H*****s

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Aren't they bloody uncomfortable?

Not for me

I used to think so too until I started riding without one more of the
time.
And then I realised that actually they are bloody uncomfortable ;-)

I repeat my earlier statement, for you they are uncomfortable but for me I
find my chosen make and model to be very comfortable. So in themselves they
are neither comfortable or uncomfortable it just depends on the individual
and the make/model of helmet worn. A bit like saddles where we all have our
own preferences but no goes around saying all saddles are uncomfortable.

Woody

Quoted message said:

Which is exactly why those who are anti-compulsion can be critical of
those who do wear the damn things.
Like it or not, if you wear a helmet you are aiding the likes of BeHit.

John B

Hmmm, very tortuous logic here.

However, I apologise on behalf of all helmet wearers for bringing a
totalitarian state even closer. Perhaps you will join me in an invasion of
the House of Commons to start the revolution. Alternatively you could just
lobby your MP to vote against any bill to bring in a compulsion law.

Woody

D.M. Procida said:

If do they pose a demonstrable risk
then it's fatuous to say that it's a matter of choice - it's stupid to
wear them, and wearing them should be discouraged. If they do offer
protection, they should be encouraged.

I think it is reasonable to conclude (in the absence of any convincing
data) that the effects are small enough either way that really it is not
worth fussing unduly over whether is is a (negligible) "benefit" or
(negligible) "cost". I bet there are many much more significant risks in
your life that you don't fuss over.

(NB just to emphasise, I don't even mean "the risk of head injury" which
is small enough it itself, but "the extra risk of head injury due to
wearing/not wearing a helmet (delete as appropriate))

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Quoted message said:

Like it or not, if you wear a helmet you are aiding the likes of BeHit.

John B

B*ll*cks. I've been wearing one for 15 years, long before there was any sniff
of mandatory proposals.

You are aiding them whether you like to admit it or not. If 50% of the
cycling population felt like you, a MHL would be quick in coming.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

James Annan said:

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Quoted message said:

Like it or not, if you wear a helmet you are aiding the likes of BeHit.

John B

B*ll*cks. I've been wearing one for 15 years, long before there was
any sniff
of mandatory proposals.

You are aiding them whether you like to admit it or not. If 50% of the
cycling population felt like you, a MHL would be quick in coming.

James

Maybe it's just late, or something, but why exactly does the fact that
*some* people choose to wear them mean it's any more likely a MHL will
be implemented?

I know it doesn't always follow, but what's important is evidence it
will increase safety, not the fact that the majority already wear them -
think about it, if the majority DID wear them, where's the point in a MHL?!

--

Velvet

Velvet said:

Maybe it's just late, or something, but why exactly does the fact that
*some* people choose to wear them mean it's any more likely a MHL will
be implemented?

Because the govt has clearly stated that the only reason it has not
introduced a MHL (and/or officially supported a private members' bill)
is that only a minority of riders use them, so it would be impractical
to enforce. It may seem incredible, but it is true.

Quoted message said:

I know it doesn't always follow, but what's important is evidence it
will increase safety, not the fact that the majority already wear them -
think about it, if the majority DID wear them, where's the point in a MHL?!

We're talking government here, not logic.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

James Annan said:

Velvet said:

Maybe it's just late, or something, but why exactly does the fact that
*some* people choose to wear them mean it's any more likely a MHL will
be implemented?

Because the govt has clearly stated that the only reason it has not
introduced a MHL (and/or officially supported a private members' bill)
is that only a minority of riders use them, so it would be impractical
to enforce. It may seem incredible, but it is true.

Quoted message said:

I know it doesn't always follow, but what's important is evidence it
will increase safety, not the fact that the majority already wear them
- think about it, if the majority DID wear them, where's the point in
a MHL?!

We're talking government here, not logic.

James

Well, since I'm one of the minority now, it makes no odds if I continue
wearing mine then. Or if I decide at some point to not wear it. Given
it MAY be that there ARE advantages to them, albeit unproven or
disproven currently, I don't think it's right to say NOBODY should wear
them.

Until it's proven one way or the other, it should be free choice, and
that includes not be harangued here for wearing one.

--

Velvet

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Quoted message said:

Like it or not, if you wear a helmet you are aiding the likes of BeHit.

John B

B*ll*cks. I've been wearing one for 15 years, long before there was any sniff
of mandatory proposals.

I can assure you that even longer than 15 years ago there were helmet compulsionists.
It's not a New Thing; its just there are more people around today who
will to jump on any do-gooder bandwagon they can, in order to progress
their own political aims.

All part of the 'me me me' post Thatcher society we are developing I
fear.

John B

Velvet said:

Until it's proven one way or the other, it should be free choice, and
that includes not be harangued here for wearing one.

Sure, but as the proportion of wearers rises, it seems reasonable to
expect the temperature to rise also.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

Woody said:

Quoted message said:

Which is exactly why those who are anti-compulsion can be critical of
those who do wear the damn things.
Like it or not, if you wear a helmet you are aiding the likes of BeHit.

Hmmm, very tortuous logic here.

However, I apologise on behalf of all helmet wearers for bringing a
totalitarian state even closer.

that's OK. if you ride a bike your a great bloke anyway ;-)

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you will join me in an invasion of
the House of Commons to start the revolution.

There's a good article about someone who took their brommie to
parliament in the latest Velo Vision.

Quoted message said:

Alternatively you could just
lobby your MP to vote against any bill to bring in a compulsion law.

No hope there I'm afraid. my MP is Sir George Young Bt, a really great
MP, but who has already made his position *very* clear on the issue as
all who followed the debate in parliament wll testify.

John B

James Annan said:

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Quoted message said:

Like it or not, if you wear a helmet you are aiding the likes of BeHit.

John B

B*ll*cks. I've been wearing one for 15 years, long before there was any sniff
of mandatory proposals.

You are aiding them whether you like to admit it or not. If 50% of the
cycling population felt like you, a MHL would be quick in coming.

ISTR a figure that has officially been stated as being 70%.

John B

Woody wrote:
A bit like saddles where we all

Quoted message said:

have our own preferences but no goes around saying all saddles
are uncomfortable.

Ah, but are you more comfortable on your chosen saddle or off it?

Off it?

Ergo, all saddles are uncomfortable!

pk

James Annan said:

I think it is reasonable to conclude (in the absence of any
convincing data) that the effects are small enough either way
that really it is not worth fussing unduly over whether is is a
(negligible) "benefit" or (negligible) "cost". I bet there are
many much more significant risks in your life that you don't
fuss over.

The root of the problem really is that we are looking at protecting from a
"low probability - high consequence" hazard.

Falling of a bike is a very rare event. Of those events, there being any
hazard to the head is a very small proportion. Of that very small proportion
an even smaller proportion present the sort of threat of serious head injury
the shroud wavers use as exemplars.

Given the numbers and the nature of the events, it is impossible to actually
identify the population of accidents that are relevant: those presenting a
direct and observable threat of serious head injury. Only comparison of the
that subset with/without helmet will give a direct answer to the question of
degree of protection.

Instead we are forced to rely on trying to tease out of data collected in
inconsonsistent ways for a variety of reasons by a range of different bodies
in a number of different countries an inference that was not even in the
mind of the people collecting the data - essentially hospital admin systems
with sets of tick boxes focussed on the patients welfare not on cycle helmet
usage.

Finding a needle in a haystack would be a trivial task by comparison.

pk

Rory said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Aren't they bloody uncomfortable?

Not for me

Quoted message said:

I wore mine for tonight's time trial - first time in ages - and I'd
forgotten. It's a good one and it fits properly,

then it should not be uncomfortable!

Quoted message said:

but... Crikey, people
really ride in these things? Voluntarily? They need their heads
examined.

No, just that everyone has their own opinon. You can choose to not wear one
and I can choose to wear one and we should respect each other's choice
rather than have a go at those who don't agree with yours.

Well said. We should let it rest there...

I disagree
In some ideal world perhaps, but the problem in the real world is there is the inveterate effect of false beliefs held by the many. Take alternative medicine for example, one might generously say that people should be free to believe in the efficacy of whatever remedies they like - that this-or-that bit of psuedo-science cum medicine, believed by some, is harmless. But what happens when a parent prevents a child from receiving normal medical care for a life threatening condition and pursues a course of bunkum alternative stuff to the ultimate detriment of the child?

Add to this the media covering such a situation and with this coverage other parents feel strengthened in their false psuedo-scientific beliefs - where's the harm you ask? The trouble with false beliefs is that they're contagious in a world inhabited with credulous and often stupid humans. There is a social spillover from this seemingly innocuous desire for us all to be free to choose and believe as we wish.

Roger

James Annan said:

Velvet said:

Until it's proven one way or the other, it should be free choice, and
that includes not be harangued here for wearing one.

Sure, but as the proportion of wearers rises, it seems reasonable to
expect the temperature to rise also.

James

What?

Temperature?

Eh?

Speak plain english, fgs. Temperature of the wearer? the political
debate? the safety debate?

--

Velvet

Velvet said:

Well, since I'm one of the minority now, it makes no odds if I continue
wearing mine then.

It's not that simple: people seeing helmeted cyclists before they take
up cycling themselves are probably more likely to join the basic UK
public opinion that it's daft not to wear one and they must make you
safer (and possibly the other default opinion that cycling must be
Really Dangerous).

I think that if you want to wear one you should, but I don't think it's
fair to say it has absolutely no effect on the future imposition of a
MHL if an existing minority continue to wear them, because if you wear
one you stand a fair chance of encouraging others to just assume they're
good.

Quoted message said:

it MAY be that there ARE advantages to them, albeit unproven or
disproven currently, I don't think it's right to say NOBODY should wear
them.

Indeed so, but all else being equal (and "but I just want to wear one,
okay!" is to me a /good reason/ to wear one and if it applies to you
then all other things are /not/ equal), then sending out a message that
a rider endorses them and feels them a positive benefit is skewing the
opinion of those watching that all things are not equal.
The general public perception is that they are obviously a good thing.
The actual evidence is inconclusive, though pointing to zero effective
benefit, so public perception is out of line with the probable reality.
A lot of support for MHLs comes from non-cyclists and cyclists who
just take the public perception as true, and support is thus skewed by
people that do wear them. The more people that wear them, the more
people take up wearing them.

Quoted message said:

Until it's proven one way or the other, it should be free choice, and
that includes not be harangued here for wearing one.

Quite so, but "harangued here for wearing one" and being informed of the
consequences are not quite the same thing.

To re-iterate, it /is/ a free choice and if you want to wear one, then
wear one. If you're not sure, then one of the pieces of data you should
consider when making up your mind is your effect on people watching you.
This is not an overriding concern in the choice, but it should not
just be assumed the effect isn't there because it makes your decision
easier.

The choice is yours, but it makes a lot of sense to make it as informed
as you possibly can.

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/

PK said:

The root of the problem really is that we are looking at protecting
from a "low probability - high consequence" hazard.

True. And also using different meanings of the word "protection" - in some
cases deliberately (e.g. standard BeHIT argument, "helmets prevent 85% of
head injuries, 70% of cyclist deaths are due to head injury, therefore
helmts would prevent 85% of cyclist deaths" - the logical flaws in which are
obvious enough).

Quoted message said:

Instead we are forced to rely on trying to tease out of data
collected in inconsonsistent ways for a variety of reasons by a range
of different bodies in a number of different countries an inference
that was not even in the mind of the people collecting the data -
essentially hospital admin systems with sets of tick boxes focussed
on the patients welfare not on cycle helmet usage.

LOL! Beautifully put :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

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

Woody said:

I repeat my earlier statement, for you they are uncomfortable but for
me I find my chosen make and model to be very comfortable. So in
themselves they are neither comfortable or uncomfortable it just
depends on the individual and the make/model of helmet worn.

I repeat my earlier statement: I used to think so too, until I started
riding without one more of the time.

Quoted message said:

A bit
like saddles where we all have our own preferences but no goes around
saying all saddles are uncomfortable.

But all saddles /are/ uncomfortable! Why else do you think the Dark Side is
so attractive?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

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

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Quoted message said:

Like it or not, if you wear a helmet you are aiding the likes of
BeHit.

Quoted message said:

B*ll*cks. I've been wearing one for 15 years, long before there was
any sniff of mandatory proposals.

Sorry, Helen, but this is the literal truth. The stated position of the DfT
is that their major reason for not pushing a helmet law is the current low
wearing rates. BeHIT like to use a kind of Morton's Fork argument - low
wearing rates means we need compulsion to increase wearing rates, high
wearing rates means that we can have compulsion without enforcement
problems.

It should not be so. It may not be so in future, as there is some evidence
of a shift (not least because Philip Darnton is a Smart Man and is working
closely with CTC and other cycling bodies). There are still zealots in
senior positions in Parliament, including Ian McCartney, who has the ear of
the PM.

You know I wear one at least some of the time, more in the winter than the
summer, so this is not directed at you. It is just how it is.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

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

[email hidden] (D.M. Procida) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

If they do offer protection, they should be encouraged.

That would surely depend on the degree of protection and the level of
risk in the first place. I don't put on a space suit to evict a wasp
from my living room, but it would doubtless offer protection.

--
Dave...