Re.Lots of cycles lots of lids

Steve Watkin said:

Why can't we just let people do as they wish and not try to "convert" ?

I have no sites for this (I am sure I read about it in here)but "the
goverment" has decided that once a certain percentage of people are
wearing h*lm*ts "they" have less opposition to an MHL so will introduce
one. That is why a lot of people do not want to see others wear a
h*lm*t as this furthers the cause for an MHL.

--
www.cheesesoup.myby.co.uk

soup said:

Steve Watkin said:

Why can't we just let people do as they wish and not try to "convert" ?

I have no sites for this (I am sure I read about it in here)but "the
goverment" has decided that once a certain percentage of people are
wearing h*lm*ts "they" have less opposition to an MHL so will introduce
one. That is why a lot of people do not want to see others wear a
h*lm*t as this furthers the cause for an MHL.

Quite.
Wearing a h*lm*t is effectively a vote for compulsion :-(

John B

Quoted message said:

Why can't we just let people do as they wish and not try to "convert" ?

Short answer:
We don't want to be fined for popping down the shops without a sodding
helmet on.

Long answer:

People can do as they wish, but their reasons for wearing helmets are
challenged if they are based on ignorance, misconceptions or the myriad of
other poor reasons that are often given. Examples are thinking that
helmets are far more protective than they really are, or that cycling is
significantly more dangerous than it really is. Think people wearing
helmets when they cycling to the shops but not weaing them when they walk -
activities with a broadly similar risk profile (though possibly slightly
worse for walking).

It is also regularly pointed out that wearing a helmet is (in effect) an
unwitting vote for making it illegal to cycle without a helmet. This is
unfortunately a fairly accurate statement.

On 23/04/2007 18:56, John B said,

Quoted message said:

Wearing a h*lm*t is effectively a vote for compulsion :-(

It's also a sign of not wanting to bash my bonce on a tree if I come off
my mountain bike.

It strikes me that many people who are against compulsion seem to take
the opposite extreme. The government want to make helmets compulsory -
some anti-compulsionists seem to want to force people to not wear them.
Both are wrong. I'm as against compulsion as the next man, but that
is because I want to exercise my choice to wear a helmet when I wish,
and not to wear one if I wish.

It is the choice one way or the other that is being campaigned for, not
a mandate one way or the other.

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

Paul Boyd said:

On 23/04/2007 18:56, John B said,

Quoted message said:

Wearing a h*lm*t is effectively a vote for compulsion :-(

It's also a sign of not wanting to bash my bonce on a tree if I come off
my mountain bike.

It strikes me that many people who are against compulsion seem to take
the opposite extreme. The government want to make helmets compulsory -
some anti-compulsionists seem to want to force people to not wear them.
Both are wrong.

Anyone who wishes to "force" the issue one way or the other is "wrong'. The
decision is best left to choice, but I'm sure you will agree that it is
better that the choice is made on real evidence rather than emotional
claptrap and anecdotes.

I don't wish to be carted off to jail or slapped with a fine when I pop out
for ten minutes on the Brommie to buy my croissants from the baker -
simply because far too many people were taken in by the rubbish and
falsehoods expounded by the pro-compulsion lobby.

Everyday I experience kids and adults who have been seriously
mislead/conditioned into believing that the lump of polystyrene is a charm
to protect them from being run over by a bus.
I hope you'll agree they have been hoodwinked.

If compulsion is introduced because of such beliefs then that does sweet FA
for the safety of cycling on today's roads.
The bullies will have won.

Wear your helmet if you wish. No one is trying to force you not to.
I simply hope the decision was an informed one rather tahn one on
scaremongering and hype.

Quoted message said:

It is the choice one way or the other that is being campaigned for, not
a mandate one way or the other.

Exactly, but the choice is best made on real evidence rather than BeHit
misinformation.

John B

On 23 Apr 2007 19:10:43 GMT, Mark Thompson

pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com said:

Quoted message said:

Why can't we just let people do as they wish and not try to "convert" ?

Short answer:
We don't want to be fined for popping down the shops without a sodding
helmet on.

Long answer:

People can do as they wish, but their reasons for wearing helmets are
challenged if they are based on ignorance, misconceptions or the myriad of
other poor reasons that are often given.

Pot, meet kettle.

Quoted message said:

It is also regularly pointed out that wearing a helmet is (in effect) an
unwitting vote for making it illegal to cycle without a helmet. This is
unfortunately a fairly accurate statement.

....based on even less evidence than either side of the helmet debate can muster.
Please, please, stop with yer FUD that helmet wearing will lead to a MHL. It
has absolutely no validity, and is simply a product of the Usenet echo chamber.
Somebody claimed it once, and now it's an article of faith that can be used to
bash people on their (ironically, helmeted) heads.

Show me the evidence, or shut the fud up.

Marc Brett said:

On 23 Apr 2007 19:10:43 GMT, Mark Thompson
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is also regularly pointed out that wearing a helmet is (in
effect) an unwitting vote for making it illegal to cycle without a
helmet. This is unfortunately a fairly accurate statement.

...based on even less evidence than either side of the helmet debate
can muster. Please, please, stop with yer FUD that helmet wearing
will lead to a MHL. It has absolutely no validity, and is simply a
product of the Usenet echo chamber. Somebody claimed it once, and now
it's an article of faith that can be used to bash people on their
(ironically, helmeted) heads.

Show me the evidence, or shut the fud up.

Neither of these are the original, it was in the 1990's and pre-dates almost
all government information being easily searchable on the internet. However,
10 minutes work dug up these two (and some others, which were less
authorative):

http://www.pacts.org.uk/parliament/HoL3rdReading-10Jan06.pdf
(page 67 & 68, government minister in Lords responding to attempt to make
helmets compulsory for children)

http://www.cfit.gov.uk/mf/reports/roadsafety/ucl/02.htm
(section 2.13 could be interpretted as get numbers high enough before
compulsion)

What is notable about both is an assumption that helmets work, and its
stupid stubborn people who object to them. When the voluntary wearing rate
is high enough, the authorities can legislate for compulsion.

A more rational position might be "when there is credible evidence of
effectiveness, we might consider legislation".
Even then, there is a civil liberties issue in respect of adult cyclists;
they are adult, and any safety device is for their protection; we don't ban
smoking by adults, or the supply of tabacco. Presumably because adults are
thought capable of making their own mind up about the dangers.

When we come to the evidence of effectiveness (on either side of the
argument), all I see is noise caused by differences in method and
difficulties in doing any form of reliable sampling. That suggests to me
that any safety effect is between marginal and non existant.
There are other road safety measures which should take a far higher
priority.

- Nigel

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

Marc Brett said:

Quoted message said:

People can do as they wish, but their reasons for wearing helmets are
challenged if they are based on ignorance, misconceptions or the
myriad of other poor reasons that are often given.

Pot, meet kettle.

I don't wear a helmet in 'normal' cycling because the research I've looked
at shows cycling to be pretty safe, and helmets not to be designed to
prevent the sort of injuries I wish to protect myself from (death, turning
into a vegetable..)

Please explain where I have based my views on ignorance, misconceptions or
poor reasoning. Alternatively, show me where I have prevented someone from
wearing a helmet.

Marc Brett wrote on 24/04/2007 08:28 +0100:

Quoted message said:

....based on even less evidence than either side of the helmet debate
can muster. Please, please, stop with yer FUD that helmet wearing
will lead to a MHL. It has absolutely no validity, and is simply a
product of the Usenet echo chamber. Somebody claimed it once, and now
it's an article of faith that can be used to bash people on their
(ironically, helmeted) heads.

Show me the evidence, or shut the fud up.

There is plenty of evidence and the statement has been made multiple
times by Ministers. Witness the following statement by the Government
Whip for Transport in the House of Lords on amendments to the Road
Safety Bill to introduce mandatory helmets for children last year.

" Baroness Crawley: For these and other reasons I have given,
unfortunately we cannot accept the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord
Swinfen, pointed to a different approach by government to other road
users and quoted the Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Act
1990, which made it compulsory for children to wear hard hats when
riding. ...... It is also notable that at the time 80 per cent of riders
were already wearing protective headgear. One of the reasons we resist
the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is because as yet we are
nowhere near that figure as regards the popular voluntary wearing of
cycle helmets by children. When motorcycle helmets became compulsory, 80
per cent of people were already wearing them voluntarily before
compulsion was introduced. In the case of cycle helmets being worn by
children we would be making an enormous leap from a figure far less than
80 per cent."
Hansard 10 Jan 2006

The DoT also wrote on behalf of the Minster to the Cambridge Cycling
Campaign in 2004:

"It has been our view that at the current level of wearing rates, making
helmets compulsory would cause enforcement difficulties and, without
greater public acceptance, could have an effect on the levels of
cycling. We will maintain our efforts to promote the wearing of cycle
helmets and other safety measures such as - training, publicity and
education."

Just two of the many examples pulled at random. There is plenty more on
the same line if you care to look.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

John B said the following on 23/04/2007 22:29:

Quoted message said:

Everyday I experience kids and adults who have been seriously
mislead/conditioned into believing that the lump of polystyrene is a charm
to protect them from being run over by a bus.
I hope you'll agree they have been hoodwinked.

Oh yes - I'm not arguing that. I just get frustrated by some people on
this group trying to say that I shouldn't wear a helmet. Just telling
people here that they shouldn't wear helmets, and explaining the reasons
why, is one thing, but these reasons need to be made much more widely
available so that the general public does have the facts to be able to
decide for themselves. The majority of the general public, who don't
read the various forums, wear one because the "safer" voice is louder
than the "not safe" voice.

Quoted message said:

Wear your helmet if you wish. No one is trying to force you not to.
I simply hope the decision was an informed one rather tahn one on
scaremongering and hype.

It was. Before each ride, I assess the risk of a head injury (OK - I
decide if I'll be going off-road or not!) On-road, I don't see much
point in wearing a helmet for all the reasons others have mentioned.
Off-road, apart from a pootle in my local woods, I usually would wear
one, and that almost by default includes the to/from journey on the
road. Even then, I wouldn't expect it to do more than protect against
the minor bumps and scrapes involved in off-road riding. Quite frankly,
I'm more likely to damage a wrist in a dodgy landing than my head, but
I've never seen any government do-gooders trying to prevent that one yet :-)

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

Quoting Paul Boyd <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It strikes me that many people who are against compulsion seem to take
the opposite extreme. The government want to make helmets compulsory -
some anti-compulsionists seem to want to force people to not wear them.

Name six.

[You can't, of course. That's complete guff.]
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!
Today is Gorgonzoladay, April - a weekend.

Quoting Steve Watkin <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Why can't we just let people do as they wish and not try to "convert" ?

Excellent idea. Unfortunately, a significant proportion of the helmet
lobby wants to use the law to force people to "convert".
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!
Today is Gorgonzoladay, April - a weekend.

Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

Oh yes - I'm not arguing that. I just get frustrated by some people on
this group trying to say that I shouldn't wear a helmet.

When? Quote please.

I haven't noticed anyone tell anyone that they shouldn't wear a
helmet, only point out that doing so is not as protective as many
people appear to think, may be positively dangerous, and is
encouraging compulsion. All these statements are true, none of them
are what you claim.

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

In article said:

Quoting Paul Boyd <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It strikes me that many people who are against compulsion seem to take
the opposite extreme. The government want to make helmets compulsory -
some anti-compulsionists seem to want to force people to not wear them.

Name six.
[You can't, of course. That's complete guff.]

Six? I bet he can't name _one_.

In some ways this is a shame - if there was a loud active lunatic fringe
campaigning to ban helmets, it would be more obvious that the people
arguing for informed choice are moderates and the people arguing for
compulsion (either way) are extremists.

David Damerell said:

Quoting Paul Boyd <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It strikes me that many people who are against compulsion seem to take
the opposite extreme. The government want to make helmets compulsory -
some anti-compulsionists seem to want to force people to not wear them.

Name six.

Note that he said 'seem'.

The way they do that is by posting smug or snide little comments that imply the
poster is a fool for doing what they freely choose.

I'd love to see fewer people wearing helmets (and am glad to note that virtually
none of the posties around here do), but I know perfectly well that I'm never
going to do that by trying to make them look stupid.

Quoted message said:

[You can't, of course. That's complete guff.]

You simply cannot say that as you are not inside the head of the people in
question and so cannot possible know how things seem to them.

David Damerell said the following on 24/04/2007 12:56:

Quoted message said:

Name six.

[You can't, of course. That's complete guff.]

Sorry? You just have to read back through loads of threads (and as you
want to know then you can do the research). Starting with this very
thread, for instance where it is politely implied by "soup" and John B
that wearing a helmet is doing a disservice to other cyclists by helping
the compulsion cause, or by Pyromancer (why can't people use real
names?) who started this on the 21st with a minor rant about how he
tried to persuade other cyclists not to wear them, and expressed dismay
when they continued to wear them. There are other posts going back over
months, or years, where other posters are a lot more assertive in
telling people not to wear helmets. Perhaps you chose not to read those.

Hang on - I've just checked your past posting history. Hmmm - you're
one of those that always demands (not requests) answers, but never
offers any yourself.

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

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:12:23 +0100, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Marc Brett wrote on 24/04/2007 08:28 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Show me the evidence, or shut the fud up.

There is plenty of evidence and the statement has been made multiple
times by Ministers.

Mea maxima culpa.

Still, I disagree with the tactic of discouraging helmet use to prevent an MHL.
People wear helmets for all sorts of reasons, and some of them may be "wrong" in
the strict sense. But all people act illogically everyday in all areas of life,
hence the success of advertising, fr'instance. There's even the disturbing
possibility that the anti-helmet zealots are themselves "wrong", and so should
act with some prophylactic humility. Trying to drum sense into millions of lid
wearers in the hope that it'll influence a government decision is a Sisyphean
exercise, and is not worth despairing over. You'll get more results for less
effort if you direct your arrows at the decision makers themselves. (Thanks for
the transcript, btw -- some of the Lords are truly aliens who have no grounding
in reality, and do need to be sent to reeducation camps.)

Paul Boyd said:

David Damerell said the following on 24/04/2007 12:56:

Quoted message said:

Name six.

[You can't, of course. That's complete guff.]

Sorry? You just have to read back through loads of threads (and as you
want to know then you can do the research). Starting with this very
thread, for instance where it is politely implied by "soup" and John B
that wearing a helmet is doing a disservice to other cyclists by helping
the compulsion cause, or by Pyromancer (why can't people use real
names?) who started this on the 21st with a minor rant about how he
tried to persuade other cyclists not to wear them, and expressed dismay
when they continued to wear them.

And where do any of those cases have anyone saying, to quote you, that
they "want to force people to not wear them"?

Quoted message said:

There are other posts going back over
months, or years, where other posters are a lot more assertive in
telling people not to wear helmets. Perhaps you chose not to read those.

"Persuading" (even "assertively telling"😉 and "forcing" are *not* the
same thing. Though I think you'd be hard pushed to name half a dozen
folk assertively /telling/ people they must not wear them. Suggesting
they should not wear them is not the same thing at all.

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 [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said the following on 24/04/2007 14:54:

Quoted message said:

And where do any of those cases have anyone saying, to quote you, that
they "want to force people to not wear them"?

You seem to have indulged in a spot of selective editing. What are the
two words I typed before the part you quoted?

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