advisor wanted

Quoted message said:

As I was saying. Non-serious are those you DO NOT end up in the ER for.

So when you said the "less than "serious" accidents" were "the ones that
without a helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching?" you
actually meant the ones that didn't need an ER visit and stitching? Or
did you just reposition when you realised your current position was not
tenable in the face of the facts?

Quoted message said:

Missing bit of data and that is the total number of riders in both years.
Source?

Actually numbers of riders decreased which meant as helmet wearing rates
went up so did accident rates and head injury rates per rider. As for
source, I gave that in a follow up post to another person's request.

Quoted message said:

That has a lot to do with wach copuntries view of cycling. Europe is
cycling friendly. The US is not.

I've cycled all over Europe and all over the US. Not sure there is much
difference. Downtown is downtown and countryside is countryside. The
cars in the US do tend to drive more slowly though. How much have you
done of both to compare?

Quoted message said:

Interesting, but what happens in Oz may or may not be relevant to the US
or anywhere elase for that matter.

But when what happens in Oz is consistent with the data from elsewhere
in the world including the US one has to ask is it more likely that the
US is similar to the rest of the world or that the laws of physics are
completely different in the US?

Quoted message said:

Yep, one person's facts are another's damned lies.

Ah the "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up" gambit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whatever common sense is telling you about the protective effect of
helmets, experience around the world says its wrong.

This comment fails to address the relative safety of cyclists because of
attitudes and acceptance of cycling, doesn't it? Without that comparative
information, the stats are interesting, but may not be telling you what
YOU think they are. I'm betting you know people who have cycled in Europe
who would not venture on the road in the US because of the attitude of US
drivers.

And I'm betting you have never cycled in Europe to make a statement like
that. In fact I have just recruited a keen Californian cyclist who is
finding it most unnerving cycling with European traffic because it is so
much more aggressive than she is used to.

--
Tony

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

Quoted message said:

As I was saying. Non-serious are those you DO NOT end up in the ER for.

So when you said the "less than "serious" accidents" were "the ones that
without a helmet might have called for an ER visit and stitching?" you
actually meant the ones that didn't need an ER visit and stitching? Or
did you just reposition when you realised your current position was not
tenable in the face of the facts?

Quoted message said:

Missing bit of data and that is the total number of riders in both years.
Source?

Actually numbers of riders decreased which meant as helmet wearing rates
went up so did accident rates and head injury rates per rider. As for
source, I gave that in a follow up post to another person's request.

Quoted message said:

That has a lot to do with wach copuntries view of cycling. Europe is
cycling friendly. The US is not.

I've cycled all over Europe and all over the US. Not sure there is much
difference. Downtown is downtown and countryside is countryside. The
cars in the US do tend to drive more slowly though. How much have you
done of both to compare?

Quoted message said:

Interesting, but what happens in Oz may or may not be relevant to the US
or anywhere elase for that matter.

But when what happens in Oz is consistent with the data from elsewhere
in the world including the US one has to ask is it more likely that the
US is similar to the rest of the world or that the laws of physics are
completely different in the US?

Quoted message said:

Yep, one person's facts are another's damned lies.

Ah the "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up" gambit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whatever common sense is telling you about the protective effect of
helmets, experience around the world says its wrong.

This comment fails to address the relative safety of cyclists because of
attitudes and acceptance of cycling, doesn't it? Without that comparative
information, the stats are interesting, but may not be telling you what
YOU think they are. I'm betting you know people who have cycled in Europe
who would not venture on the road in the US because of the attitude of US
drivers.

And I'm betting you have never cycled in Europe to make a statement like
that. In fact I have just recruited a keen Californian cyclist who is
finding it most unnerving cycling with European traffic because it is so
much more aggressive than she is used to.

--
Tony

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

Tony Raven said:

In fact I have just recruited a keen Californian cyclist who is
finding it most unnerving cycling with European traffic because it is so
much more aggressive than she is used to.

Sounds familiar. A colleague on the University BUG met an American last
week who has just started here and was admiring his Brompton. Further
discussion revealed he had several bikes over from the US but hadn't
felt able to ride on the roads yet, finding them too dangerous.

And if you think "that doesn't prove anything, it's just a couple of
data points!", then (a) you're quite right and (b) you should apply the
same thinking to a few anecdotes of helmet efficacy.

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/

Tony Raven said:

In fact I have just recruited a keen Californian cyclist who is
finding it most unnerving cycling with European traffic because it is so
much more aggressive than she is used to.

Sounds familiar. A colleague on the University BUG met an American last
week who has just started here and was admiring his Brompton. Further
discussion revealed he had several bikes over from the US but hadn't
felt able to ride on the roads yet, finding them too dangerous.

And if you think "that doesn't prove anything, it's just a couple of
data points!", then (a) you're quite right and (b) you should apply the
same thinking to a few anecdotes of helmet efficacy.

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/

Tony Raven said:

In fact I have just recruited a keen Californian cyclist who is
finding it most unnerving cycling with European traffic because it is so
much more aggressive than she is used to.

Sounds familiar. A colleague on the University BUG met an American last
week who has just started here and was admiring his Brompton. Further
discussion revealed he had several bikes over from the US but hadn't
felt able to ride on the roads yet, finding them too dangerous.

And if you think "that doesn't prove anything, it's just a couple of
data points!", then (a) you're quite right and (b) you should apply the
same thinking to a few anecdotes of helmet efficacy.

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/

Hi Peter, I enjoyed your Pages very much, I only scanned the Helmet
sections but I promise I will print them out and read them. Well at
least you wear a helmet when you go caving and when you ride your
Unicycle.haha My nephew a retired ballet dancer (36) can ride a
unicycle and juggle at the same time. You would get along great with
him or my
son as they are both quite adventurous. I tried the Unicycle, toughest
thing I ever tried I think, we were riding it in a small goat pen and 3
men could not keep me on that thing.
Unfortunately I have experienced a small train crash in France in
1985, I almost never ride in trains.
Your friend Roos is an attractive lady but I never did see her with a
hat while riding the bent? I never commented about Netherlands, I have
been there many, many times mostly in the late 60's but also in mid
80's. I always enjoyed it very much, the people are exceptional, as a
matter of fact the statistian I last worked with was Dutch. I agree
that the Dutch are very comfortable on their bikes, but as someone else
said they are also respected by the drivers, this is not at all true
here, especially not in Florida. I had a cigarette lighter thrown at
me last week (I seldom ride on roads). Also last week a rider on the
paved trail I use reported a incident with a truck, where the truck
tried to leave the adjacent road and come after him on the trail,
fortunately I guess he got stuck. I always have mirrors and try to
watch overtaking cars and prepare to exit the road if required. FYI
this is the start of hunting season, we are advised to wear bright
clothes on the trail as it is a favorite hunting ground for turkeys and
deer.
You mention sport cycling vs recreational cycling, I guess we mostly
do a combination, we usually ride for a while then race for a while
etc. While the trail is very good most of the time you never can be
sure what you will run into. Sometimes Red Necks run motorized
vehicles on the trail and cover it with rocks, on rare occasion broken
glass, there are some dirt roads crossing the trail, fairly large
amounts of sand can appear where you never saw it before. Then there
are the critters, dogs, cats, tortoises (from a few inches to a few
feet), snakes (small, large, sometimes poisonous), rabbits squirrels
armadillas fox bob cats many deer occasionally coyotoes and alligators
and bears.. To not forget the many horses camels and occasional
lamas.(don't usually see them all each day). Oh yes one lady fell and
hurt her ankle skating when she came on a eagle sitting on the trail.
Anyway it has been very pleasant chatting with you Peter, if you ever
get to West Central Florida come ride with the Morons, as for me I will
continue to wear my helmet. An unfortunate thing about getting older
is that it takes longer to recover from those injuries every year and I
need all the help I can get.

Happy Trails Butch

Hi Peter, I enjoyed your Pages very much, I only scanned the Helmet
sections but I promise I will print them out and read them. Well at
least you wear a helmet when you go caving and when you ride your
Unicycle.haha My nephew a retired ballet dancer (36) can ride a
unicycle and juggle at the same time. You would get along great with
him or my
son as they are both quite adventurous. I tried the Unicycle, toughest
thing I ever tried I think, we were riding it in a small goat pen and 3
men could not keep me on that thing.
Unfortunately I have experienced a small train crash in France in
1985, I almost never ride in trains.
Your friend Roos is an attractive lady but I never did see her with a
hat while riding the bent? I never commented about Netherlands, I have
been there many, many times mostly in the late 60's but also in mid
80's. I always enjoyed it very much, the people are exceptional, as a
matter of fact the statistian I last worked with was Dutch. I agree
that the Dutch are very comfortable on their bikes, but as someone else
said they are also respected by the drivers, this is not at all true
here, especially not in Florida. I had a cigarette lighter thrown at
me last week (I seldom ride on roads). Also last week a rider on the
paved trail I use reported a incident with a truck, where the truck
tried to leave the adjacent road and come after him on the trail,
fortunately I guess he got stuck. I always have mirrors and try to
watch overtaking cars and prepare to exit the road if required. FYI
this is the start of hunting season, we are advised to wear bright
clothes on the trail as it is a favorite hunting ground for turkeys and
deer.
You mention sport cycling vs recreational cycling, I guess we mostly
do a combination, we usually ride for a while then race for a while
etc. While the trail is very good most of the time you never can be
sure what you will run into. Sometimes Red Necks run motorized
vehicles on the trail and cover it with rocks, on rare occasion broken
glass, there are some dirt roads crossing the trail, fairly large
amounts of sand can appear where you never saw it before. Then there
are the critters, dogs, cats, tortoises (from a few inches to a few
feet), snakes (small, large, sometimes poisonous), rabbits squirrels
armadillas fox bob cats many deer occasionally coyotoes and alligators
and bears.. To not forget the many horses camels and occasional
lamas.(don't usually see them all each day). Oh yes one lady fell and
hurt her ankle skating when she came on a eagle sitting on the trail.
Anyway it has been very pleasant chatting with you Peter, if you ever
get to West Central Florida come ride with the Morons, as for me I will
continue to wear my helmet. An unfortunate thing about getting older
is that it takes longer to recover from those injuries every year and I
need all the help I can get.

Happy Trails Butch

Hi Peter, I enjoyed your Pages very much, I only scanned the Helmet
sections but I promise I will print them out and read them. Well at
least you wear a helmet when you go caving and when you ride your
Unicycle.haha My nephew a retired ballet dancer (36) can ride a
unicycle and juggle at the same time. You would get along great with
him or my
son as they are both quite adventurous. I tried the Unicycle, toughest
thing I ever tried I think, we were riding it in a small goat pen and 3
men could not keep me on that thing.
Unfortunately I have experienced a small train crash in France in
1985, I almost never ride in trains.
Your friend Roos is an attractive lady but I never did see her with a
hat while riding the bent? I never commented about Netherlands, I have
been there many, many times mostly in the late 60's but also in mid
80's. I always enjoyed it very much, the people are exceptional, as a
matter of fact the statistian I last worked with was Dutch. I agree
that the Dutch are very comfortable on their bikes, but as someone else
said they are also respected by the drivers, this is not at all true
here, especially not in Florida. I had a cigarette lighter thrown at
me last week (I seldom ride on roads). Also last week a rider on the
paved trail I use reported a incident with a truck, where the truck
tried to leave the adjacent road and come after him on the trail,
fortunately I guess he got stuck. I always have mirrors and try to
watch overtaking cars and prepare to exit the road if required. FYI
this is the start of hunting season, we are advised to wear bright
clothes on the trail as it is a favorite hunting ground for turkeys and
deer.
You mention sport cycling vs recreational cycling, I guess we mostly
do a combination, we usually ride for a while then race for a while
etc. While the trail is very good most of the time you never can be
sure what you will run into. Sometimes Red Necks run motorized
vehicles on the trail and cover it with rocks, on rare occasion broken
glass, there are some dirt roads crossing the trail, fairly large
amounts of sand can appear where you never saw it before. Then there
are the critters, dogs, cats, tortoises (from a few inches to a few
feet), snakes (small, large, sometimes poisonous), rabbits squirrels
armadillas fox bob cats many deer occasionally coyotoes and alligators
and bears.. To not forget the many horses camels and occasional
lamas.(don't usually see them all each day). Oh yes one lady fell and
hurt her ankle skating when she came on a eagle sitting on the trail.
Anyway it has been very pleasant chatting with you Peter, if you ever
get to West Central Florida come ride with the Morons, as for me I will
continue to wear my helmet. An unfortunate thing about getting older
is that it takes longer to recover from those injuries every year and I
need all the help I can get.

Happy Trails Butch

Quoted message said:

And the proof that it will NOT save your life is? Do not confuse overall
stats with what happens in any given situation. I am sure that there are
isolated cases where the use of a helmet IS the direct cause of death in
what would have been a non-serious accident. For isntance, not work
properly, helmet slides bbehind head, straps cut off breathing . . .

I don't need to prove it. You need to prove that I will get some
benefit in exchange for the heat, expense, and inconvenience of riding
with a lump of foam on my head.

Meanwhile I have discovered
- that helmets are only designed to cope with impacts too gentle to be
life-threatening
- that walking is as hazardous as cycling, and no-one advoates walking
helmets
- that helmet promotion and compulsion reduce cycling, which is a
healthy activity that on average prolongs life
- that at population level helmets don't save lives or serious
injuries. From which I deduce either
- they make no difference in severe impacts
or
- they make things worse at least as often as they make them better

Quoted message said:

Of course, the acid test is: are you willing to take your CHILD with you
on a bike in traffic without that child wearing a helmet?

Ah, the appeal to emotion. Having looked at the facts I would:
- make sure the bike is in good shape
- make sure the child's bike-control is good enough
- make sure the child understands traffic rules and conventions
- tell him or her a helmet may save cuts and bruises but is unlikely
to save his/her life
- let the child choose to wear a helmet or not

Quoted message said:

Are you willing to take your CHILD with you mountain biking without
that child wearing a helmet?

As long as at least one of us is cautious. Cuts and bruises can spoil
your day and I wouldn't want too many of them.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

Quoted message said:

And the proof that it will NOT save your life is? Do not confuse overall
stats with what happens in any given situation. I am sure that there are
isolated cases where the use of a helmet IS the direct cause of death in
what would have been a non-serious accident. For isntance, not work
properly, helmet slides bbehind head, straps cut off breathing . . .

I don't need to prove it. You need to prove that I will get some
benefit in exchange for the heat, expense, and inconvenience of riding
with a lump of foam on my head.

Meanwhile I have discovered
- that helmets are only designed to cope with impacts too gentle to be
life-threatening
- that walking is as hazardous as cycling, and no-one advoates walking
helmets
- that helmet promotion and compulsion reduce cycling, which is a
healthy activity that on average prolongs life
- that at population level helmets don't save lives or serious
injuries. From which I deduce either
- they make no difference in severe impacts
or
- they make things worse at least as often as they make them better

Quoted message said:

Of course, the acid test is: are you willing to take your CHILD with you
on a bike in traffic without that child wearing a helmet?

Ah, the appeal to emotion. Having looked at the facts I would:
- make sure the bike is in good shape
- make sure the child's bike-control is good enough
- make sure the child understands traffic rules and conventions
- tell him or her a helmet may save cuts and bruises but is unlikely
to save his/her life
- let the child choose to wear a helmet or not

Quoted message said:

Are you willing to take your CHILD with you mountain biking without
that child wearing a helmet?

As long as at least one of us is cautious. Cuts and bruises can spoil
your day and I wouldn't want too many of them.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

Quoted message said:

And the proof that it will NOT save your life is? Do not confuse overall
stats with what happens in any given situation. I am sure that there are
isolated cases where the use of a helmet IS the direct cause of death in
what would have been a non-serious accident. For isntance, not work
properly, helmet slides bbehind head, straps cut off breathing . . .

I don't need to prove it. You need to prove that I will get some
benefit in exchange for the heat, expense, and inconvenience of riding
with a lump of foam on my head.

Meanwhile I have discovered
- that helmets are only designed to cope with impacts too gentle to be
life-threatening
- that walking is as hazardous as cycling, and no-one advoates walking
helmets
- that helmet promotion and compulsion reduce cycling, which is a
healthy activity that on average prolongs life
- that at population level helmets don't save lives or serious
injuries. From which I deduce either
- they make no difference in severe impacts
or
- they make things worse at least as often as they make them better

Quoted message said:

Of course, the acid test is: are you willing to take your CHILD with you
on a bike in traffic without that child wearing a helmet?

Ah, the appeal to emotion. Having looked at the facts I would:
- make sure the bike is in good shape
- make sure the child's bike-control is good enough
- make sure the child understands traffic rules and conventions
- tell him or her a helmet may save cuts and bruises but is unlikely
to save his/her life
- let the child choose to wear a helmet or not

Quoted message said:

Are you willing to take your CHILD with you mountain biking without
that child wearing a helmet?

As long as at least one of us is cautious. Cuts and bruises can spoil
your day and I wouldn't want too many of them.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

Colin McKenzie said:

...
Meanwhile I have discovered
- that helmets are only designed to cope with impacts too gentle to be
life-threatening
- that walking is as hazardous as cycling, and no-one advoates walking
helmets
- that helmet promotion and compulsion reduce cycling, which is a
healthy activity that on average prolongs life
- that at population level helmets don't save lives or serious
injuries. From which I deduce either
- they make no difference in severe impacts
or
- they make things worse at least as often as they make them better....

Which leads to speculation that what might be sensible is a flexible
head covering that is abrasion resistant with a smooth (e.g. "rip stop"
nylon) surface. Minor head wounds (e.g. "road rash"😉 that cause no real
damage to the brain or skull can still be rather painful for an
extended period.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Colin McKenzie said:

...
Meanwhile I have discovered
- that helmets are only designed to cope with impacts too gentle to be
life-threatening
- that walking is as hazardous as cycling, and no-one advoates walking
helmets
- that helmet promotion and compulsion reduce cycling, which is a
healthy activity that on average prolongs life
- that at population level helmets don't save lives or serious
injuries. From which I deduce either
- they make no difference in severe impacts
or
- they make things worse at least as often as they make them better....

Which leads to speculation that what might be sensible is a flexible
head covering that is abrasion resistant with a smooth (e.g. "rip stop"
nylon) surface. Minor head wounds (e.g. "road rash"😉 that cause no real
damage to the brain or skull can still be rather painful for an
extended period.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

Is housework considered a hazardous acitivity? No.

"considered", no, yet people are killed every year in domestic
accidents. Try telling the victims that the house can't be a dangerous
place (oh, you can't, because they're dead). It isn't very *likely*
that you'll die, but it can happen. And that, when you look at the
figures, is how it works for A to B cycling too.

Yawn. You are boring. Where have I ever said anything about not having
sympathy with people kileed stepping out of bathrubs? I haven't and
you're being an arrogant and presumptious fool for trying to do so. I
never said it ws not a dangerous place either.

If you have stooped to such childish tactics, you lose.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So do not compare apples and oranges.

I'm not, if you actually stop and look at it. Pedestrians make a very
useful control because they have similar accidents to cyclists at
similar rates, and have had for all the time we have records.

You are despite your protestations. Get over it and move on.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is an assumption. Unless, of course you can cite a study saying
specifically that.

That if there are reductions in serious to minor injuries that the
serious injury totals will fall? It's very, very simple arithmetic. It
is "common sense", and you don't have any better basis for /your/
assumption.

Got any case study we can look at? Evidently not. Thanks for confiming
that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You said it should be easy to get those studoes/facts . . .

I said it should be very easy to prove that helmets help /if they do/.
I've looked at plenty of studies and facts, and what they tell me is
there's no tangible reduction in serious injuries from helmet wearing.

You have looked at everytthing except the non-serious injury studies,
alhtough you attempt to make it look like you have.

Quoted message said:

I even pointed you at www.cyclehelmets.org where there's a large
collection, and a well referenced one at that, containing lots of
citations both ways for anyone to study at their leisure. I have.
Seems like you haven't.

Quoted message said:

Sorry, Pete, you are. The study onlyu concerns serious injusries and
nothing else. It misses taking into account a lot of variables that are
imprtant to being able to make any categorical statement.\

You're being remarkably simplistic, as is evidenced by your use of
singular "the study" for a huge collection of literature. It is easy to
make a statement based on the serious injury data because it is
controlled by the pedestrian data (demonstrably has been for years).
And if we don't know the effect on minor injuries, well, they are by
definition minor, and aren't going to get people killed.

So, do you agree with me that helmets may be responsible for a portion
of those non-serious injuries being prevented from becoming serious?

jim

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

Is housework considered a hazardous acitivity? No.

"considered", no, yet people are killed every year in domestic
accidents. Try telling the victims that the house can't be a dangerous
place (oh, you can't, because they're dead). It isn't very *likely*
that you'll die, but it can happen. And that, when you look at the
figures, is how it works for A to B cycling too.

Yawn. You are boring. Where have I ever said anything about not having
sympathy with people kileed stepping out of bathrubs? I haven't and
you're being an arrogant and presumptious fool for trying to do so. I
never said it ws not a dangerous place either.

If you have stooped to such childish tactics, you lose.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So do not compare apples and oranges.

I'm not, if you actually stop and look at it. Pedestrians make a very
useful control because they have similar accidents to cyclists at
similar rates, and have had for all the time we have records.

You are despite your protestations. Get over it and move on.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is an assumption. Unless, of course you can cite a study saying
specifically that.

That if there are reductions in serious to minor injuries that the
serious injury totals will fall? It's very, very simple arithmetic. It
is "common sense", and you don't have any better basis for /your/
assumption.

Got any case study we can look at? Evidently not. Thanks for confiming
that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You said it should be easy to get those studoes/facts . . .

I said it should be very easy to prove that helmets help /if they do/.
I've looked at plenty of studies and facts, and what they tell me is
there's no tangible reduction in serious injuries from helmet wearing.

You have looked at everytthing except the non-serious injury studies,
alhtough you attempt to make it look like you have.

Quoted message said:

I even pointed you at www.cyclehelmets.org where there's a large
collection, and a well referenced one at that, containing lots of
citations both ways for anyone to study at their leisure. I have.
Seems like you haven't.

Quoted message said:

Sorry, Pete, you are. The study onlyu concerns serious injusries and
nothing else. It misses taking into account a lot of variables that are
imprtant to being able to make any categorical statement.\

You're being remarkably simplistic, as is evidenced by your use of
singular "the study" for a huge collection of literature. It is easy to
make a statement based on the serious injury data because it is
controlled by the pedestrian data (demonstrably has been for years).
And if we don't know the effect on minor injuries, well, they are by
definition minor, and aren't going to get people killed.

So, do you agree with me that helmets may be responsible for a portion
of those non-serious injuries being prevented from becoming serious?

jim

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 07:53:49 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> brain farted and said nothing:

jim

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 07:53:49 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> brain farted and said nothing:

jim

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:28:57 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and
that is most European countries are cyclist friendly.

Nobody has told the figures gathered in the US that so they remain
oblivious to it. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings
for helmet wearing.

Can I cite the largest survey ever carried out*, of over 8
million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15
years, concluded that there was no evidence that helmets had reduced
head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, it suggested that helmeted
riders were more likely to be killed.

* Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A re-evaluation of the impacts of the
CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Rodgers. Journal of Product
Liability, Vol 11 pp 307-317, 1988.

Hmmm and not a word about th reduction from serious to non-serious,
eh?

jim

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:28:57 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

There is another set of factors operating here that all this ignores and
that is most European countries are cyclist friendly.

Nobody has told the figures gathered in the US that so they remain
oblivious to it. Please cite some that show me some casualty savings
for helmet wearing.

Can I cite the largest survey ever carried out*, of over 8
million cases of injury and death to cyclists in the USA over 15
years, concluded that there was no evidence that helmets had reduced
head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, it suggested that helmeted
riders were more likely to be killed.

* Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A re-evaluation of the impacts of the
CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Rodgers. Journal of Product
Liability, Vol 11 pp 307-317, 1988.

Hmmm and not a word about th reduction from serious to non-serious,
eh?

jim

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:21:47 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Te wstats are interesting, but a good portion of what is NOT discussed is
driver's attitudes on cyclists on the road. Until that can be equated,
they are interesitng but do not reflect the actual riding conditions.

The common feature of all the stats, even for cycle friendly Holland, is
that the characteristics of the accidents that happen are virtually
identical and involve being hit by a motor vehicle most of the time. In
what way is a helmet going to protect you from being hit by a motor
vehicle in the US that its not going to do being hit by a motor vehicle
in Australia or Holland? And how is your helmet going to stop them
shouting at you but not actually running you over?

Apples and oranges Tony. I can lead you to water, but if you don't
want to drink, so be it.

jim