Cycle helmets: please can we leave this alone now

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Danmac, Dec 7, 2004.

  1. Danmac

    Danmac New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello everybody,

    I've never gotten involved in one of the cycle helmet debates yet let alone started one, but i just want to say one thing.

    Lets agree to disagree, it apears that the whole opinion is split down the middle, people will believe what they want to believe and no amount of debate apears to change that.

    I wear a helmet I feel safer with one, and I know people who can safely say that their life was probably saved by them (MTB admittedly) but I don't believe in compultion.

    the main thing for me in this debate is that until there are stronger figures for either case then choice is the main factor. If you want to wear a helmet then wear one if you don't, then don't. Simple as that.

    I'm just starting to get sick of reading the petty squabbles that erupt from this subject. I hope this thread does not cause such a response.
     
    Tags:


  2. Brian G

    Brian G Guest

    Danmac wrote:

    > I'm just starting to get sick of reading the petty squabbles that erupt
    > from this subject. I hope this thread does not cause such a response.


    Then why repeat the sort of inane lines that always elicit the response
    you're "sick" of?

    --
    Brian G
     
  3. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Danmac wrote:

    > I've never gotten involved in one of the cycle helmet debates yet let
    > alone started one, but i just want to say one thing.
    >
    > Lets agree to disagree


    If it was just a matter of opinion then that would be fine, but it
    isn't, it's a matter of general public health and public attitude to our
    selected form of transport. It is too important to say we'll just agree
    to disagree, because folk chasing mandatory helmet laws *will not stop*
    unless they are comprehensively defeated.

    > it apears that the whole opinion is split down
    > the middle, people will believe what they want to believe and no amount
    > of debate apears to change that.


    This is manifestly untrue, since many of the loudest debaters here have
    come to their present stances very directly by having their minds
    changed by online debate.

    > I wear a helmet I feel safer with one, and I know people who can safely
    > say that their life was probably saved by them (MTB admittedly)


    Then you probably haven't been paying attention...

    > the main thing for me in this debate is that until there are stronger
    > figures for either case then choice is the main factor. If you want to
    > wear a helmet then wear one if you don't, then don't. Simple as that.


    But you've missed a lot of the point, particularly that if the people
    after mandatory helmets get their way you won't have any choice, so it
    will be even simpler than that at the user end but you're unlikely to be
    any better off, possibly worse off.

    > I'm just starting to get sick of reading the petty squabbles that erupt
    > from this subject.


    Well, try taking in what is actually being written. The above rather
    suggests you haven't.

    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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  4. JohnB

    JohnB Guest

    Danmac wrote:
    >
    > Hello everybody,
    >
    > I've never gotten involved in one of the cycle helmet debates yet let
    > alone started one, but i just want to say one thing.
    >
    > Lets agree to disagree.....
    >
    > the main thing for me in this debate is that until there are stronger
    > figures for either case then choice is the main factor. If you want to
    > wear a helmet then wear one if you don't, then don't. Simple as that.
    >
    > I'm just starting to get sick of reading the petty squabbles that erupt
    > from this subject. I hope this thread does not cause such a response.


    Sorry but but wearing a helmet you are effectively voting for compulsion.
    That will remove choice; *my* choice.
    You must therefore expect response.

    Its as "simple as that".

    That said, I hope you don't respond.

    John B
     
  5. elyob

    elyob Guest

    "Danmac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:D[email protected]
    >
    > Hello everybody,
    >
    > I've never gotten involved in one of the cycle helmet debates yet let
    > alone started one, but i just want to say one thing.


    You just started one.
     
  6. >I've never gotten involved in one of the cycle helmet debates yet let
    >alone started one, but i just want to say one thing.


    Learning how to use a kill-file is your friend. That or learning how to ignore
    threads you don't like.

    Cheers, helen s

    --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
    to get correct one remove fame & fortune
    h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*[email protected]$*a$o*l.c**$om$

    --Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
     
  7. Sara

    Sara Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Danmac
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >

    Hello everybody,

    I've never gotten involved in one of the cycle helmet
    > debates yet let

    alone started one, but i just want to say one thing.

    Lets
    > agree to disagree, it apears that the whole opinion is split down

    the middle,
    > people will believe what they want to believe and no amount

    of debate apears
    > to change that.


    I wear a helmet I feel safer with one, and I know people who
    > can safely

    say that their life was probably saved by them (MTB admittedly)
    > but I

    don't believe in compultion.

    the main thing for me in this debate is
    > that until there are stronger

    figures for either case then choice is the main
    > factor. If you want to

    wear a helmet then wear one if you don't, then don't.
    > Simple as that.


    I'm just starting to get sick of reading the petty squabbles
    > that erupt

    from this subject. I hope this thread does not cause such a
    > response.



    --
    Danmac


    It would be less likely to evoke such a response if you hadn't felt the
    need to set your own stall up. Maybe you could have just posted the
    last three lines?

    And no, I'm not going to join in :)
     
  8. shokhead

    shokhead New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2003
    Messages:
    266
    Likes Received:
    0

    Is this old or what. Helmet,yes or no.
    Shimano vs campy
    Double vs triple.
    Steel vs alum vs carbon vs Ti
    High psi vs lower
    20 vs 23 vs 25
    cycling cloths vs regular cloths
    And over and over and over and over,i'm tired.
     
  9. Danmac <[email protected]> wrote:
    ....
    | I'm just starting to get sick of reading the petty squabbles that erupt
    | from this subject. I hope this thread does not cause such a response.

    I have to say helmet threads have an impressively low Thread Drift
    Quotient, so if you ignore any thread with "helmet" in the Subject you
    won't miss anything, apart from your own posts that is.

    Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph.html
     
  10. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Patrick Herring wrote:

    > I have to say helmet threads have an impressively low Thread Drift
    > Quotient, so if you ignore any thread with "helmet" in the Subject you
    > won't miss anything, apart from your own posts that is.


    On recent form, discussion of the fallibility of the Pope and nature of
    mathematics! ;-)

    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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  11. > Hello everybody,

    Whilst I like to read a well crafted troll as much as anyone else your
    effort was disappointing and unimaginative.

    I did like the little 'I know people who say that their life was probably
    saved by them but I don't believe in compulsion'. If cycling really were
    that dangerous and helmets that effective then we'd all be for compulsion!
     
  12. Danmac <[email protected]>typed

    > Hello everybody,


    > I've never gotten involved in one of the cycle helmet debates yet let
    > alone started one, but i just want to say one thing.


    > Lets agree to disagree, it apears that the whole opinion is split down
    > the middle, people will believe what they want to believe and no amount
    > of debate apears to change that.


    I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. Debate CAN change people's
    opinions.
    If you wanted less helmet discussion, keep quiet. Don't start a new
    thread 'cos we'll just start spouting the same arguments again...

    > I wear a helmet I feel safer with one, and I know people who can safely
    > say that their life was probably saved by them (MTB admittedly) but I
    > don't believe in compultion.


    You may not believe in compulsion. In Britain, compulsion is likely to
    be introduced when helmet wearing levels are higher so by wearing a
    helmet, you may be bringing the day when helmets are mandatory forward.

    You might *feel* safer in a helmet. There is little evidence you *are*
    safer, more that you may have been lulled into a false sense of
    security.

    > the main thing for me in this debate is that until there are stronger
    > figures for either case then choice is the main factor. If you want to
    > wear a helmet then wear one if you don't, then don't. Simple as that.


    No, it's NOT simple. Simplistic minds may see it that way.

    > I'm just starting to get sick of reading the petty squabbles that erupt
    > from this subject. I hope this thread does not cause such a response.


    The squabbles are NOT petty. The prospect of helmet compulsion is a
    MAJOR threat to UK cycling and to the safety of those cyclists who
    remain on the roads after compulsion has deterred a substantial number
    from cycling.

    You must be very naive to think your posting won't stir up this sort of
    response (ah, bless). I don't feed trolls on any other subject.

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
    Edgware.
     
  13. Tim

    Tim Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, shokhead wrote:
    >
    > Brian G Wrote:
    >> Danmac wrote:
    >>
    >> > I'm just starting to get sick of reading the petty squabbles that

    >> erupt
    >> > from this subject. I hope this thread does not cause such a

    >> response.
    >>
    >> Then why repeat the sort of inane lines that always elicit the
    >> response
    >> you're "sick" of?
    >>
    >> --
    >> Brian G

    >
    >
    > Is this old or what. Helmet,yes or no.
    > Shimano vs campy
    > Double vs triple.
    > Steel vs alum vs carbon vs Ti
    > High psi vs lower
    > 20 vs 23 vs 25
    > cycling cloths vs regular cloths
    > And over and over and over and over,i'm tired.
    >
    >

    Emacs vs vi! Oh no, that's a different group:)
    --
    Tim.
     
  14. Epetruk

    Epetruk Guest

    Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
    > Danmac <[email protected]>typed


    > You may not believe in compulsion. In Britain, compulsion is likely to
    > be introduced when helmet wearing levels are higher so by wearing a
    > helmet, you may be bringing the day when helmets are mandatory
    > forward.


    Helen, please explain this. Are you saying that just because lots of people
    do something, there is a tendency for it to be made compulsory? Would this
    apply to drinking at the pub, for example?

    --
    Akin

    aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk
     
  15. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Epetruk wrote:

    > Helen, please explain this. Are you saying that just because lots of people
    > do something, there is a tendency for it to be made compulsory? Would this
    > apply to drinking at the pub, for example?


    Not necessarily, but in the case of lids the DfT have stated that one of
    the main reasons they don't think they can make them compulsory as yet
    is that wearing rates need to be high to start with before such a
    measure will be complied with. In some exercises they have done they
    /have/ assumed that a helmeted head is a vote for compulsion, and yes,
    it is really dumb, but this is what seems to have happened.

    So this isn't an extrapolation form any other particular behavioural
    example.

    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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  16. Danmac wrote:
    > Hello everybody,
    >
    > I've never gotten involved in one of the cycle helmet debates yet let
    > alone started one, but i just want to say one thing.
    >
    > Lets agree to disagree, it apears that the whole opinion is split down
    > the middle, people will believe what they want to believe and no amount
    > of debate apears to change that.


    This is Usenet, the whole point is to debate. It is a subject that
    should be discussed.

    IMVAIO, the key to preventing compulsory helmet laws is to base the
    argument against such laws on defensible concepts. These include the
    freedom to accept small risks, and the relative safety of bicycling as
    an activity. It's an acceptable risk to ride without a helmet because
    the likelihood of being involved in an accident where it would provide
    protection is very small.

    Those that disregard and rationalize the wealth of ER studies which
    conclusively prove the value of a helmet _when an accident involving a
    blow to the head occurs_, do damage in the battle against compulsion,
    because they are dismissed as fools by the politicians.

    The side-issue-specialists, also do the cause no good.
     
  17. Peter Clinch <[email protected]>typed


    > Epetruk wrote:


    > > Helen, please explain this. Are you saying that just because lots of
    > > people
    > > do something, there is a tendency for it to be made compulsory? Would this
    > > apply to drinking at the pub, for example?


    > Not necessarily, but in the case of lids the DfT have stated that one of
    > the main reasons they don't think they can make them compulsory as yet
    > is that wearing rates need to be high to start with before such a
    > measure will be complied with. In some exercises they have done they
    > /have/ assumed that a helmeted head is a vote for compulsion, and yes,
    > it is really dumb, but this is what seems to have happened.


    > So this isn't an extrapolation form any other particular behavioural
    > example.


    Thanks. Couldn't have put it better myself.

    --
    Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
    Edgware.
     
  18. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    On 7/12/04 4:25 pm, in article
    [email protected], "Steven M. Scharf"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Danmac wrote:
    >> Hello everybody,
    >>
    >> I've never gotten involved in one of the cycle helmet debates yet let
    >> alone started one, but i just want to say one thing.
    >>
    >> Lets agree to disagree, it apears that the whole opinion is split down
    >> the middle, people will believe what they want to believe and no amount
    >> of debate apears to change that.

    >
    > This is Usenet, the whole point is to debate. It is a subject that
    > should be discussed.
    >
    > IMVAIO, the key to preventing compulsory helmet laws is to base the
    > argument against such laws on defensible concepts. These include the
    > freedom to accept small risks, and the relative safety of bicycling as
    > an activity. It's an acceptable risk to ride without a helmet because
    > the likelihood of being involved in an accident where it would provide
    > protection is very small.


    Indeed.

    > Those that disregard and rationalize the wealth of ER studies which
    > conclusively prove the value of a helmet _when an accident involving a
    > blow to the head occurs_,


    Go and retake philosophy of science 101. You obviously failed when it came
    to the nature of proof.

    >do damage in the battle against compulsion,
    > because they are dismissed as fools by the politicians.


    For pointing out that in ScharfWorld, where the laws of physics are subtly
    changed to allow helemts to be effective, when MHL come in people startt
    hitting their heads more to keep the rate of head injury up with the rate
    for other parts of the body?
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Proof, that is, not
    conjecture.

    > The side-issue-specialists, also do the cause no good.


    Nor do those who claim that helmets do work but we shouldn't weear them..
    and promptly look foolish.

    ...d
     
  19. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Steven M. Scharf wrote:

    > Those that disregard and rationalize the wealth of ER studies which
    > conclusively prove the value of a helmet _when an accident involving a
    > blow to the head occurs_,


    If they were "conclusive" then nobody would disagree, would they? If
    they were conclusive they'd scale to population level, but they don't,
    as is even admitted by our pro helmet roads minister.

    To quote Brian Walker, one of the leading experts on the mechanics of
    helmets, and whose company Head Protection Evaluations is the principal
    UK test laboratory for helmets and head protection systems of all kinds:

    "the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work,
    tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting
    for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be
    safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to so do, stating
    that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and
    without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of
    cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to
    be made."

    Which though it does not prove they are of no benefit certainly
    undermines your suggestion of "conclusive proof".

    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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  20. Epetruk

    Epetruk Guest

    Peter Clinch wrote:
    > Epetruk wrote:
    >
    >> Helen, please explain this. Are you saying that just because lots of
    >> people do something, there is a tendency for it to be made
    >> compulsory? Would this apply to drinking at the pub, for example?

    >
    > Not necessarily, but in the case of lids the DfT have stated that one
    > of the main reasons they don't think they can make them compulsory as
    > yet is that wearing rates need to be high to start with before such a
    > measure will be complied with.


    It looks to me here then as though this is being done for political reasons
    than for anything else, i.e. if there is a large enough number of people
    already wearing helmets, then if they are made compulsory it means that
    people are less likely to complain. I don't know whether this means that the
    DfT would *like* to make them compulsory but is just waiting for a magic
    percentage to be exceeded by which time it believes there will be not much
    fuss about the introduction.

    > In some exercises they have done they /have/ assumed that a helmeted head

    is a vote for > compulsion, and yes, it is really dumb, but this is what
    seems to have happened.

    Is there any link to this? If this has been posted before, let me know and
    I'll google it up.

    --
    Akin

    aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk
     
Loading...
Loading...