UK and Europe · Public discussion

BRAKE on helmets

Started by Just Zis Guy · · Last activity · 62 posts · 2,791 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
22 April 2004
Last activity
27 April 2004
Original author
Just Zis Guy
Posts
62
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,791
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 41–60 of 62
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 23:35:02 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

    wrote in message : 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?

    Absolutely correct. The fatality figure quoted, 50, is more
    than twice the actual rate.

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

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

  2. On 23 Apr 2004 21:28:08 GMT, Richard Corfield
    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    news.bbc.co.uknewsi
    d_3652000/3652067.stm

    "The use of this case by the helmet compulsion lobby is one
    of the most distasteful pieces of shroud-waving I have come
    across. Have you not read the Coroner's report? The problem
    was not "no helmet" as per your heading, but "no brakes" -
    as well as "riding on the pavement". No bicycle helmet in
    the world is designed to protect in crashes involving cars;
    according to recent research helmets may even exacerbate the
    kind of injury which caused Troy's death. This crash would
    not have happened had Troy been riding a properly maintained
    bicycle in accordance with the law, and using it as an
    excuse to push an injury mitigation device which may well
    have had no effect whatsoever is appalling.

    "At the very least please amend this story to point out that
    the cause of the crash was defective brakes and illegal
    riding. Remember, half of all child cyclists killed do not
    die of head injuries, and many of those who do have other
    mortal injuries as well, so preventing crashes is much more
    important than trying to mitigate the effects of those
    crashes which occur."

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

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

  3. On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:06:39 +0100, "MarkK" <[email hidden]>

    wrote in message : said:

    A bit like the pre-1983 approach towards car seat belts,
    which failed, hence the legislation which came in in 1983.

    With the result that pedestrian, cyclist and rear-seat
    passenger deaths jumped alarmingly and there was no saving
    in road casualties. Just as happened in every other country
    with a seat belt law.

    A fact which was pointed out before legislation in the Isles
    Report, which was promptly squashed and only came to light
    after being leaked to the press after the event.

    eirbyte.comseat belts.html

    Yet another counter-intuitive result, just like the
    increases in cyclist casualty rates associated with helmet
    compulsion. Funny old world.

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

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

  4. Just zis Guy said:

    On 23 Apr 2004 21:28:08 GMT, Richard Corfield
    <[email hidden]> wrote in message <slrnc8j-
    [email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:


    news.bbc.co.uknewsid
    3652000/3652067.stm

    Quoted message said:

    "The use of this case by the helmet compulsion lobby is
    one of the most distasteful pieces of shroud-waving I have
    come across. Have you not read the Coroner's report? The
    problem was not "no helmet" as per your heading, but "no
    brakes" - as well as "riding on the pavement".

    Similar to my e-mail to them. Curiously no-one seems to have
    pointed out that the two causes of the accident according to
    the coroner were both breaking the law. Riding on the
    pavement is illegal and a bike must have a working braking
    system for each wheel. It seems curious to think that if
    there had been a helmet law he would have complied with that
    because it was the law when he was quite happy to break two
    other laws at the time. Warped logic.

    Tony

  5. JohnB said:

    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 want to know if the kid who was hit by a lorry and
    survived was wearing a helmet - but the article
    doesn't say :-(

  6. 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.

    IMHO that's a knee-jerk rule from the UCI following the
    death of one racer. It also gets ignored in the mountains -
    the riders just pay the fine.

    Having said that, I wouldn't personally go mass-start
    racing at all. I have a lot of other protruding bits that
    can break, and once seeing a huge pile up at the end of a
    3rds/juniors race put me off for life. Three of them were
    carted off in the meat wagon, and that was the first race
    of the day!

  7. robbiew said:

    I have no problem with racers being compelled to wear
    helmets. After all is that not what happens in motor
    sport? Compulsion in racing but not in utiltity driving.
    Perhaps Mr Coultard could confirm that.

    What about time triallists? Currently helmets are optional.
    I suspect, however, that the reason for this loophole may be
    because the head fairings used by the top riders offer no
    impact protection - they are purley for streamlining. Me, I
    need to ride bareheaded if I'm trying to squeeze any real
    speed out of my creaking, sweating body.

  8. Quoted message said:

    Having said that, I wouldn't personally go mass-start
    racing at all. I have a lot of other protruding bits that
    can break, and once seeing a huge pile up at the end of a
    3rds/juniors race put me off for life. Three of them were
    carted off in the meat wagon, and that was the first race
    of the day!

    It's a bit scary when some of the crashes are as spectacular
    as those in a formula one race! I can really understand the
    wearing of helmets. What I can't understand is the lack of
    full body armour!

  9. Zog The Undeniable said:

    I want to know if the kid who was hit by a lorry and
    survived was wearing a helmet - but the article
    doesn't say :-(

    Eric Martlew was hit by a lorry and survived, he wasn't
    wearing a helmet. Not that this has stopped him from
    concluding that he would have been even more not dead if
    he'd been wearing one...

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

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

  10. Zog The Undeniable said:

    IMHO that's a knee-jerk rule from the UCI following the
    death of one racer. It also gets ignored in the mountains -
    the riders just pay the fine.

    And ignores the two who died last year crashing while
    wearing helmets.

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

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

  11. Nope, obviously not ;o)

    --
    .paul

    If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
    the sport for you.

  12. Just zis Guy, you know? [email hidden] opined
    the following...

    Quoted message said:

    Eric Martlew was hit by a lorry and survived, he wasn't
    wearing a helmet. Not that this has stopped him from
    concluding that he would have been even more not dead if
    he'd been wearing one...

    But the incident does appear to have damaged his mental
    faculties!

    Jon

  13. Ambrose Nankivell 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.

    That, I think, is their only strength, combined with the
    hope that some challenge response technique is used with the
    card performing the encryption of the challenge on board.
    Perhaps it could be a digital signature of the transaction
    details, or a random challenge from the bank, as long as it
    can only be used once.

    The PIN code then just becomes a password to ask the card to
    do its stuff, and is not used elsewhere. I hope thats how
    they work. The next innovation would be a display on the
    card itself so you can check that the amount that the card
    is signing for is the amount you think you're paying.

    - Richard

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

  14. Following up to myself as it seems the most logical point in the thread,
    answering my own question:

    Quoted message said:

    The fun of statistics - but whiles't we're here - what
    _is_ the argument for not wearing a helmet, [...]

    I went out without one last night, and it was nice (on a
    nice summery evening) to feel the wind through what remains
    of my hair. I think that answers why some do not want to
    wear helmets. My last memory of that was with a cycle club
    as a teenager, where the "leader" had the same view.
    Unfortunately my speed seems to be behaving a bit non-
    linearly, so no idea how fast I was going.

    My one cycle accident was on a friend's bike, aged about 10.
    The link between handle bar and fork wasn't particularly
    well attached. It resulted in lots of scraped off skin, but
    no head damage as I managed to breakfall in some sort of way
    and roll. I doubt I had a helmet then, as I don't think they
    were so much in vogue. As a first aider, I remember being
    taught that many injuries from falls were to the arms,
    shoulders, or collar bone, due to people instinctively
    putting their arms out to protect themselves.

    - Richard

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

  15. in message
    <[email hidden]>, Richard

    Corfield (') said:

    The fun of statistics - but whiles't we're here - what
    _is_ the argument for not wearing a helmet?

    Well, there are two different situations here.

    The first is riding off-road, where speeds are typically not
    high, where the probability of falling off may be higher,
    and where the probability of being struck by a fast moving
    object is low.

    Off road it may well make sense to wear a helmet, because
    likely impact speeds are within the helmet's design
    parameters.

    The second is on road, where speeds are typically a bit
    higher, where the probability of just falling off are
    somewhat lower, and where the risk of being struck by a fast
    moving object are much higher.

    Here there are two points: the first is that helmets offer
    little or no protection at the speeds typically involved in
    vehicle on vehicle impacts, so there's little _point_ in
    wearing a helmet; second, with the energy involved in these
    collisions rotational injuries to the brain are quite
    likely, and there's a serious but as yet uninvestigated
    possibility that helmets (because they increase the
    effective diameter of the head may aggravate rotational
    injuries. So on the road a helmet will not only not save
    your life, it may worsen your injuries or kill you.

    --
    [email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
    jasmine.org.uk~simon

    ;; Usenet: like distance learning without the
    learning.

  16. Just zis Guy said:

    On 23 Apr 2004 21:28:08 GMT, Richard Corfield
    <[email hidden]> wrote in message <slrnc8j2-
    [email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    news.bbc.co.uknews
    id_3652000/3652067.stm

    "The use of this case by the helmet compulsion lobby is one
    of the most distasteful pieces of shroud-waving I have come
    across. Have you not read the Coroner's report? The problem
    was not "no helmet" as per your heading, but "no brakes" -
    as well as "riding on the pavement". No bicycle helmet in
    the world is designed to protect in crashes involving cars;
    according to recent research helmets may even exacerbate
    the kind of injury which caused Troy's death. This crash
    would not have happened had Troy been riding a properly
    maintained bicycle in accordance with the law, and using it
    as an excuse to push an injury mitigation device which may
    well have had no effect whatsoever is appalling.

    Do you have a reference to support this - a quick Google
    didn't turn up anything. (I believe you, but I'd like to be
    able to point other people to something more definite than
    "this guy I read on Usenet", like a newspaper report quoting
    the coroner.)

  17. Alan Braggins said:

    Do you have a reference to support this - a quick Google
    didn't turn up anything. (I believe you, but I'd like to
    be able to point other people to something more definite
    than "this guy I read on Usenet", like a newspaper report
    quoting the coroner.)

    Here is the (strongly pro-helmet) local paper's report of
    the inquest: thisishampshire.netarchi
    ve/2002/10/31/ANDOVER_NEWS_NEWS20ZM.html

    Possibly the most ludicrous pretext for a helmet campaign
    I've ever seen, but there you go. The campaign seems to
    hinge n the idea that having already committed two offences
    (defective brakes and riding on the pavement), Troy would
    not have committed a third. And that this would have made a
    difference (which is controversial to say the least).

    Coroner backs bike campaign
    ====================
    DEPUTY central Hampshire coroner Simon Burge has backed the
    Andover Advertiser's bike campaign, launched after the death
    of schoolboy cyclist Troy Parker. Troy died from serious
    head injuries caused when his bike collided with a Smart car
    as it attempted to join the A343 from the Greenwich Way
    junction just after 7am on 21 May.

    He wasn't wearing a helmet and the front brake on his BMX
    was broken. At an inquest into the 12-year-old's death on
    Wednesday, Mr Burge said while Troy's death was an accident,
    certain contributory factors had to be taken into
    consideration.

    The inquest heard that due to poor visibility and no barrier
    at the junction, neither Troy nor car driver Hazel Branston,
    (who was only travelling at 15mph) could see each other
    until the young cyclist rode out into the road and collided
    with the nearside of the car. Mr Burge said: "It seems to me
    the local authority should consider making it abundantly
    clear the path is for pedestrians only and not for cyclists.

    "Or if they acknowledge cyclists have, and will, continue to
    use this particular walkway then steps need to be taken as a
    matter of urgency to prevent any possible reoccurrence in
    the future.

    "I have been informed a temporary barrier has been put up
    in response to a campaign and I wholly support and
    endorse that."

    Troy had just left his father's Launcelot Close home and was
    on his way back to his mum's Millway Road address to get
    ready for school when the accident happened. He died at
    Southampton General Hospital eight days after the accident,
    which caused a slow bleed on his brain.

    After Troy's death, his mother Carlie Annetts made a plea
    for all cyclists to wear helmets and the Andover Advertiser
    launched its Be Safe, Wear a Helmet Campaign. Mr Burge added
    his support at Wednesday's hearing. He said: "As a general
    warning to members of the public I think it is appropriate
    to stress the importance of ensuring your children do wear
    helmets whenever out on a bicycle and that these bikes are
    maintained properly.

    "The law is very strict when it comes to cars but there are
    no laws when it comes to bikes. It is up to owners to
    ensure bikes are safe. The consequences at not getting
    round to routine maintenance can, and in this case were,
    tragic and fatal."

  18. Alan Braggins said:


    Just zis Guy said:

    On 23 Apr 2004 21:28:08 GMT, Richard Corfield
    <[email hidden]> wrote in message <slrnc8-
    [email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    news.bbc.co.ukne
    wsid_3652000/3652067.stm

    "The use of this case by the helmet compulsion lobby is
    one of the most distasteful pieces of shroud-waving I
    have come across. Have you not read the Coroner's report?
    The problem was not "no helmet" as per your heading, but
    "no brakes" - as well as "riding on the pavement". No
    bicycle helmet in the world is designed to protect in
    crashes involving cars; according to recent research
    helmets may even exacerbate the kind of injury which
    caused Troy's death. This crash would not have happened
    had Troy been riding a properly maintained bicycle in
    accordance with the law, and using it as an excuse to
    push an injury mitigation device which may well have had
    no effect whatsoever is appalling.

    Do you have a reference to support this - a quick Google
    didn't turn up anything. (I believe you, but I'd like to
    be able to point other people to something more definite
    than "this guy I read on Usenet", like a newspaper report
    quoting the coroner.)

    The newspaper report is here: thisishampshire.ne-thisishampshire.ne-
    t/hampshire/archive/2002/10/31/ANDOVER_NEWS_NEWS20ZM.html

    It is my local newspaper and has been leading a pro-
    compulsion campaign since the incident. I'm sure Guy will
    also give the reference - and comment ;-)

    The case has been given a very high profile locally and a
    number of 'events' have been held to promote helmet wearing,
    mainly linked to the school which Troy attended.

    The case has been jumped on by BeHiT and they have
    manipulated the mother and the press. I have great sympathy
    for the mother.

    Other than the report referenced above there has *never*
    been any local public comment on the contributory factors.
    To do would result in complete condemnation.

    I am awaiting this week's copy of the Andover Advertiser
    with great interest as the editor has previously written
    strong leading editorials calling for compulsion.

    John B

  19. Just zis Guy said:
    Alan Braggins said:

    Do you have a reference to support this - a quick Google
    didn't turn up anything. (I believe you, but I'd like to
    be able to point other people to something more definite
    than "this guy I read on Usenet", like a newspaper report
    quoting the coroner.)

    Here is the (strongly pro-helmet) local paper's report of
    the inquest: thisishampshire.netarch
    ive/2002/10/31/ANDOVER_NEWS_NEWS20ZM.html

    Ah, I'd Googled for "Troy Annetts" based on Tony Raven's
    post, but it was "Troy Parker" (his mother's surname is
    Annetts). Thanks.

  20. you know? said:

    "The law is very strict when it comes to cars but there are
    no laws when it comes to bikes. It is up to owners to
    ensure bikes are safe. The consequences at not getting
    round to routine maintenance can, and in this case were,
    tragic and fatal."

    A working front brake might be a tad more effective than a
    skull, whether protected or not, when trying to stop a bike.
    Just, IMO, of course.

    James

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.