Is your MP Ian McCartney?

you know? said:

Ian McCartney is pro cimpulsion; he has almost certainly
been fed the usual grossly exaggerated stats by the usual
suspects.

Hi Guy

I have a feeling Ian McCartney was the MP I mentioned to you
on the phone - the one who wasn't interested in my comments
simply because I was not one of his constituents.

James

Frankly I couln't give a toss whether helmet use for kids is
compulsory or not. Any parent who lets their child cycle
without one should be shot. All the stats in the world will
not help the few who end up with severe brain damage. And
that lasts for life.

And nobody is suggesting that helmet use will prevent
accidents - not really the point. It is protection
against the worst consequences when the inevitable
accidents DO happen.

So grow and get real - all kids and most adults should wear
one, and then compulsion really is irrelevant.

And btw, no, I am not a wimp scared of my own shadow - I
participate in and enourage my kids to participate in all
sports, including rugby, mountain biking, climbing, kayaking
etc - but also to use sensible safety equipment.

OK, rant over. As you were, chaps!

Peter Taylor "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ian McCartney is pro cimpulsion; he has almost certainly
been fed the usual grossly exaggerated stats by the usual
suspects. Any of you in his consituency might feel
motivated to write to him at his constituency office
pointing out the salient facts. Of particular note:

- off-road cycling accounts for 90% of child cycling
activity and only around 3½% of head injury admissions;
there are many more head injuries from trips and falls,
falls on stairs, assault, striking; and injuries
sustained as occupants of motor vehicles

- road cycling yields the same proportion of head injuries
as being a pedestrian

- the severity ratio is higher for child pedestrians than
for child cyclists

- five times as many child pedestrians are killed and
injured as child cyclists

- around 2,000 children are admitted for cycling head
injuries annually, of which most are released without
further treatment; there are over five million child
cyclists

- the number of serious and potentially helmet preventable
injuries in England is less than 600 per year and
probably under 400

- the number of children killed is around 20 per year, of
whom only one or two die in offroad cycling; by
contrast, 46,000 people die annually of coronary heart
disease due to inactivity

- all these figures have been falling for some time, even
though helmet wearing rates are static

- one in ten child injury admissions are due to road
traffic crashes, but half of all fatalities

- "helmet preventable" cycling injuries account for only
around one in twenty of these injuries, and many
cyclists who die of head injury have other mortal
injuries as well.

- the proportion of head injuries sustained by child
cyclists is in line with the proportion for all impact
injuries

I know of no measure by which child cyclists may honestly
be said to be uniquely at risk.

The BMA are convinced that compulsion will shorten more
lives than it can ever hope to save, which is why both
they and the Royal College of General Practitioners join
all the major cycling bodies in opposing the Bill. Even
the traders who sell helmets are opposed.

And of course there is the problem of enforcement, damage
to organised activities through the potential
criminalisation of children and youth leaders, the risk to
friends over 16, eployers (e.g. newsagents) and the like.

And the fact that helmets will not prevent a single crash.

It is vitally important that he understand that (a)
compulsion destroys cycling; (b) cycling is not especially
risky; (c) the health losses due to reduced cycling are
orders of magnitude greater than even the most optimistic
projections of the gains from compulsion.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle
after posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

Peter Taylor said:

Frankly I couln't give a toss whether helmet use for kids
is compulsory or not. Any parent who lets their child
cycle without one should be shot.

I take it, then, that you learnt nothing from the thread
that you started on this subject on 04/02/04 (which reached
485 posts, according to Google)?

I can't help thinking it's probably not worth trying again.
But for the record, I let my daughter ride her tricycle
without a helmet and I would object strongly to having to
force her to wear one.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukdannyOpen ↗
Why I like OE6 - speedy5.freeserve.co.ukoe6.htmlOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Peter Taylor said:

Frankly I couln't give a toss whether helmet use for kids
is compulsory or not. Any parent who lets their child
cycle without one should be shot. All the stats in the
world will not help the few who end up with severe brain
damage. And that lasts for life.

Woohoo. We don't need no steeenking logic. Nosirrree.

Facts are for wimps.

Quoted message said:

And nobody is suggesting that helmet use will prevent
accidents - not really the point. It is protection
against the worst consequences when the inevitable
accidents DO happen.

Except that the statistics can be read to indicate that
making people wear helmets makes teh statistics more
inevitable, and possibly makes teh consequences if teh
inevitable bad accidents worse.

Quoted message said:

So grow and get real - all kids and most adults should
wear one, and then compulsion really is irrelevant.

Can we just clarify this - you are honestly, genuinely in
favour of a measure that increases the danger of cycling,
and which will increase the rate of premature death in the
population?

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

On 9/4/04 9:45 am, in article [email hidden],

Peter Taylor said:

Frankly I couln't give a toss whether helmet use for kids
is compulsory or not. Any parent who lets their child
cycle without one should be shot. All the stats in the
world will not help the few who end up with severe brain
damage. And that lasts for life.

Now replace cycle with walk, travel in a car, play in a
playground or with any other activity of choice.

Quoted message said:

And nobody is suggesting that helmet use will prevent
accidents - not really the point. It is protection
against the worst consequences when the inevitable
accidents DO happen.

Not even once in every lifetime, once in every 300
lifetimes. Personally I think there are more important
dangers to worry about.

If you are a cyclist you have a 1/300 chance of being killed
on a bike during your lifetime. As a motorist you have a
1/100 chance of killing someone during your lifetime.

Quoted message said:

So grow and get real - all kids and most adults should
wear one, and then compulsion really is irrelevant.

Yours would be the family who wear helmets when driving or
when walking along the street then.. I wondered who they
were. It's a bit like walking round with a big sign saying
"I am a dumbass who doesn't understand mathematics nor the
concept of relative risk".

..d

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:45:28 +0100, "Peter Taylor"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

frankly I couln't give a toss whether helmet use for kids
is compulsory or not. Any parent who lets their child cycle
without one should be shot.

Clearly, since there is precisely no evidence whatsoever
that helmets have ever saved a single life, and compulsion
only reduced the number of teenaged cyclists in Sydney by
90%, how could it possibly be bad?

This Bill would make it a criminal offence to allow a child
to ride a triciyle in the park without a helmet. Happy with
that? Is riding a tricycle in the park dangerous enough that
you think that's justified? Just in case you didn't know,
more children are hospitalised for head injuries due to
assault than due to cycling. Actually, off-road cycling
accounts for 90% of child cycling and only about 3.5% of
child head injuries.

The study on which the entire compulsion bandwaggon is
founded reached its conclusion by comparing two entirely
different groups of cyclists; if you substitute their
"control" group for the numbers gained by co-author Rivara's
counts on the streets of the city in question, the 85%
injury reduction figure reduces to zero, within the limits
of statistical accuracy. Not even the original authors
support those figures any more. Oh, and the study was funded
by the Snell Foundation which makes money from helmets. Oh,
and the authors had already come out in favour of helmets
before they started the study.

The only study in the UK (as opposed to meta analyses which
rely ont he study above) concludes a saving of around 10% of
injuries, but then you find that they overcounted cyclist
injuries by a factor of ten. Oops!

Quoted message said:

All the stats in the world will not help the few who end up
with severe brain damage. And that lasts for life.

And all the stats in the world will never prove that a
single such injury has ever been prevented by a helmet,
which are designed for falls from a stationary riding
position, i.e. forces which we've been surviving for
millennia thanks to the Mk. 1 skull.

22 child cyclists died in the last year for which we have
records. Of these around half died of head injuries, of
those around half again died solely of head injuries. 93.5%
of children riding on urban minor roads do not currently
wear helmets (TRL). So you want to force around 5 million
children to buy a helmet to possibly save five lives, except
that most fatal and serious brain injuries are caused by
rotational forces that helmets can't mitigate. Oops again!

Quoted message said:

And nobody is suggesting that helmet use will prevent
accidents - not really the point. It is protection
against the worst consequences when the inevitable
accidents DO happen.

Except that it isn't because the majority of serious head
injuries happen in crashes involving motor vehicles, which
are well outside the deigned protective envelope of helmets;
and most cyclists who die of head injuries also have other
mortal injuries.

Quoted message said:

So grow and get real - all kids and most adults should wear
one, and then compulsion really is irrelevant.

Nope. Compulsion kills cycling. According to the BMA
compulsion woudl shorten more lives than it could ever
hope to save, which is why they are opposed. As are the
Royal College of General Practitioners. And the National
Cycling Strategy Board. And British Cycling. And RoSPA.
And the Parliamentary Advisory Committee onf Traffic
Safety. And CTC. And the Association of Cycle Traders, who
are just about the only people who are proven to benefit
form helmets.

Quoted message said:

And btw, no, I am not a wimp scared of my own shadow - I
participate in and enourage my kids to participate in all
sports, including rugby, mountain biking, climbing,
kayaking etc - but also to use sensible safety equipment.

And what kind of helmet do they wear when walking along the
pavement? Where five times the number of serious injuries
and deaths occur as when cycling? And where the severity
ratio is significantly higher than for cycling?

What kind of helmets do they wear when climbing stairs? Four
times as many children suffer head injuries climbing stairs
as cycling.

What kind of helmets do they wear when walking around? Trips
and falls accoutn for half of all child head injury
admissions.

What kind of helmets do they wear when they are around other
poeple? More children are hospitalised for head injuries due
to assault than due to cycling.

I have no problem with someone who has an informed opinion
with which I differ, so please do produce the evidence that
your position is based on good evidence that cycling is
especially dangeorous. Having spent a very considerable time
looking (I started from a position similar to yours) I can
say with fair confidence that I do not believe that such
evidence exists.

On the other hand, evidence that cycling is an unusually
beneficial form of exercise and that cycling for transport
is unusually beneficial to your health is both abundant and
compelling. And evidence that compulsion reduces cycling by
massive margins (of the oprder of a third or more) and
especially among children, is also both abundant and
compelling.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

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

<SNIP>

Quoted message said:

Can we just clarify this - you are honestly, genuinely
in favour of a measure that increases the danger of
cycling, ...

Sorry, must have missed something there. Helmet compulsion
for children results in this how ?

Andy said:

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

<SNIP>

Quoted message said:

Can we just clarify this - you are honestly, genuinely
in favour of a measure that increases the danger of
cycling, ...

Sorry, must have missed something there. Helmet
compulsion for children results in this how ?

Dunno, but that's teh observed effect everywhere compulsion
has been tried. Serious accidents drop in absolute numbers
terms, but cycle use drops more (sometimes much more), so
cycling must have become more dangerous.

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

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

Quoted message said:

Andy said:

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

<SNIP>

Quoted message said:

Can we just clarify this - you are honestly, genuinely
in favour of a measure that increases the danger of
cycling, ...

Sorry, must have missed something there. Helmet
compulsion for children results in this how ?

Dunno, but that's teh observed effect everywhere
compulsion has been tried. Serious accidents drop in
absolute numbers terms, but cycle use drops more
(sometimes much more), so cycling must have become more
dangerous.

I see - so a load of boll*x then.

On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 20:33:08 +0100, "Andy" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message VTCdc.13871$4N3.5264@newsfe1-win: said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Can we just clarify this - you are honestly,
> genuinely in favour of a measure that increases the
> danger of cycling, ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sorry, must have missed something there. Helmet
compulsion for children results in this how ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dunno, but that's teh observed effect everywhere
compulsion has been tried. Serious accidents drop in
absolute numbers terms, but cycle use drops more
(sometimes much more), so cycling must have become more
dangerous.

Quoted message said:

I see - so a load of boll*x then.

Compulsion? Yes, utter bollox. In Canada it increased the
injuriy rate very substantially, in Australia it increased
it by a bit, in New Zealand it decreased it marginally but
pedestrian injuries went down by a much larger margin. There
is no known case where cyclist safety has improved with
increasing helmet use. Anywhere.

It is, however, a complex subject. You can believe one of
two things: either helmets do nothing, and the worsening of
cyclist safety is due to the reduction in numbers (safety
increases with the numbers cycling, as you probably know);
or helmets do prevent some injuries but cause others. There
are at least two plausible mechanisms by which a helmet
might cause or exacerbate an injury: increasing the size of
the head, thus magnifying the rotational forces which
account for most serious and fatal brain injuries; and risk
compensation. Since helmets are unlikely to do much in
serious crashes I find the latter more compelling but there
is no denying that the former is credible and supported by
robust evidence.

The reality is: we don't know. The Government is considering
passing a law while still not knowing why laws have failed
everywhere they have been tried, which seems exceptionally
foolish to me. I would like to know the answer; if you would
too, please lobby your MP to get the DfT to fund research.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

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

Quoted message said:

Frankly I couln't give a toss whether helmet use for kids
is compulsory or not. Any parent who lets their child
cycle without one should be shot.

All

Quoted message said:

the stats in the world will not help the few who end up
with severe brain damage. And that lasts for life.

As does child obesity, illness and an early death. Except
that last year, 46,000 people died prematurely because they
didn't exercise. The chances of a child being in a collision
whilst riding a bicycle which would kill them is almost
infinitesimal.

Quoted message said:

And nobody is suggesting that helmet use will prevent
accidents - not

really

Quoted message said:

the point. It is protection against the worst consequences
when the inevitable accidents DO happen.

Since nowhere that helmets have been made compulsory can
demonstrate any benefit whatsoever, your point is........?

Quoted message said:

So grow and get real - all kids and most adults should
wear one, and then compulsion really is irrelevant.

Even though there is not and has never been, any
demonstrable benefit? And wherever there has been compulsion
or mass promotion, the only effect has been to reduce the
number of cyclists, and the health costs to the individuals
and society are massive.

Quoted message said:

And btw, no, I am not a wimp scared of my own shadow - I
participate in

and

Quoted message said:

enourage my kids to participate in all sports, including
rugby, mountain biking, climbing, kayaking etc - but also
to use sensible safety

equipment.

Sensible safety equipment has a demonstrable benefit. Cycle
helmets cannot demonstrate such a benefit; ipso facto, they
are not sensible safety equipment.

You would appear to be obsessed with helmets to the
exclusion of the facts or reasonable risk analysis.

Quoted message said:

OK, rant over. As you were, chaps!

Peter Taylor

Just zis Guy said:

Ian McCartney is pro cimpulsion; he has almost certainly
been fed the usual grossly exaggerated stats by the usual
suspects. Any of you in his consituency might feel
motivated to write to him at his constituency office
pointing out the salient facts.

Where is his constituency? I know he's not my MP, but he
might be a friend's.

Colin McKenzie

Peter Taylor said:

Frankly I couln't give a toss whether helmet use for kids
is compulsory or not. Any parent who lets their child
cycle without one should be shot. All the stats in the
world will not help the few who end up with severe brain
damage. And that lasts for life.

This view is only logical if you also believe that children
should wear helmets when
- walking (including running, skipping, hopping etc)
- travelling in cars
- going up/down stairs
- climbing
- sleeping (especially in top bunks)
- playing any sport

Is this your view?

If not, what made you anti-cycling? And why do you bother
with a cycling newsgroup?

Colin McKenzie

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 22:12:25 +0100, Colin McKenzie
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Where is his constituency?

Makerfield
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

Just zis Guy said:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 22:12:25 +0100, Colin McKenzie <news@proof-
read.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Where is his constituency?

Makerfield

I have transport minister Kim Howells as my MP. Is it worth
sending him a letter?

--
Keith Willoughby flat222.orgkeithOpen ↗ "Load up on
drugs, kill your friends"

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

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 22:12:25 +0100, Colin McKenzie <news@proof-
read.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Where is his constituency?

Makerfield

I have transport minister Kim Howells as my MP. Is it
worth sending him a letter?

Definitely!

Quoted message said:

--
Keith Willoughby flat222.orgkeithOpen ↗ "Load up on
drugs, kill your friends"

Keith Willoughby said:

Just zis Guy said:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 22:12:25 +0100, Colin McKenzie <news@proof-
read.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Where is his constituency?

Makerfield

I have transport minister Kim Howells as my MP. Is it
worth sending him a letter?

Of course. *Every* MP should be lobbied.

John B

JohnB said:

Keith Willoughby said:

Just zis Guy said:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 22:12:25 +0100, Colin McKenzie <news@proof-
read.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

>Where is his constituency?
Makerfield

I have transport minister Kim Howells as my MP. Is it
worth sending him a letter?

Of course. *Every* MP should be lobbied.

You're quite right, of course. I'll send him one. What I was
asking, really, though, is whether he was already anti-
compulsion.

--
Keith Willoughby flat222.orgkeithOpen ↗ I took the bus
from Balmbras And she was heavy laden

Peter Taylor said:

All the stats in the world will not help the few who end up
with severe brain damage. And that lasts for life.

The damage, yes; the effects, no.

James