Forget cycling... [May contain H*****s]

Tony Raven said:

....you can always in-line skate. So says Brent Hagel to support his
view that less children cycling because of helmet compulsion is not a
bad thing:
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/26613/Cochrane-researcher-admits-lid-law-may-decrease-bike-use

Ever notice that these studies only ever seem to mention percentages:
18% reduction in traumatic head injury? How many injuries are there and
in how large a population? For instance, if California had 50 such
injuries per year prior to a helmet law and 41 after, in a population of
30Million, does that justify a helmet law? What if the original number
of injuries per year had been 100,000?

But they never give you this information, just the percentages, which
are meaningless out of context.

Tony Raven said:

....you can always in-line skate. So says Brent Hagel to support his
view that less children cycling because of helmet compulsion is not a
bad thing:
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/26613/Cochrane-researcher-admits-lid-law-may-decrease-bike-use

Don't worry - at least one of the jurisdictions listed in the report has
started requiring that helmets be worn by in-line-skaters...

Tony Raven said:

....you can always in-line skate. So says Brent Hagel to support his
view that less children cycling because of helmet compulsion is not a
bad thing:
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/26613/Cochrane-researcher-admits-lid-law-may-decrease-bike-use

In-line skating offers quite a few of the same benefits that cycling
offers (balance, aerobic exercise, independence and mobility). It's also
a weight-bearing exercise, which does more to reduce the risk of
osteoporosis later on in life than does cycling. It doesn't offer the
range of travel that a bicycle does, but this may or may not be an
entirely bad thing, depending on where one lives. In-line skates are
also much easier to store in a small home than bicycles. I would love to
see more kids using bicycles more extensively, but seeing more kids on
in-line skates wouldn't be a bad thing either. Unfortunately, as an
earlier reply pointed out, the helmet people seem to have found out what
a good thing in-line skates can be, and are doing their best to ruin
that sport, too.

mark

On 18 Apr, 16:55, _ <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Somwhat depressingly, I seem to be seeing more and more helmet users
amongst both commuter and recreational cyclists up here in and around
Glasgow.Including an urban cyclist riding at night without lights, and
with dark clothing, but thinking he was bulletproof because the
plastic hat would save him.
Incidentally a couple of weeks ago my 16 yr old son had a crash
at about 20-25 mph on a steep downhill road. No helmet and no head
injuries. Bruised knee and arm and a few scrapes. Typical I am sure of
thousands of similiar accidents cyclists had before helmets becme
widespread. There was not then any carnage among the cycling
population. I'm sure the full finger gloves he was wearing and the
tough cotton long sleeved jacket were more useful protection than a
plastic hat would have been.

Iain

fred said:

Tony Raven said:

....you can always in-line skate. So says Brent Hagel to support his
view that less children cycling because of helmet compulsion is not a
bad thing:
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/26613/Cochrane-researcher-admits-lid-law-may-decrease-bike-use

Ever notice that these studies only ever seem to mention percentages:
18% reduction in traumatic head injury? How many injuries are there
and in how large a population? For instance, if California had 50
such injuries per year prior to a helmet law and 41 after, in a
population of 30Million, does that justify a helmet law? What if the
original number of injuries per year had been 100,000?

But they never give you this information, just the percentages, which
are meaningless out of context.

Rather more concerning is context of injury. The stats are all injuries
presented.

During the years that the studies cover, the popularity of BMX riding on
concrete stunt parks has risen, fallen and risen in the UK. I guess the US
has a similar up-down, though at different time points. It would strike me
that total injuries whilst practising stunts is likely to be related to
numbers undertaking the activity. I've no data which could relate BMX stunt
accident rates to "other forms of cycling" accident rates. Ditto for
extreme downhill mountain biking (sort where ski lifts are used to get to
the top and lots of body armour is typically worn).

And thats before we get into characterising head injuries as "serious" or
not.

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

iarocu said:

Somwhat depressingly, I seem to be seeing more and more helmet users
amongst both commuter and recreational cyclists up here in and around
Glasgow.Including an urban cyclist riding at night without lights, and
with dark clothing, but thinking he was bulletproof because the
plastic hat would save him.

A couple of weeks ago, I saw a mother and son walking. Before they
got off the train (at the same stop as me), the mother made sure that
her son had his helmet on. As a "lid", it was quite unlike anything
I'd ever seen on a bike-rider's bonce.

So watch out: pedestrian helmets may become compulsory, too!

PhilD

--
<><

"PhilD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

As a "lid", it was quite unlike anything
I'd ever seen on a bike-rider's bonce.

If it looked like a boxers' head-guard, it's possible the child was
epileptic. Some of the more serious cases require such protection...

Just a thought.

Tim
--
Sent from Birmingham, UK... Check out www.nervouscyclist.org
'I find sometimes it's easy to be myself, but sometimes I find it's
better to be somebody else.' - Dave Matthews 'So Much To Say'
My 'reply to' address is valid, mail to the posting address is dumped

Tim Dunne said:

If it looked like a boxers' head-guard, it's possible the child was
epileptic. Some of the more serious cases require such protection...

<looks up pictures of boxers>

Yes, it may have been.

Or perhaps it was just to get the lad through the same ticket gate as
the mother, at the same time. :-) (I think that example was
cluelessness on how the gates work, rather than fraudulent travel.)

PhilD

--
<><

iarocu said the following on 19/04/2007 01:51:

Quoted message said:

Somwhat depressingly, I seem to be seeing more and more helmet users
amongst both commuter and recreational cyclists up here in and around
Glasgow.Including an urban cyclist riding at night without lights, and
with dark clothing, but thinking he was bulletproof because the
plastic hat would save him.

I used to see a guy on my way home from work wearing a full-face
motorcycle helmet riding an MTB. This was not a downhill-style
full-facer, but definitely a motorbike version. Which is fine for
plummeting down 1:3 rock gardens at 40mph, but not ambling along a
cyclepath in working clothes!

Quoted message said:

Incidentally a couple of weeks ago my 16 yr old son had a crash
at about 20-25 mph on a steep downhill road. No helmet and no head
injuries. Bruised knee and arm and a few scrapes.

Last time I came off my MTB, I'm sure a helmet would have saved my life.
Without it, I suffered bruising to my fore-arm and had a very stiff
elbow :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

PhilD said:

So watch out: pedestrian helmets may become compulsory, too!

Perhaps he was wearing "heelies". My kids got some of those a couple
of weeks ago and they've certainly had more bumps and scrapes from
wearing them than from cycling, not that they've been wearing any kind
of protective gear. Loads of fun though.

In news:[email hidden],
Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

iarocu said the following on 19/04/2007 01:51:

Quoted message said:

Somwhat depressingly, I seem to be seeing more and more helmet users
amongst both commuter and recreational cyclists up here in and around
Glasgow.Including an urban cyclist riding at night without lights,
and with dark clothing, but thinking he was bulletproof because the
plastic hat would save him.

I used to see a guy on my way home from work wearing a full-face
motorcycle helmet riding an MTB. This was not a downhill-style
full-facer, but definitely a motorbike version. Which is fine for
plummeting down 1:3 rock gardens at 40mph, but not ambling along a
cyclepath in working clothes!

Many years ago I saw a chap riding a sit-up-and-beg roadster along the A3,
south from the Robin Hood roundabout. It was a warm day, and he was wearing
a full-face motorcycle helmet *and* leathers...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
My other motto is in Latin.

mark said:

In-line skating offers quite a few of the same benefits that cycling
offers (balance, aerobic exercise, independence and mobility). It's also
a weight-bearing exercise, which does more to reduce the risk of

[...]

Speaking with my inline skating hat on: all true, including the bits I
snipped. But I would argue that for the majority of its participants
it's a whole lot less practical than cycling as a *transport* option:
slower; more sensitive to poor tarmac, grease, wet roads, etc; much
greater risk of falling; poor braking ability even compared with
bicycles. And if you thought that (some) car drivers were unsympathetic
to cyclists, skating on the roads can get you whole new levels of abuse.

It sounds like Brent Hagel is squarely in the "cycling is only a
recreation, let's find some other physical recreation that will
substitute" mindset and hasn't thought about utility
cycling/mobility/freedom at all. That or Alberta suffers from none of
the above problems.

Hat? Yeah, I wear a lid for skating. Mostly this is because (a)
acquiring the habit means I won't forget it when racing, where it's a
requirement, and (b) it's a good place to attach lights for skating at
night. Also (c) in winter it keeps my head warm. I have no especial
belief in its lifesaving properties.

-dan