BRAKE on helmets

MarkK said:

PS I'm yet to be convinced either way on the compulsion
issue. I believe helmets offer a degree of protection,
but I don't think that not wearing one should be
criminalised. Maybe it's just a matter of getting used
to the idea - most of us accept that we should wear

seat

Quoted message said:

belts in cars and helmets on motorbikes.

Only tangentially related, but:

The Motorcycle Action Group newsletter has been giing the
whole bicycle helmet thing some passing coverage. They give
a nodding support to the non-compulsion view, chiefly
because they started out when motorcycle helmets were made
compulsory. They still have this as one of their campaigns,
and have an annual bit of civil disobedience to keep this
issue from being totally forgotten, although to most
motorcyclists it's no longer an issue.

I have no problem wearing a motorcycle helmet, as I've
always worn one due to my age and now I'm become conditioned
to doing so. Nipping from my front door to the garage block
at my old house without one wasn't too bad, but riding
around the block not wearing one while I tried to listen for
intermittent mechanical noises felt like riding naked.

So, if this does become law and it's enforced, it is
possible that future generation might well become
conditioned to wearing helmets, just as motorcyclists have.

A few years ago I visited Rome and noticed that 50cc mopeds
(top speed 30mph, so not much faster than a bicycle really)
are very popular, seemingly because a helmet appears to be
optional. Larger machines appear to require riders to wear a
helmet. A 125cc scooter is a lot more useful, and only
slightly more expensive, but the very nicely dressed young
Italian ladies that ride these things look like they'd hate
having their hair messed up by wearing a helmet. I wonder if
there's any info on injuries here.

I note that mention was made of the prevention of facial
injuries in the press release. I am at a loss to explain how
these might be prevented by a cycle helmet. The full-face
motorcycle helmet sat on the desk next to me would help me
keep my good looks in a crash, but my head would boil if I
wore it for cycling.

--

Regards,

Mark Davies

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

Quoted message said:

So, if I understand the argument correctly, say out of
1000 cyclists, one dies at the age of 10 and doesn't reach
70, as a result of not wearing a helmet. S/he loses 60
years of life, but the 999 others each live 60*20/999=1.2
years longer on average as they're healthier. So they die
at 71 instead of 70 on average.

No, you've completely misunderstood it. The one who dies
prematurely does so as the result of a crash, not because he
or she was not wearing a helmet.

--
Dave...

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

Quoted message said:

The British Dental Association and Faculty of Dental
Practices also support the bill as a result of the serious
facial injuries caused by cycling crashes.

Ah, so it's full face helmets that are to be made compulsory
then is it? Or do they propose wearing a normal helmet over
the front of the face, fencing face guard style?

Why do supposedly reputable organisations open their mouths
to lend support to various campaigns without doing the most
basic research to see if they are making themselves look
complete pillocks?

Graeme

robbiew said:

INterestingly if you go to bike magic you will find a
large

proportion

Quoted message said:

in favour of compulsion. It may be that they tend to be
more of the moutain biking fraternity who put themselves
in postitions where falling off is more common than for
utility riders/ tourers.

Almost certainly.

Singletrackworld forum members (very similar to
Bikemagic) seem to be more anti-compulsion, even though
posters frequently mention that they usually wear helmets
off-road - basically because there's often a fair chance
of falling off.

My favourite quote is:

Well, I certainly wave my private member in the face
of this bill. I bare my compulsoty helmet to this
bill. It stinks.

Surprisingly, the "totally rad" MBUK forum has touched on
the issue, although most contributors are 14 years old,
don't think too hard, boast of falling off while trying to
do tricks, and so think there's no problem with being
forced to wear them. One or two think a little more, and
believe it should be up to you, and depends on what you're
doing at the time.

--

Regards,

Mark Davies

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 10:41:40 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

According to research by the Royal College of Nursing
and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, 50
children's lives could be saved each year if the law was
changed to make wearing cycle helmets compulsory.

Quoted message said:

Really.

Yes, they intend to go out and kill an additional 28 child
cyclists every year, and inflict fatal head injuries on the
10 who died of none-head injuries alone, in order to make
that possible.

Don't give them ideas.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Graeme said:

Why do supposedly reputable organisations open their
mouths to lend support to various campaigns without doing
the most basic research to see if they are making
themselves look complete pillocks?

Dunno, but it seems to me it should be challenged wherever
it happens, preferably by members.

What's alleged to be the organisation's position may
actually be just that of the officer who was asked.

Colin McKenzie
--
Why believe statistics? Ignore them and you can believe the
damned lies instead!

you know? said:

BRAKE have weighed in inna road "safety" stylee with this
load of the most complete bollocks imaginable:

Quite. What an utter barrow load.

I don't often write to pressure groups but I've just done so
in this case. I used to be a great supporter of them and
their aims but this press release shows a complete inability
to make rational judegements on health and safety issues.

For example, justifying their stance on the fact that
cyclists in the TdF are helmeted and therefore so should the
4 yr old tricycling in the park.

Just zis Guy said:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:23:11 +0100, "Simon D"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'd be interested to hear how the sample was selected in
other respects.

[...]

Quoted message said:

In other words, a small, self-selected sample fed
biased information at the point of survey. And that is
probably the /most/ credible and accurate thing in this
press release!

And 62% of them aren't cyclists.

Not Responding said:

For example, justifying their stance on the fact that
cyclists in the TdF are helmeted and therefore so should
the 4 yr old tricycling in the park.

Racing car drivers are all helmeted so shouldn't all road
car drivers also be?

Tony

Tony Raven said:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Perhaps we should run our own survey here and publish the
results: 95% of respondents thought that cycle helmets
should not be compulsory, that they would lead to more
deaths in children and the Government should leave well
alone. Oh and they all thought that motor vehicles should
be covered in 1m thick soft foam ;-)

Lets see...

``Given that most times a car hits a padestrian or cyclist,
the impact is to the body or limbs, and scientific theory
states that injury and death could be significantly reduced
by the use of a soft material with an absorbency of 1 foam-
meter, do you think that the governments time is better
spent on the use of this life saving technique, or the
enforcement of mandatory protective equipment for cyclists,
who only constitute n% of people involved in road
accidents?''

I especially like the "n% of people involved in car
accidents", as even if all car accidents hit cycles, n would
be likely less than 50% because of the driver of the car is
included in the denominator. All we need now is a statistic
that can only go up by definition. Then we can say that it
keeps rising and imply that the desired change may make it
go down, even though it can't. Counts of incidents over all
time are good examples.

The fun of statistics - but whiles't we're here - what _is_
the argument for not wearing a helmet, and is this going to
become another fox hunting? Once they are seen as normal and
ignored, would it just weaken any "oh no thats dangerous"
associations with them? Do car drivers feel that a car is
particularly dangerous because it has seatbelts? Was there
more worry about that when they were introduced?

Of interest - BBC Newsround are really pushing for helmets
at the moment. If you post your argument against to the
talkback at news.bbc.co.ukyour repOpen ↗
orts/newsid_3652000/3652067.stm it would be interesting to
see the response, assuming it passes moderation.

- Richard (who thinks advised rather than mandated is the
way to go)

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot
com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street, _/
_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.

Jon Senior jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove said:

Ah. Well that's OK then. Hands up if you; a) Knew that
myvoice.co.uk existed. b) Knew that they were running
this survey.

An interesting site. Of a sample of 7000, it seems most
people think ID cards are the way forward, but fotunately
the two answers that mean "it won't prevent terrorists" sum
to 67.4% which seems quite decisive. A lot of people happy
to sit through iris and fingerprint sessions. Most people
were unhappy about paying for it though.

It could do with a comment box though. I don't like the chip
and pin system on bank cards because you have to trust the
box, of which various flavours exist. Given that cons have
already managed to make magnetic card readers, and use them,
I don't see it as being too long before trojan chip and pin
boxes come into existance, but thats a different story. The
official question web sites on that one don't let you ask
arbitrary questions and don't provide a point of contact.

The helmet poll is no longer on the front page, and
unfortunately sending arbitrary data to the server gets
various forms of not available. At least they handle site
errors gracefuly rather than bombing.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot
com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street, _/
_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.

MD said:

I note that mention was made of the prevention of facial
injuries in the press release. I am at a loss to explain
how these might be prevented by a cycle helmet. The full-
face motorcycle helmet sat on the desk next to me would
help me keep my good looks in a crash, but my head would
boil if I wore it for cycling.

A company has brought out full facial helmets for cyclists
now, perhaps popular with children wanting to emulate that
trials-motorcycle look. The have a more pointy shape than a
normal motorbike helmet. All the child need do is tape a
piece of card so it is brushed by the spokes of the rear
wheel and makes the appropriate noise.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot
com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street, _/
_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.

In "]news:[email hidden],
Richard Corfield <[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

On 2004-04-22, Jon Senior

jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove said:

Ah. Well that's OK then. Hands up if you; a) Knew that
myvoice.co.uk existed. b) Knew that they were running
this survey.

It could do with a comment box though. I don't like the
chip and pin system on bank cards because you have to
trust the box, of which various flavours exist. Given that
cons have already managed to make magnetic card readers,
and use them, I don't see it as being too long before
trojan chip and pin boxes come into existance, but thats a
different story. The official question web sites on that
one don't let you ask arbitrary questions and don't
provide a point of contact.

Let alone the fact that it's easy enough for someone to copy
your PIN from over your shoulder, arrange for the card to be
taken by an accomplice and then go ahead and use it with
impunity, and *no hope of proving to the card issuer that it
wasn't you* as well as leaving no fingerprints by signing a
bit of paper.

OTOH, I don't think it's easy to clone a smart card, if
indeed it's possible. Actually I've got a friend whose PhD's
on thwarting the only current way that it's possible, come
to think of it.

Ambrose

Richard Corfield wrote: ?

Quoted message said:

Of interest - BBC Newsround are really pushing for helmets
at the moment. If you post your argument against to the
talkback at news.bbc.co.ukyour rOpen ↗
eports/newsid_3652000/3652067.stm it would be interesting
to see the response, assuming it passes moderation.

I am afraid this case saddens me for the way it has been
cynically used by the pro-compulsionists. It is the tale of
Troy Annetts, the youngster from Andover who was riding on
a pedestrian pathway on a bike with a broken front brake,
and rode his bmx bike off the path into the nearside of a
car. The coroner reported these actions as contributory to
the incident.

I wonder if Newsround are aware of the way they are also
being used.

It is a case that has been taken up locally as a 'Be Safe-
Wear a Helmet' campaign, and nationally by BHiT as if
wearing a helmet absolves the need for adequate training,
supervision and maintenance of bikes.

These are NEVER mentioned as if they just don't matter.

After all if you wear a helmet you are safe.

John B

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

Quoted message said:

"MarkK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, if I understand the argument correctly, say out of
1000 cyclists,

one

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

dies at the age of 10 and doesn't reach 70, as a result
of not wearing a helmet. S/he loses 60 years of life,
but the 999 others each live 60*20/999=1.2 years longer
on average as they're healthier. So they die

at

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

71 instead of 70 on average.

No, you've completely misunderstood it. The one who dies
prematurely does so as the result of a crash, not because
he or she was not wearing a helmet.

I see now - someone was repeating the argument that because
cycling has net health benefits, and helmet compulsion puts
people off cycling, compulsion is a bad thing. What I seem
to have inadvertently done is to argue that the net health
benefit of cycling in general is not all it's cracked up to
be. That's probably true if you just look at it in terms of
years lived. Being healthier throughout those years is
another factor, not mentioned by "burt", so I'd want to see
the full BMA report bvefore commenting further. Anyone got a
link to it?

Having said that, the BMA seems pretty convinced that we
should all be wearing helmets, even if we shouldn't be
compelled to do so. A bit like the pre-1983 approach towards
car seat belts, which failed, hence the legislation which
came in in 1983.

Mark

Ambrose Nankivell [email hidden]
opined the following...

Quoted message said:

OTOH, I don't think it's easy to clone a smart card, if
indeed it's possible. Actually I've got a friend whose
PhD's on thwarting the only current way that it's
possible, come to think of it.

Anyone I know? It's a field I dabble in, during my
spare time.

Jon

Richard Corfield said:

Of interest - BBC Newsround are really pushing for helmets
at the moment. If you post your argument against to the
talkback at

news.bbc.co.uknewsidOpen ↗
3652000/3652067.stm

Quoted message said:

it would be interesting to see the response, assuming it
passes moderation.

I recognise the story. Boy called Troy killed by a car.
Its the good old Troy Annetts case. The coroner blamed his
accident on Troy riding a bike with brakes that were
broken and not working and riding on the pavement. The
family seem to be intent on diverting their guilt for
letting their son out on a lethal bike by trying to
pretend it was the lack of a helmet (which they were
perfectly at liberty at the time to make their son wear as
well as maintaining his bike so the brakes worked) which
killed him and not their own failures.

Tony

JohnB said:

Richard Corfield wrote: ?

Quoted message said:

Of interest - BBC Newsround are really pushing for
helmets at the moment. If you post your argument against
to the talkback at

news.bbc.co.uknewsidOpen ↗
3652000/3652067.stm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it would be interesting to see the response, assuming it
passes moderation.

I am afraid this case saddens me for the way it has been
cynically used by the pro-compulsionists. It is the tale
of Troy Annetts, the youngster from Andover who was riding
on a pedestrian pathway on a bike with a broken front
brake, and rode his bmx bike off the path into the
nearside of a car. The coroner reported these actions as
contributory to the incident.

I wonder if Newsround are aware of the way they are also
being used.

I've just sent in my complaint alerting them to the facts
behind the Stevie's brother story. Its odd that for all the
supposed carnage of a classroom a year being wiped out, the
same two old cases of Troy Annetts and James Hadfield are
the only ones they can come up with. And at least one of
those is seriously flawed.

Tony

Simon Brooke said:

So: can you confirm that you agree with my understanding
that on average about twenty children are killed in all
sorts of cycle accidents in the United Kingdom in a year,
that of these only about half have head injuries, and of
those who have head injuries most have other fatal
injuries, and that consequently even if helmets really did
protect against all head injuries with total effectiveness
the saving in life would be at best one or two children?

That is what I have concluded from reading the research. I
have also concluded that the number of lives that might be
saved by compulsory helmets in children is about the same as
the number that are killed by strangulation from wearing
bicycle helmets on play equipment. That is with a low (~12%)
helmet wearing rate in the relevant group. If helmet wearing
became compulsory (and assuming as the campaigners would
have us believe, there was no drop in the number of child
cyclists) we could expect the increased wearing of helmets
to result in play equipment strangulation deaths from
bicycle helmets to significantly exceed any saving of lives
in cycling accidents.

Tony

MarkK said:

so I'd want to see the full BMA report bvefore commenting
further.

That's entirely reasonable.

Quoted message said:

Anyone got a link to it?

I don't believe it's available online, but here's a summary
from the BMJ: <url:http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/f-
ull/318/7197/1505/a>

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my
reply address)
<url:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/> Why I like
OE6 - speedy5.freeserve.co.ukoe6.htmlOpen ↗
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine