advisor wanted

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

Dave Larrington said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Speaking as a "European" who has recently covered almost six thousand miles
on the roads of the US, I think I can safely state that driving standards,
and attitudes towards other road users both powered and unpowered, differ as
widely from state to state in the US as they do between countries in Europe.
Personally I find it to be a toss-up between Belgium and California as to
which is the most terrifying place to use the roads.

Well, that may be, but overall? Europe or the US as cycling
friendliest?

Yep, I've cycled in Mexico on the roads and never had a driver
deliberately try to squeeze me to the side of the road. I have that
happen about a half dozen times in San Diego. Our roads are both
smoother and wider than those I covered in Mexico.

I would be convinced that Mexico is more cycxlist friendly, alathough
trying to go through the main business roads in Tijuana is much more
hazardous.

Dave Larrington said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Speaking as a "European" who has recently covered almost six thousand miles
on the roads of the US, I think I can safely state that driving standards,
and attitudes towards other road users both powered and unpowered, differ as
widely from state to state in the US as they do between countries in Europe.
Personally I find it to be a toss-up between Belgium and California as to
which is the most terrifying place to use the roads.

Well, that may be, but overall? Europe or the US as cycling
friendliest?

Yep, I've cycled in Mexico on the roads and never had a driver
deliberately try to squeeze me to the side of the road. I have that
happen about a half dozen times in San Diego. Our roads are both
smoother and wider than those I covered in Mexico.

I would be convinced that Mexico is more cycxlist friendly, alathough
trying to go through the main business roads in Tijuana is much more
hazardous.

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:59:07 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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?

I suggest you read back up the thread before your mouth writes another
check your ass cannot cash. I have always maintained that non-serious
injuries are the ones that do not take you to the ER. My position has
not changed, just my words so the braindead can understand (their
condition probably caused by one too many accidents without a helmet
;->😉.

Quoted message said:

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?

The question you have avoided is: which is friendliest to cyclists -
the US or Europe?

Quoted message said:

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?

You talk physics, I talk about the possibility that helmets may reduce
the severity of a head impact and keep someone from going to the ER.
We've had a couple of people say that is the case anecdoatally. I
guess that is irrelevant to you.

The fact is I destroyed a helmet and did not end up in the hospital
for a head injury. That rock hitting my head would have been a
different matter. That is a fact regardless of whether or not you like
it. All stats aside.

Quoted message said:

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.

You missed the lead-in question didn't you? My mid definitely knows
that a helmet kept me out of an ER. Can you prove elsewise? No.

The accident happened as described. Accept it or not, your choice. MY
experience proves helmets work in the situation described.

Quoted message said:

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.

And how many times in Europe have you been deliberately and
calculatedly squeezed to the side of a road by a driver? How many
times in Europe have you had some driver you have never encountered
yell out that they hope someone runs over you? How many times in
Europe have you been run up behind and deliberately bumpered by a car
and then the driver telling you to get off the road and on the
sidewalk?

I'm not addressing an accident here, but cold calculated intimidation
of cyclists by motorists.

Oh yes, and over what time span did all this happen?

jim

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 13:59:07 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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?

I suggest you read back up the thread before your mouth writes another
check your ass cannot cash. I have always maintained that non-serious
injuries are the ones that do not take you to the ER. My position has
not changed, just my words so the braindead can understand (their
condition probably caused by one too many accidents without a helmet
;->😉.

Quoted message said:

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?

The question you have avoided is: which is friendliest to cyclists -
the US or Europe?

Quoted message said:

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?

You talk physics, I talk about the possibility that helmets may reduce
the severity of a head impact and keep someone from going to the ER.
We've had a couple of people say that is the case anecdoatally. I
guess that is irrelevant to you.

The fact is I destroyed a helmet and did not end up in the hospital
for a head injury. That rock hitting my head would have been a
different matter. That is a fact regardless of whether or not you like
it. All stats aside.

Quoted message said:

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.

You missed the lead-in question didn't you? My mid definitely knows
that a helmet kept me out of an ER. Can you prove elsewise? No.

The accident happened as described. Accept it or not, your choice. MY
experience proves helmets work in the situation described.

Quoted message said:

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.

And how many times in Europe have you been deliberately and
calculatedly squeezed to the side of a road by a driver? How many
times in Europe have you had some driver you have never encountered
yell out that they hope someone runs over you? How many times in
Europe have you been run up behind and deliberately bumpered by a car
and then the driver telling you to get off the road and on the
sidewalk?

I'm not addressing an accident here, but cold calculated intimidation
of cyclists by motorists.

Oh yes, and over what time span did all this happen?

jim

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

[email hidden] wrote:

> 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?

How so? It said helmets did not reduce head injury rates and you think
that is "not a word"? Curious. I notice also that you do not comment
on the suggestion that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed.
But that doesn't fit with your world view so best ignore it eh?

--
Tony

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

[email hidden] wrote:

> 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?

How so? It said helmets did not reduce head injury rates and you think
that is "not a word"? Curious. I notice also that you do not comment
on the suggestion that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed.
But that doesn't fit with your world view so best ignore it eh?

--
Tony

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

Colin McKenzie said:

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.

Interesting. I don't have a heat problem with a helmet nor an
incovenience from using them. With the venting today, I suspect riding
caps would be far warmer. So, it breaks down to money. As I use
medical so inferequently, my first visit to an ER would be at my
expense and that is a $500 deductable. My last visit to an ER was for
a broken collar bone in 1994 and the bill was for some $1500. Granted
that is higher than some stitching. My money is better used on the
helmet than my medical bills. I know that plastic cannot protect me in
every situation, but they have done so so far.

Quoted message said:

Meanwhile I have discovered
- that helmets are only designed to cope with impacts too gentle to be
life-threatening

Any impact can be life threatening. How stupid you sound.

Quoted message said:

- that walking is as hazardous as cycling, and no-one advoates walking
helmets

right

Quoted message said:

- that helmet promotion and compulsion reduce cycling, which is a
healthy activity that on average prolongs life

There is no other intervening variable causing that reduction? I doubt
the direct link.

Quoted message said:

- 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

Does not consider all the varaibles, but it is your call.

Quoted message said:

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

Its not an appeal to emotion. You either believe your posiition or you
don't. I've found that a lot of people who say one thing about their
own riding say quite another when it comes to their kids. You cannot
have it both ways.

Quoted message said:

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.

Noted your caveat. Typical.

jim

Colin McKenzie said:

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.

Interesting. I don't have a heat problem with a helmet nor an
incovenience from using them. With the venting today, I suspect riding
caps would be far warmer. So, it breaks down to money. As I use
medical so inferequently, my first visit to an ER would be at my
expense and that is a $500 deductable. My last visit to an ER was for
a broken collar bone in 1994 and the bill was for some $1500. Granted
that is higher than some stitching. My money is better used on the
helmet than my medical bills. I know that plastic cannot protect me in
every situation, but they have done so so far.

Quoted message said:

Meanwhile I have discovered
- that helmets are only designed to cope with impacts too gentle to be
life-threatening

Any impact can be life threatening. How stupid you sound.

Quoted message said:

- that walking is as hazardous as cycling, and no-one advoates walking
helmets

right

Quoted message said:

- that helmet promotion and compulsion reduce cycling, which is a
healthy activity that on average prolongs life

There is no other intervening variable causing that reduction? I doubt
the direct link.

Quoted message said:

- 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

Does not consider all the varaibles, but it is your call.

Quoted message said:

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

Its not an appeal to emotion. You either believe your posiition or you
don't. I've found that a lot of people who say one thing about their
own riding say quite another when it comes to their kids. You cannot
have it both ways.

Quoted message said:

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.

Noted your caveat. Typical.

jim

Quoted message said:

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.

You really are fixated on those fruits aren't you. I wish you would
lead me somewhere. So far your wells have been dry. How about you
produce some data where whole population studies have shown an
improvement in injury rates (of any sort) through increases in helmet
wearing rates?

--
Tony

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

Quoted message said:

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.

You really are fixated on those fruits aren't you. I wish you would
lead me somewhere. So far your wells have been dry. How about you
produce some data where whole population studies have shown an
improvement in injury rates (of any sort) through increases in helmet
wearing rates?

--
Tony

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

Quoted message said:

Dave Larrington said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Speaking as a "European" who has recently covered almost six thousand miles
on the roads of the US, I think I can safely state that driving standards,
and attitudes towards other road users both powered and unpowered, differ as
widely from state to state in the US as they do between countries in Europe.
Personally I find it to be a toss-up between Belgium and California as to
which is the most terrifying place to use the roads.

Well, that may be, but overall? Europe or the US as cycling
friendliest?

Yep, I've cycled in Mexico on the roads and never had a driver
deliberately try to squeeze me to the side of the road. I have that
happen about a half dozen times in San Diego. Our roads are both
smoother and wider than those I covered in Mexico.

I would be convinced that Mexico is more cycxlist friendly, alathough
trying to go through the main business roads in Tijuana is much more
hazardous.

So you haven't cycled in Europe then and you are imagining what it is
like? Actually the worst of the countries we've discussed to cycle in
is New Zealand IMO and there we have the data that helmets increased
head injury rates.

--
Tony

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

Quoted message said:

Dave Larrington said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Speaking as a "European" who has recently covered almost six thousand miles
on the roads of the US, I think I can safely state that driving standards,
and attitudes towards other road users both powered and unpowered, differ as
widely from state to state in the US as they do between countries in Europe.
Personally I find it to be a toss-up between Belgium and California as to
which is the most terrifying place to use the roads.

Well, that may be, but overall? Europe or the US as cycling
friendliest?

Yep, I've cycled in Mexico on the roads and never had a driver
deliberately try to squeeze me to the side of the road. I have that
happen about a half dozen times in San Diego. Our roads are both
smoother and wider than those I covered in Mexico.

I would be convinced that Mexico is more cycxlist friendly, alathough
trying to go through the main business roads in Tijuana is much more
hazardous.

So you haven't cycled in Europe then and you are imagining what it is
like? Actually the worst of the countries we've discussed to cycle in
is New Zealand IMO and there we have the data that helmets increased
head injury rates.

--
Tony

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

Quoted message said:

The question you have avoided is: which is friendliest to cyclists -
the US or Europe?

I've already said, both the same and that from plenty of experience of
both. Which would you say? Ah I forgot you have no experience of
Europe so you don't know

Quoted message said:

You talk physics, I talk about the possibility that helmets may reduce
the severity of a head impact and keep someone from going to the ER.
We've had a couple of people say that is the case anecdoatally. I
guess that is irrelevant to you.

Anecdote is anecdote. It tells you nothing about what is likely to
happen. I know anecdotes of people who jumped out of planes at altitude
without a parachute and walked away uninjured. Doesn't tell you
anything about the advisability of jumping out of a plane without a
parachute

Quoted message said:

The fact is I destroyed a helmet and did not end up in the hospital
for a head injury. That rock hitting my head would have been a
different matter. That is a fact regardless of whether or not you like
it. All stats aside.

As useful as the anecdote about jumping without a parachute.

Quoted message said:

And how many times in Europe have you been deliberately and
calculatedly squeezed to the side of a road by a driver? How many
times in Europe have you had some driver you have never encountered
yell out that they hope someone runs over you? How many times in
Europe have you been run up behind and deliberately bumpered by a car
and then the driver telling you to get off the road and on the
sidewalk?

I'm not addressing an accident here, but cold calculated intimidation
of cyclists by motorists.

Oh yes, and over what time span did all this happen?

You clearly have never ridden in Europe or you would know it is about as
common as in the USA. A Google of uk.rec.cycling will give you plenty
of such stories.

--
Tony

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

Quoted message said:

The question you have avoided is: which is friendliest to cyclists -
the US or Europe?

I've already said, both the same and that from plenty of experience of
both. Which would you say? Ah I forgot you have no experience of
Europe so you don't know

Quoted message said:

You talk physics, I talk about the possibility that helmets may reduce
the severity of a head impact and keep someone from going to the ER.
We've had a couple of people say that is the case anecdoatally. I
guess that is irrelevant to you.

Anecdote is anecdote. It tells you nothing about what is likely to
happen. I know anecdotes of people who jumped out of planes at altitude
without a parachute and walked away uninjured. Doesn't tell you
anything about the advisability of jumping out of a plane without a
parachute

Quoted message said:

The fact is I destroyed a helmet and did not end up in the hospital
for a head injury. That rock hitting my head would have been a
different matter. That is a fact regardless of whether or not you like
it. All stats aside.

As useful as the anecdote about jumping without a parachute.

Quoted message said:

And how many times in Europe have you been deliberately and
calculatedly squeezed to the side of a road by a driver? How many
times in Europe have you had some driver you have never encountered
yell out that they hope someone runs over you? How many times in
Europe have you been run up behind and deliberately bumpered by a car
and then the driver telling you to get off the road and on the
sidewalk?

I'm not addressing an accident here, but cold calculated intimidation
of cyclists by motorists.

Oh yes, and over what time span did all this happen?

You clearly have never ridden in Europe or you would know it is about as
common as in the USA. A Google of uk.rec.cycling will give you plenty
of such stories.

--
Tony

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

Quoted message said:

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

If that is the case then why do you think the rates from serious
injuries will be unaffected by the increasing use of helmets relative to
when no helmets were used?

As for "may do", what "may" happen has a burden of proof both ways.
Where do you have any proof of your assertion? If there is none, why
should anyone treat it as /necessarily/ true?

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/

Quoted message said:

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

If that is the case then why do you think the rates from serious
injuries will be unaffected by the increasing use of helmets relative to
when no helmets were used?

As for "may do", what "may" happen has a burden of proof both ways.
Where do you have any proof of your assertion? If there is none, why
should anyone treat it as /necessarily/ true?

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/

Quoted message said:

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

Still can't demonstrate any casualty savings from helmet use, I see...

That really is the bottom line for saying people should wear them to
make themselves safer. And if helmets make people safer that should be
shown by casualty savings. So where are they?

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/

Quoted message said:

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

Still can't demonstrate any casualty savings from helmet use, I see...

That really is the bottom line for saying people should wear them to
make themselves safer. And if helmets make people safer that should be
shown by casualty savings. So where are they?

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/

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

How can you tell without reading it that "head injury" refers purely to
serious head injuries?

And even assuming some do go from serious to non-serious, how will that
*not* affect the serious rates, by reducing them? After all, if you've
removed serious injuries by downgrading them, then there must be fewer
serious injuries. Still not a word from you about how that would not be
the case, and not a word of proof from you that any injuries are taken
from serious to non-serious.

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/