OT: Persistence of Myths

Marc Brett said:

urc members seem to be in a constant battle against bicycle mythology --
helmets save lives, motorists own the road by virtue of road tax,
cyclepaths are safe, lycra louts are out of control, and so on. Arguing
against these myths doesn't stop them, and keeping silent doesn't stop
them. New research may shed some light on this phenomenon:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300933.html

"This phenomenon may help explain why large numbers of Americans
incorrectly think that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in planning
the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and that most of the Sept. 11
hijackers were Iraqi."

I thought the explanation was because large numbers of Americans are
stupid, and couldn't work out where Iraq was if it was on a large map
labeled IRAQ!

Marc Brett said:

urc members seem to be in a constant battle against bicycle mythology --
helmets save lives, motorists own the road by virtue of road tax,
cyclepaths are safe, lycra louts are out of control, and so on. Arguing
against these myths doesn't stop them, and keeping silent doesn't stop
them. New research may shed some light on this phenomenon:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300933.html

So that would suggest the right is not to debate the myths, but simply
to keep repeating the things you want people to believe.

Paul Rudin said:

Marc Brett said:

urc members seem to be in a constant battle against bicycle mythology --
helmets save lives, motorists own the road by virtue of road tax,
cyclepaths are safe, lycra louts are out of control, and so on. Arguing
against these myths doesn't stop them, and keeping silent doesn't stop
them. New research may shed some light on this phenomenon:

Quoted message said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR200...

So that would suggest the right is not to debate the myths, but simply
to keep repeating the things you want people to believe.

It's not sufficient just to keep repeating things. They have to be
positive things.

"Cycle helmets do not prevent head injuries."

Is remembered after several days as

"Cycle helmets prevent head injuries."

So you need soundbites like:

"Cycle helmets double the risk of head injury."

And, if someone disputes this you can even continue:

"Ok. So they don't double the risk of head injury, in Australia it was
1.8 times increase in risk" (I've made up that 1.8 FYI)

And, despite the negative in the first part of the sentence, this
actually reinforces the original claim.

Even pointing out that TRT don't appear to have the faintest clue how
to do a robust study ends up remembered as "TRT are researchers who
have shown cycle helmets are good" which becomes "researchers have
shown cycle helmets prevent all head injuries"

Tim.

Quoted message said:

Marc Brett <[email hidden]> writes:
urc members seem to be in a constant battle against bicycle mythology --
helmets save lives...

Or perhaps people are so sick of the kneejerk anti-helmet lobby that
they have been converted from helmet agnostics to active helmet
wearers, purely to [censored] the self-righteous?

Just a thought... 😉

Quoted message said:

Or perhaps people are so sick of the kneejerk anti-helmet lobby that
they have been converted from helmet agnostics to active helmet
wearers, purely to [censored] the self-righteous?

Just a thought... 😉

Smiley noted, but who exactly are the anti-helmet lobby (as opposed to
helmet-agnostic lobby), and if the likes of BHIT aren't the most
self-righteous in the park then who exactly is?

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:

Smiley noted, but who exactly are the anti-helmet lobby (as opposed to
helmet-agnostic lobby [...?]

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ seems to fit the bill, as do many on this
NG. (You can guarantee that whenever anyone reports any form of
accident or unplanned contact 'twixt body and blacktop, one of the
first questions will be "Were you wearing a h*****?" and "Did it save
your life". Tongue-in-cheek, perhaps, but it illustrates my point.

For me, a good enough reason to wear one is in order to avoid the
patronising questioning by medical staff etc if I ever do require
treatment after an accident. Even if my only injury is a lacerated
backside, I don't want to waste time explaining why I wasn't wearing a
helmet. Plus if you're ever trying to make a claim against a third
party for any injuries suffered, you don't want to give them a chance
to claim that the injuries were in part self-inflicted through your
choice not to wear an MFH, regardless of how specious that argument
might be...

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

Smiley noted, but who exactly are the anti-helmet lobby (as opposed to
helmet-agnostic lobby [...?]

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ seems to fit the bill, as do many on this
NG. (You can guarantee that whenever anyone reports any form of
accident or unplanned contact 'twixt body and blacktop, one of the
first questions will be "Were you wearing a h*****?" and "Did it save
your life". Tongue-in-cheek, perhaps, but it illustrates my point.

For me, a good enough reason to wear one is in order to avoid the
patronising questioning by medical staff etc if I ever do require
treatment after an accident. Even if my only injury is a lacerated
backside, I don't want to waste time explaining why I wasn't wearing a
helmet.

On the contrary, you should make a point of educating the medical staff -
after all, they are subject to the same propaganda as the rest of us; but
if they repeat it, their status makes it more powerful. If they instead,
when the subject comes up, tell people the truth, that is a much better
result.

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

Or perhaps people are so sick of the kneejerk anti-helmet lobby that
they have been converted from helmet agnostics to active helmet
wearers, purely to [censored] the self-righteous?

Just a thought... 😉

Smiley noted, but who exactly are the anti-helmet lobby (as opposed to
helmet-agnostic lobby), and if the likes of BHIT aren't the most
self-righteous in the park then who exactly is?

I think that the anti-helmet lobby are those that ride
bikes regularly, and having looked at the data around
helmets, don't want to be forced to wear a helmet, and
dis-like the push from certain groups to wear helmets.

OTOH the pro-helmet lobby mainly seem to be non-cyclists
who want to push helmets onto a group doing an activity
that they wrongly perceive to be dangerous. (e.g. BeHit,
sections of the BMA and media).

Of course a large proportion of cyclists have not looked
at the data (why should they?) and just do what feel
natural, or what they have been told to do.

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:24:57 +0100 someone who may be Marc Brett
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300933.html

The authors of the article should have looked earlier than 1945, to
someone who demonstrated that if one repeated a lie often enough
many would believe it.

--
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

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

Smiley noted, but who exactly are the anti-helmet lobby (as opposed to
helmet-agnostic lobby [...?]

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/seems to fit the bill

I'd describe them as an anti pro-helmet lobby or an anti compulsion
lobby. An anti-helmet lobby would argue positively against people
wearing helmets, and I don't see that happening, more a "you wear one
if you want to, but you know it makes very little difference"
attitude.

Rob

Martin Dann said:

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

Or perhaps people are so sick of the kneejerk anti-helmet lobby that
they have been converted from helmet agnostics to active helmet
wearers, purely to [censored] the self-righteous?

Just a thought... 😉

Smiley noted, but who exactly are the anti-helmet lobby (as opposed to
helmet-agnostic lobby), and if the likes of BHIT aren't the most
self-righteous in the park then who exactly is?

I think that the anti-helmet lobby are those that ride
bikes regularly, and having looked at the data around
helmets, don't want to be forced to wear a helmet,

This last is the crucial point.

Every helmet worn is a silent vote for compulsion.

Marc Brett said:

urc members seem to be in a constant battle against bicycle mythology --
helmets save lives, motorists own the road by virtue of road tax,
cyclepaths are safe, lycra louts are out of control, and so on. Arguing
against these myths doesn't stop them, and keeping silent doesn't stop
them.

Or maybe it has to do with how you 'battle'.

I'm a keen cyclist, I'm open-minded, until recently I had no idea the
cycle helmet issue was even an issue. Just hadn't come across it.

u.r.c contributors marc and _ have now (on another group) alienated me
so much that I'd now actively cross the street to avoid having
anything to do with this debate.

It's about tone. If you start with a put-down and move on to
aggressive bickering and ridicule, it tends to alienate.

On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 08:24:31 -0700 someone who may be
[email hidden] wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Smiley noted, but who exactly are the anti-helmet lobby (as opposed to
helmet-agnostic lobby [...?]

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ seems to fit the bill,

No, they are the anti compulsion lobby.

Quoted message said:

For me, a good enough reason to wear one is in order to avoid the
patronising questioning by medical staff etc if I ever do require
treatment after an accident.

You should not be as deferential to jumped up little [censored] who
think they can push people around. The price of freedom is eternal
vigilance against those bods who would take it away in the name of
making things better.

I have no doubt that some of these jumped up little [censored] have
simply been taken in by helmet propaganda. However, that does not
make them any less of a threat to freedom.

--
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

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

Smiley noted, but who exactly are the anti-helmet lobby (as opposed to
helmet-agnostic lobby [...?]

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ seems to fit the bill, as do many on this
NG.

Anti-helmet? They merely put forward the proven facts, and allow you to
make up your own mind, and nowhere do they make any anti-helmet statements.
They publish some comments which show that much of the pro-helmet statements
and research are highly flawed, but that's not anti-helmet. So no coconut.
If that's your best shot at finding someone who's anti-helmet, your
statement is also highly flawed, but then, you may be just another helmet
troll.

Quoted message said:

Plus if you're ever trying to make a claim against a third
party for any injuries suffered, you don't want to give them a chance
to claim that the injuries were in part self-inflicted through your
choice not to wear an MFH, regardless of how specious that argument
might be...

Since no such claim ever appears to have succeeded, and the motorist's
insurance companies have always withdrawn the claim before it gets to
court, you would appear to be worried un-necessarily. Why are you worried
about something which has never happened and is unlikely to ever happen?

"Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think that the anti-helmet lobby are those that ride bikes regularly,
and having looked at the data around helmets, don't want to be forced to
wear a helmet, and dis-like the push from certain groups to wear helmets.

I've never met anyone who is anti-helmet, and what you describe is not
anti-helmet, it's anti-compulsion. The two are totally seperate things, and
don't get fooled by the trolls telling you that people are anti-helmet.

burtthebike said:

"Martin Dann" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I think that the anti-helmet lobby are those that ride bikes
regularly, and having looked at the data around helmets, don't want to
be forced to wear a helmet, and dis-like the push from certain groups
to wear helmets.

I've never met anyone who is anti-helmet, and what you describe is not
anti-helmet, it's anti-compulsion. The two are totally seperate things,
and don't get fooled by the trolls telling you that people are anti-helmet.

I've certainly read anti-helmet arguments here, not just anti
compulsion. The notion that the hat adds mass, rotational inertia and a
longer lever to apply torque to the head have been used. They don't
convince me, but it's a legitimate viewpoint, and one held by people I
respect.
And this is not the first time that I've read "Every helmet worn is a
silent vote for compulsion." either.
Opinion here can probably be split four ways:
1./ helmets quite useful
2./ helmets better than nothing
3./ helmets useless
4./ helmets dangerous.
The orthodoxy here seems (to me at least) to be 3/4. I'm not at all sure
that this reflects the view of the majority of contributors. I think
that this creates a tension that results in the topic becoming taboo.

Roger Thorpe

burtthebike said:

I've never met anyone who is anti-helmet, and what you describe is not
anti-helmet, it's anti-compulsion. The two are totally seperate things, and
don't get fooled by the trolls telling you that people are anti-helmet.

This quote:

"Every helmet worn is a silent vote for compulsion."

suggests otherwise. That strikes me as definitely anti-helmet. I have
no desire to see helmets made compulsory, yet I frequently do wear a
helmet. I'm not "voting" for anything, I simply feel that in the event
of a non-serious accident I would quite like a layer of foam between
my head and a solid object. I know that a helmet won't save me from a
high-speed collision, but it's disingenuous to suggest that helmets
cannot reduce minor injuries. Unless it's really hot (a rarity this
summer) then I tend to forget I'm wearing anything on my head - I
certainly don't feel I'm gaining anything by not wearing one.
Unfortunately, the anti-compulsion lobby have created a paradox: "We
support your right to choose whether or not to wear a helmet... but
you shouldn't wear one because that's a vote for compulsion."

Rob

Response to Roger Thorpe:

Quoted message said:

I've certainly read anti-helmet arguments here, not just anti
compulsion.

An anti-helmet argument is decidedly not the same as being anti-helmet
per se, of course.

Quoted message said:

The notion that the hat adds mass, rotational inertia and a
longer lever to apply torque to the head have been used. They don't
convince me, but it's a legitimate viewpoint, and one held by people I
respect.

Those are all demonstrable facts; the question is the degree to which
they may outweigh any putative benefits a helmet may give. It seems to
me common sense [for what *that's* worth ;-)] that accidents must
occasionally happen in which the increased mass, effective diameter, and
leverage cause greater injury than if a helmet wasn't present; the only
thing really worth arguing about is how these compare in number and
severity with helmets' benefits. As far as we can tell from population
stats, helmets don't seem to make any considerable difference to
injuries overall; I have no idea how this would break down into benefits
on one hand, and disbenefits on the other, and I suspect nobody else
does either.

Quoted message said:

And this is not the first time that I've read "Every helmet worn is a
silent vote for compulsion." either.

That's just common-usage shorthand for stated Government policy. (It
was stated some time ago; I don't know if it has changed.)

Quoted message said:

Opinion here can probably be split four ways:
1./ helmets quite useful
2./ helmets better than nothing
3./ helmets useless
4./ helmets dangerous.

There's one important point to be made first - 0.5/, if you like ;-) -
which is that cycling is about as dangerous as walking, and therefore,
if we are to be rational, deserves similar levels of risk reduction.

Quoted message said:

The orthodoxy here seems (to me at least) to be 3/4. I'm not at all sure
that this reflects the view of the majority of contributors. I think
that this creates a tension that results in the topic becoming taboo.

Oh, very possibly; it's never easy to go against the consensus,
especially when the consensus seems to be right. ;-)

--
Mark, UK
"How future generations will get on without us is indeed, when we come
to think of it, quite a puzzle. But I suppose they will get on somehow,
and may possibly venture to revise our judgments as we have revised
earlier judgments."

Response to Roger Thorpe:

Quoted message said:

I've certainly read anti-helmet arguments here, not just anti
compulsion.

An anti-helmet argument is decidedly not the same as being anti-helmet
per se, of course.

Quoted message said:

The notion that the hat adds mass, rotational inertia and a
longer lever to apply torque to the head have been used. They don't
convince me, but it's a legitimate viewpoint, and one held by people I
respect.

Those are all demonstrable facts; the question is the degree to which
they may outweigh any putative benefits a helmet may give. It seems to
me common sense [for what *that's* worth ;-)] that accidents must
occasionally happen in which the increased mass, effective diameter, and
leverage cause greater injury than if a helmet wasn't present; the only
thing really worth arguing about is how these compare in number and
severity with helmets' benefits. As far as we can tell from population
stats, helmets don't seem to make any considerable difference to
injuries overall; I have no idea how this would break down into benefits
on one hand, and disbenefits on the other, and I suspect nobody else
does either.

Quoted message said:

And this is not the first time that I've read "Every helmet worn is a
silent vote for compulsion." either.

That's just common-usage shorthand for stated Government policy. (It
was stated some time ago; I don't know if it has changed.)

Quoted message said:

Opinion here can probably be split four ways:
1./ helmets quite useful
2./ helmets better than nothing
3./ helmets useless
4./ helmets dangerous.

There's one important point to be made first - 0.5/, if you like ;-) -
which is that cycling is about as dangerous as walking, and therefore,
if we are to be rational, deserves similar levels of risk reduction.

Quoted message said:

The orthodoxy here seems (to me at least) to be 3/4. I'm not at all sure
that this reflects the view of the majority of contributors. I think
that this creates a tension that results in the topic becoming taboo.

Oh, very possibly; it's never easy to go against the consensus,
especially when the consensus seems to be right. ;-)

--
Mark, UK
"How future generations will get on without us is indeed, when we come
to think of it, quite a puzzle. But I suppose they will get on somehow,
and may possibly venture to revise our judgments as we have revised
earlier judgments."