gives me a little
protection and for other less obvious reasons.
BUT
I am totally opposed to introduction to compulsory helmets for all the very
obvious reasons that have been raised, discussed , argued over both here and
everywhere else.

It is to be hoped that the lady referred to in the original post should
receive sufficient email response to make her understand that her sons sad
plight was directly attributable to the condition of the cycle involved and
not the lack of a helmet..

Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk (Reconstructed)

"Kristian Davies" <Post to Newsgroup!!> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Got it in one.

It should be a matter of individual choice, not compulsion.

Weird... I don't agree at all.

When I was a teenager, I didn't want to wear one because it was un-cool.
Now I wouldn't dream of not wearing one. Surely it's the minimum safety
precaution to take whether effective or not.

Not been here long, have you? Could you do us all a favour, and read the
archives of this NG at groups.google.com, specifically threads about
helmets. Then, and only then, come back to us and say if you still believe
that helmets should be compulsory.

At the cost of a bit of your time, it will save a hell of a lot of everybody
else's reiterating the same old arguments.

cheers,
clive

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Kristian
Davies <[email hidden]!!.invalid> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Got it in one.

It should be a matter of individual choice, not compulsion.

Weird... I don't agree at all.

When I was a teenager, I didn't want to wear one because it was un-cool.
Now I wouldn't dream of not wearing one. Surely it's the minimum safety
precaution to take whether effective or not.

That makes no sense - why do something that isn't effective?

Quoted message said:

I also remember a doctor friend of mine saying his colleagues referred to us
cyclists as 'organ donors' or some such...

Being a doctor doesn't make someone an expert on something outside their
field of expertise. Would you trust a doctor who said "this bridge is
safe" when a structural engineer had told you it was about to collapse?

Quoted message said:

Erm... I think it should be compulsory for all, and not just as the article
calls for, under 14 year olds.

Cycle helmets make cycling more dangerous. This may seem the opposite
of what you'd expect, but it's true and borne out by proper scientific
research.

1. Wearing a helmet makes a cyclist appear "more protected" to car
drivers. This causes some car drivers to take fewer precautions around
helmeted cyclists than non-helmeted ones. This is called "risk
compensation".

2. Wearing a helmet increases what's called the "rotational diameter" of
your head. This increases the chance of neck-twisting of the kind that
can cause paralysis or even death in the event of falling / being
knocked off the bike and sliding along the road. This works the same
way as having a larger steering wheel makes a car without power steering
easier to drive, because it takes less force to turn the wheel.

3. As you commented, helmets put people off cycling. This leads to
fewer cyclists on the road, which means motorists become less familiar
with encountering cyclists and hence more likely to make mistakes and
mis-judge speeds, overtaking, etc.

4. Other countries have introduced laws forcing cyclists to wear
helmets. In every case, the result of this has been both a decrease in
cycling in general, and an *increase* in the number of cyclists killed
or seriously injured on the roads in those countries.

It's common for medical people like paramedics, who know a lot about
medicine but rather less about materials engineering, to assume that a
broken helmet has "saved" the wearer from a head injury. This seems
obvious, "common sense" says that the force which broke the helmet has
been absorbed and thus not affected the rider's head. In fact this
isn't the case. Cycle helmets are made of a kind of polystyrene. This
is designed to absorb energy by bending - as soon as it breaks, all the
energy is delivered un-hindered to the head under the helmet. So a
broken helmet after a crash has done nothing at all to protect its
wearer.

Looking at the bigger picture, one of the major causes of premature
death is obesity and its side-effects. Encouraging people to cycle
instead of driving on local trips is a very effective way to encourage
more exercise and less obesity. That we all need to take more exercise
and use our cars less is something the vast majority of people agree on,
including the Government and the British Medical Association. Compulsory
helmet laws are bad for cycling and thus bad for the nation's health in
general. We don't need laws, we need more cyclists.

Lastly, look at countries like Holland, where thousands of people use
bikes as their normal every-day transport round town. They don't have
helmet laws and most of them don't wear helmets - indeed they cycle the
same way they drive, in their ordinary everyday clothes. These
countries have the lowest rates of cyclist injury in the world.

Helmets are bad for cycling. By all means wear one if you want to, but
please don't try and force them on the rest of us. They do *not* help
cyclist safety. Don't just take my word for it, see
<http://www.cyclehelmets.org> for lots of detailed and comprehensive
information on the subject.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>