Compulsory helmets again!



Status
Not open for further replies.
"John Hearns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> I'm just back from a week in Holland, sadly without my bike.
>
> We all of course know that plenty of people cycle in Holland - there are bikes everywhere, bike
> racks outside shops etc.
>
> One thing that struck me was the total difference in cycling styles. Most Dutch people I saw on
> bikes had on normal clothing, and were cycling along slowly on 'sit up and beg' bikes, many with
> chaincases or chainguards. When you see cyclists in the UK, me included, they tend to have
> specialised clothing on.
>
> And not one person did I see with a cycling helmet - they were just popping out to the shops, or
> off to school and work. My feeling is that any compulsory wearing of helmets here in the UK will
> just make people not cycle. "Hey cycling is dangerous" "Hey - I need a strange looking and
> expensive bit of kit jsut to go down the shops"
>
>
> I should say that I often wear a cycling helmet myself, and in no way am a fanatic about helmets
> either way. Just really reporting what I've seen abroad.

Great place, luvvit. I was over there a few years ago (Amsterdam, surprise, surprise ;-) and saw a
rather unique event. As you say, hundreds of cyclists happily making their ways from A-B and even C
(especially C ;-). Anyway, I was very impressed with the respect given to cyclists by all other road
users and have to admit that I did laugh a bit when I saw a guy cycling down the road, went to cross
some tram lines at a slight angle, i.e. not perpendicular, and his bike just totally fell to pieces,
resulting in him kissing the tarmac. No-one actually stopped to help him...he just got up,
reconnected all the bits and continued on his way. I was seriously beginning to wonder if I was
hallucinating due to the total lack of attention from passers-by, however a friend had seen it as
well.... What a place!!! Dave.
 
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 12:46:47 -0000, Danny Colyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > and gels will be allowed to ride astride a 'oss instead of side saddle
>
> I heard it pointed out recently that in a logical world men would ride side saddle.

In a logical world of similar technological state to our own I'm not sure anyone would ride any
horse in any manner - I'd expect bicycles and infernal combustion engines to render the process
pretty much redundant.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
In message <[email protected]>
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> "PK" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Simon Brooke wrote:
> > > [1] Humpback bridge followed by a sharp right hand bend; my wheels didn't touch the ground in
> > > time to take the bend.
> >
> > That summons up a great cartoon like mental image. Bet it felt like you were in mid air for
> > ages!
>
> Well the real truth is that there was a T junction immediately after the bridge, which was at the
> bottom of a good steep hill. We usually jumped this bridge and carried straight on, which was OK.
> On this particular occasion I decided to jump the bridge and turn right... only there turned out
> not to be enough road and I went into the wood before, I think, my wheels touched tarmac at all.
> _Totally_ stupid.
>
> This was on the first occasion that my parents had gone away for the week leaving me alone in the
> house - I would have been thirteen or fourteen, I think.
>
> But yes, it was a most excellent shunt!
>

Respect

--
Gwyn
 
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 00:24:33 +0000, Ian <[email protected]> wrote:

SNIP

>>
>>
>At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it should be
>down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under 16's.

Ye Gods, I promise this is the last time I get drawn into a helmet war (and this time I mean it)

Surely, I don't need to rehurse all the negatives about compulsion but the primary objection is that
compulsion is, on average, life-limiting; fewer people cycle which - crashes & deaths included - is
a better recipe for a long life than not cycling.

Why on earth do you want the U16s, who can benefit most from habitual exercise, put off it?
 
[Not Responding] must be edykated coz e writed:

> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 00:24:33 +0000, Ian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> SNIP
>
>>>
>>>
>> At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it should
>> be down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under 16's.
>
> Ye Gods, I promise this is the last time I get drawn into a helmet war (and this time I mean it)
>
> Surely, I don't need to rehurse all the negatives about compulsion but the primary objection is
> that compulsion is, on average, life-limiting; fewer people cycle which - crashes & deaths
> included - is a better recipe for a long life than not cycling.
>
> Why on earth do you want the U16s, who can benefit most from habitual exercise, put off it?
Does not put my kids off it. You have no evidence to back up your argument.

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:48:43 +0000, Ian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Simon Brooke must be edykated coz e writed:
>
>> Ian <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it should
>>> be down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under 16's.
>>
>> Not a flame, but why? What good do you think it would do?
>I think it would save some injuries.

Of course it would save some injuries - but only by reducing the number of children cycling.

Of course it would also *increase* the number of children that would die prematurely of heart
disease and obesity but, hey, that's a long term thing so it doesn't really count.
 
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:57:14 +0000, Ian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tony W must be edykated coz e writed:
>
>>
>> "PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it should
>>>> be down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under 16's.
>>>
>>> Seems a very reasonable position to me.
>>
>> Seems a dangerous extension of the nanny state to me. Something the H&S Nazis are continuously
>> trying to do.
>>
>> What is wrong with parental choice & responsibility?
>>
>> T
>>
>>
>>
>They aren't all responsible.

That's the logic of the nanny (state). Make laws for the lowest common denominator; which means
sweeping losses of freedom for the vast majority of the population.
 
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 18:41:27 -0000, "Richard Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"nik" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > pig pog <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>> I don't know about these figures but the government tell us that in
>> 2002: 22 child pedal cyclists were killed; 594 killed or seriously injured and a figure of 4,809
>> for 'all severities' so I don't see how 28,000 kids could have got serious head injuries!
>>
>>
>http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_506510.xls
>>
>> Nik
>
>and "2.6 The remaining major problem area for children killed or seriously injured is when
>travelling as passengers in cars. These represent a greater proportion of child KSI than cyclists."
>
>from the same report at
>http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_507867.pdf
>
>Perhaps it's time BHIT had a look at their version of reality, it would appear to be
>malfunctioning, and in severe need of an update.
>

In severe need of delete *.*
 
[Not Responding] must be edykated coz e writed:

> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:48:43 +0000, Ian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Simon Brooke must be edykated coz e writed:
>>
>>> Ian <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it should
>>>> be down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under 16's.
>>>
>>> Not a flame, but why? What good do you think it would do?
>> I think it would save some injuries.
>
> Of course it would save some injuries - but only by reducing the number of children cycling.
>
> Of course it would also *increase* the number of children that would die prematurely of heart
> disease and obesity but, hey, that's a long term thing so it doesn't really count.
>
Where is your evidence?
--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
[Not Responding] must be edykated coz e writed:

> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:57:14 +0000, Ian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tony W must be edykated coz e writed:
>>
>>>
>>> "PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>> At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it
>>>>> should be down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under
>>>>> 16's.
>>>>
>>>> Seems a very reasonable position to me.
>>>
>>> Seems a dangerous extension of the nanny state to me. Something the H&S Nazis are continuously
>>> trying to do.
>>>
>>> What is wrong with parental choice & responsibility?
>>>
>>> T
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> They aren't all responsible.
>
> That's the logic of the nanny (state). Make laws for the lowest common denominator; which means
> sweeping losses of freedom for the vast majority of the population.
>
This sounds the **** you hear in those socialist rags.
--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
[Not Responding] must be edykated coz e writed:

> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 10:57:14 +0000, Ian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tony W must be edykated coz e writed:
>>
>>>
>>> "PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>> At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it
>>>>> should be down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under
>>>>> 16's.
>>>>
>>>> Seems a very reasonable position to me.
>>>
>>> Seems a dangerous extension of the nanny state to me. Something the H&S Nazis are continuously
>>> trying to do.
>>>
>>> What is wrong with parental choice & responsibility?
>>>
>>> T
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> They aren't all responsible.
>
> And another thing. I don't force my children to wear helmets; am I a bad parent?
>
Ooo lets get into a slanging match shall we?
--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
Originally posted by Ian
pig pog must be edykated coz e writed:

> Ian wrote:
>> Tony W must be edykated coz e writed:
>>> "PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:bofptk$jp8$1-
>>> @hercules.btinternet.comnews:[email protected]...
>>>>> At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it
>>>>> should be down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the under
>>>>> 16's.
>>>> Seems ...reasonable
>>> What is wrong with parental choice & responsibility?
>> They aren't all responsible. -
> Do you have in mind a way in which an MHL is likely to benefit the children of feckless parents?

Yes.
Click to expand...

will you share your thoughts with us please?
 
Originally posted by Dave
"Robert Bruce" <robatanalytical-dynamicsdotcodotyoukay> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> mae <[email protected]> wedi ysgrifennu:
>
> > I reckon we should let 'em pass the law and be damned.
>
> All very well until some nutter in an SUV breaks both your legs and
his/her
> insurers fail to pay up because you weren't wearing compulsory safety equipment.


...and that varies from current normal practice how exactly ??? ;-)
Click to expand...

It varies in the crucial regard that such attempts have all failed as they had no support in law.
 
pig pog must be edykated coz e writed:

> Ian wrote:
>> pig pog must be edykated coz e writed:
>>> Ian wrote:
>>>> Tony W must be edykated coz e writed:
>>>>> "PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:bofptk$jp8$1-news:bofptk$jp8$1-
>>>>> @hercules.btinternet.comnews:b- [email protected]...
>>>>>>> At the risk of getting flamed, I always recommend the use of helmets, but still think it
>>>>>>> should be down to choice above the age of 16, I am all for compulsory helmet use for the
>>>>>>> under 16's.
>>>>>> Seems ...reasonable
>>>>> What is wrong with parental choice & responsibility?
>>>> They aren't all responsible. -
>>> Do you have in mind a way in which an MHL is likely to benefit the children of feckless parents?
>> Yes.
>
>
>
> will you share your thoughts with us please?
>
It will give them the opportunity to think about their safety, and the opportunity to realise that
other people care about them generally even if their parents give the impression that is not so.
When they are 16 they can make their own choices.

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
"Ian" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BBD91744.16CE7%[email protected]...

> >>> Do you have in mind a way in which an MHL is likely to benefit the children of feckless
> >>> parents?

> It will give them the opportunity to think about their safety, and the opportunity to realise that
> other people care about them generally even if their parents give the impression that is not so.
> When they are 16 they can make their own choices.

With the caveat that the "other people" don't actually care enough to reduce the danger they pose to
said children, they merely require that they wear a plastic hat so that said other people can blame
failure of the plastic hat (or failure to wear same) for any deaths and injuries, rather than their
own behaviour.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
Just zis Guy, you know? scribed with passion and wit:

> "Ian" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BBD91744.16CE7%[email protected]...
>
>>>>> Do you have in mind a way in which an MHL is likely to benefit the children of feckless
>>>>> parents?
>
>> It will give them the opportunity to think about their safety, and the opportunity to realise
>> that other people care about them generally even if their parents give the impression that is not
>> so. When they are 16 they can make their own choices.
>
>
> With the caveat that the "other people" don't actually care enough to reduce the danger they pose
> to said children, they merely require that they wear a plastic hat so that said other people can
> blame failure of the plastic hat (or failure to wear same) for any deaths and injuries, rather
> than their own behaviour.
In that case it is ok to expose them to danger without taking any precautions whatsoever because we
are making a political point?

Perspective dear boy, perspective.
--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
Just zis Guy, you know? scribed with passion and wit:

> "Ian" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BBD91744.16CE7%[email protected]...
>
>>>>> Do you have in mind a way in which an MHL is likely to benefit the children of feckless
>>>>> parents?
>
>> It will give them the opportunity to think about their safety, and the opportunity to realise
>> that other people care about them generally even if their parents give the impression that is not
>> so. When they are 16 they can make their own choices.
>
>
> With the caveat that the "other people" don't actually care enough to reduce the danger they pose
> to said children, they merely require that they wear a plastic hat so that said other people can
> blame failure of the plastic hat (or failure to wear same) for any deaths and injuries, rather
> than their own behaviour.
You know guy you are really starting to sound like the broken CTC record, "it's them, it's not me"
--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
"Ian" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BBD92722.16D5C%[email protected]...

> >> It will give them the opportunity to think about their safety, and the opportunity to realise
> >> that other people care about them generally even
if
> >> their parents give the impression that is not so. When they are 16 they can make their own
> >> choices.

>> With the caveat that the "other people" don't actually care enough to reduce the danger they pose
>> to said children, they merely require that
they
>> wear a plastic hat so that said other people can blame failure of the
plastic
>> hat (or failure to wear same) for any deaths and injuries, rather than
their
>> own behaviour.

> In that case it is ok to expose them to danger without taking any precautions whatsoever because
> we are making a political point?

Invalid assumption. Compulsory helmet use has not resulted in reduced injury rates in any
jurisdiction. But it does allow Governments to "do something" about the problem of motorists killing
cyclists without actually tackling the problem, clueless cagers, which is a win for them since
tackling clueless cagers is electoral suicide.

The Government are so scared of the issue that they won't even commission research to find out
why the gulf exists between the claimed benefits (85% of head injuries prevented) and the
actual benefits in whole population and time-series data (zero). I for one would quite like to
know the reason.

> You know guy you are really starting to sound like the broken CTC record, "it's them, it's not me"

The CTC are an old-fashioned organisation. They have old-fashioned views. For example, before they
will endorse any attempt to make helmet wearing compulsory they require that there be some
evidence in a real population somewhere in the world that increases in helmet wearing rates have
led to reductions in head injury rates. Since this has not yet happened, the CTC remain sceptical.
And so do I.

Call it a foible. I can't allow advocacy of compulsory helmets pass unchallenged, because the only
research that has ever suggested significant benefit from wearing a helmet has been from people who
have already made up their minds that they want helmets to be compulsory, and no country which has
tried it has actually reduced injury rates. Cycling rates, yes, helmet laws cut cycling rates pretty
dramatically, but injury rates remain the same. Until we know why I am unwilling for me or my
children to be lab rats in the same failed experiment.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
Just zis Guy, you know? scribed with passion and wit:

>
> Call it a foible. I can't allow advocacy of compulsory helmets pass unchallenged, because the only
> research that has ever suggested significant benefit from wearing a helmet has been from people
> who have already made up their minds that they want helmets to be compulsory, and no country which
> has tried it has actually reduced injury rates. Cycling rates, yes, helmet laws cut cycling rates
> pretty dramatically, but injury rates remain the same. Until we know why I am unwilling for me or
> my children to be lab rats in the same failed experiment.

So all the development that helmet manufacturers put into helmets is not worth a light? Can you tell
me what the vast majority of cycle injuries are? We are not talking about the blanket of all
injuries here afterall, just head injuries, you trotting out non specifics and swallowing wholesale
non specifics from elsewhere is showing you to have "ostrich" syndrome.

Lets look at New Zealand.

" The relatively large increase in helmet wearing associated with the passing of a compulsory helmet
wearing law in 1994 reduced head injuries by between 24 and 32% in non-motor vehicle crashes, and by
20% in motor vehicle crashes."

Povey L J, Frith W J, Graham P G. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1999; volume 31, pp 763-770

Note no mention of broken legs or broken arms here, it is specific, something you have failed to be
on a consistent basis.

Australia.

"In Australia, recent mass data indicates that 25 per cent of bicyclists admitted to hospital, and
44 per cent of those killed, had head injury as their single most important injury. These figures do
not include multiple injuries, among many of which are unrecorded head injuries. Head injury is a
cause of death in 80 per cent of cyclists' deaths and 33 per cent of reported injuries in Victoria,
and several other studies have shown that, depending how the statistics are collected and analysed,
bicycle crashes result in serious head injuries in one-quarter to two-thirds of bicyclists admitted
to hospital, and up to 80 per cent if the collisions involved a motor vehicle. Up to 80 per cent of
deaths among bicyclists are due to severe head injury."

Of course this isn't worth anything to you because you would rather we have a head injury and a
broken leg rather than just the leg, so you can say that we need to educate car drivers, a few more
brain damaged kids will help further your cause afterall.

From the same report.

"Bicycle crashes occur mainly during times of heavy traffic, and during daylight. Three-quarters of
crash victims are male, with a high proportion being teenagers on school trips and young adults on
work trips. Most collisions between bicycles and cars occur at intersections or where cyclists or
drivers enter a roadway. The commonest injuries are to the limbs"

Well well, look at this, the commonest injuries are those to limbs, helmets do not help limbs, so
helmets are no good.

Best to overlook.

"Bicyclists admitted to hospital with head injuries are 20 times as likely to die as those without."

Attributed to The Effectiveness of Bicycle Helmets: a review Henderson, Michael.

Of course non of this research exists according to you.

How about this non scientific test.

http://www.sph.emory.edu/Helmets/HRC/boardman.html

From a British study.

"However, the great majority of the fatalities and approximately half the injuries - most of them
to adults - result from damage to the head following collision with a car or goods vehicle." The
cycle helmet: friend or foe? Hillman, Meyer.

There's that term "head injuries" again, not your blanket term "injuries", also note the frequency
throughout of the link between head injuries and death, no sign of anyone dying from a broken
finger, which is of course one of the statistics you use to discourage helmet use.

How much research do you want?

A study from Toronto concluded.

"In analyzing the type of injuries resulting in deaths, it was noted that 21 of the 38 victims (55
per cent) died as a result of head injuries."

So come on, lose the blanket you hide behind and talk "head injuries".

Of course I'm sure no studies are valid unless you do them yourself with your huge knowledge of such
matters[SARCASM]

Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to open some eyes, and I still advocate choice on wearing
helmets in adults.

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
Helmets are compulsory
Replies
363
Views
11K
UK and Europe
Peter Clinch
P
T
  • Locked
Compulsory trouser clips and indoor helmets
Replies
12
Views
1K
UK and Europe
David Hansen
D
S
  • Locked
Helmets Compulsory
Replies
0
Views
720
UK and Europe
Steve McGinty
S
S
Re: is helmet compulsory while cycling in the UK?
Replies
5
Views
281
UK and Europe
Paul Boyd
P
M
is helmet compulsory while cycling in the UK?
Replies
37
Views
685
UK and Europe
[email protected]
M
Top Bottom Back