H*****s

Peter Clinch said:

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

Pete.

Indeed. Mind you, my wearing one has resulted in three people who
assumed they must be a Good Thing changing their ideas, when I took said
helmet off, and showed them what it was made of. The fact that the
outer 'hard' covering is less than a fingernail thick shocked them.

I'm all for demonstrating this if the subject comes up in conversation
and I have it to hand (and even if I don't, I describe just how thin it is).

I'm sure if I didn't wear one, they'd have never believed me when I said
I didn't think they'd actually be all that effective. They thought
they would offer protection akin to a horse riding helmet (they've all
ridden in the past). It was nice to be able to prove just what the
differences were, and discuss the reasons behind those differences as
well as pointing out how innefectual they might be in any given incident.

--

Velvet

RogerDodger said:

Rory said:

Woody said:

rather than have a go at those who don't agree with yours.

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

I disagree

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.

Yeah, if it was as simple as false belief then I'd agree, but this
certainly isn't proved one way or the other, or we wouldn't be having
these endless threads.

So Ok, lets fan the flames: the anti-helmet camp argue that wearing
helmets makes you take more risks cuz you perceive yourself to be
protected. Bollox. Just because I've a smoke alarm fitted, do I
start welding frames in bed? Letting off fireworks in the house?

I do not think a helmet will prevent me from falling off, or save me
if I do in every case. But try this, ride down a hill at 30mph, and
look at the curb flashing by (not for too long!), or a bit of street
furniture[1], if your head is going to hit that, would you prefer it
to be with or without a helmet on? I know a regular bike helmet is
worth FA in an impact at those speeds, but chances are you'll loose a
good bit of speed in the process of falling off, scraping skin off on
the tarmac, etc., so it is reasonable to suggest that in a certain
percentage of cases, the helmet will be the difference between life or
death or vegitabledom.

I strongly agree that helmets shouldn't be compulsary, but then
neither should seat belts, the staged motorcycle license laws or
anything that seeks to removed free choice where the only one to
suffer from a bad call is the individual making the choice. Just
don't try and argue that helmets shouldn't be compulsary because they
are ineffective, that's just [censored] and getting away from the point.
Would you be happy to accept compulsion if a far more effective helmet
was available, made of foamed-ferro-kevlar with built-in all-body
air-bags?

[1] read Iain Banks: Raw Spirit - What Happened to my Car...

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

Quoted message said:

So Ok, lets fan the flames: the anti-helmet camp argue that wearing
helmets makes you take more risks cuz you perceive yourself to be
protected. Bollox. Just because I've a smoke alarm fitted, do I
start welding frames in bed? Letting off fireworks in the house?

I do not think a helmet will prevent me from falling off, or save me
if I do in every case. But try this, ride down a hill at 30mph, and
look at the curb flashing by (not for too long!), or a bit of street
furniture[1], if your head is going to hit that, would you prefer it
to be with or without a helmet on? I know a regular bike helmet is
worth FA in an impact at those speeds, but chances are you'll loose a
good bit of speed in the process of falling off, scraping skin off on
the tarmac, etc., so it is reasonable to suggest that in a certain
percentage of cases, the helmet will be the difference between life or
death or vegitabledom.

Oh dear...

a) You don't know how risk compensation works, do you?
b) Trying to scare people is a bit of a tired tactic.

clive

Rory said:

So Ok, lets fan the flames: the anti-helmet camp argue that wearing
helmets makes you take more risks cuz you perceive yourself to be
protected. Bollox. Just because I've a smoke alarm fitted, do I
start welding frames in bed? Letting off fireworks in the house?

No but you may be more likely to leave electrical stuff turned on.

Colin

Quoted message said:

Just
don't try and argue that helmets shouldn't be compulsary because they
are ineffective, that's just [censored] and getting away from the point.

It's the whole point. To justify the law one would need to demonstrate
that it would work. It hasn't worked in any of the places that have tried
it, for reasons unknown. Risk compensation is just one of many possible
factors.

For the individual none of this matters as the effect is subtle enough to
only show up at the population level. Well, suble enough to /not/ show up
I mean.

Rory said:

So Ok, lets fan the flames: the anti-helmet camp

And who are they? There's a strong anti-/compulsion/ camp, but that's
not the same thing at all, and if you think it is then it just shows you
haven't been paying attention. And it's not paying attention that is
usually the cause of so many very long and very dull threads on hats.

Quoted message said:

I do not think a helmet will prevent me from falling off, or save me
if I do in every case. But try this, ride down a hill at 30mph, and
look at the curb flashing by (not for too long!), or a bit of street
furniture[1], if your head is going to hit that, would you prefer it
to be with or without a helmet on? I know a regular bike helmet is
worth FA in an impact at those speeds, but chances are you'll loose a
good bit of speed in the process of falling off, scraping skin off on
the tarmac, etc., so it is reasonable to suggest that in a certain
percentage of cases, the helmet will be the difference between life or
death or vegitabledom.

Where helmet wearing rates have increased, serious head injury rates
(and death or "vegitabledom" count as serious) have /not changed/. So
it is *not* reasonable to suggest what you've suggested, because we have
quite a large pile of evidence that it doesn't do any such thing.

Quoted message said:

don't try and argue that helmets shouldn't be compulsary because they
are ineffective, that's just [censored]

The evidence suggests otherwise.

Quoted message said:

Would you be happy to accept compulsion if a far more effective helmet
was available, made of foamed-ferro-kevlar with built-in all-body
air-bags?

Compulsion has reduced cycling numbers everywhere it has been
introduced, which has been a major public health own-goal. If you're
saving people from a traumatic head injury just to have more people die
from cardiac disease it renders the argument futile in any case.

Quoted message said:

[1] read Iain Banks: Raw Spirit - What Happened to my Car...

Much as I'm a fan of Banksie, I don't regard an anecdote in a travelogue
as useful road safety data compared to population level statistics.

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/

Rory said:

So Ok, lets fan the flames: the anti-helmet camp

Where? Who? Identify them!

Quoted message said:

argue that wearing
helmets makes you take more risks cuz you perceive yourself to be
protected. Bollox. Just because I've a smoke alarm fitted, do I
start welding frames in bed? Letting off fireworks in the house?

Er, the notoriously pro-helmet editor of Injury Prevention also accepts that
helmeted cyclists may be likely to take more risks. This is not a
controversial theory at all, the idea of risk compensation is mainstream
these days.

Nobody believes they engage in risk compensation themselves, which is of
course why it happens. You can find out more by reading Risk by John Adams.

Quoted message said:

I do not think a helmet will prevent me from falling off, or save me
if I do in every case. But try this, ride down a hill at 30mph, and
look at the curb flashing by (not for too long!), or a bit of street
furniture[1], if your head is going to hit that, would you prefer it
to be with or without a helmet on?

I don't think it will make any significant difference, and the observed
facts support that. Helmets which hit kerbs routinely fail. The owners
then hold up their failed helmets and claim they Saved Their Lives, which
must make the manufacturers laugh up their sleeves.

Quoted message said:

I know a regular bike helmet is
worth FA in an impact at those speeds, but chances are you'll loose a
good bit of speed in the process of falling off, scraping skin off on
the tarmac, etc., so it is reasonable to suggest that in a certain
percentage of cases, the helmet will be the difference between life or
death or vegitabledom.

On balance, no. Any such difference is offset by the increased likelihood
of crashing in the first place. We can be quite confident of this because a
couple of countries have conducted experiments - they introduced laws which
increased helmet wearing rates dramatically over very short periods, and
once you've factored out the fact thet this decimated cycling there is no
decrease in head injury rates.

Quoted message said:

I strongly agree that helmets shouldn't be compulsary, but then
neither should seat belts, the staged motorcycle license laws or
anything that seeks to removed free choice where the only one to
suffer from a bad call is the individual making the choice.

Staged motorcycle tests are a good idea - motorcylists are quite capable of
killing other people as well as themselves. Actually there should be a
staged car driving test as well, and periodic retests for all motor vehicle
licenses.

Quoted message said:

Just
don't try and argue that helmets shouldn't be compulsary because they
are ineffective, that's just [censored] and getting away from the point.

Except that it's not. Whether helmets are effective or not is moot, but it
is incontrovertibly true that helmet laws are ineffective in reducing head
injuries, other than by the mechanism of deterring cycling.

Quoted message said:

Would you be happy to accept compulsion if a far more effective helmet
was available, made of foamed-ferro-kevlar with built-in all-body
air-bags?

I think many of us would be more likely to accept helmet promotion if they
were genuinely effective, yes.

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

in message <[email hidden]>, Rory

(') said:

I do not think a helmet will prevent me from falling off, or save me
if I do in every case. But try this, ride down a hill at 30mph, and
look at the curb flashing by (not for too long!), or a bit of street
furniture[1], if your head is going to hit that, would you prefer it
to be with or without a helmet on? I know a regular bike helmet is
worth FA in an impact at those speeds, but chances are you'll loose a
good bit of speed in the process of falling off, scraping skin off on
the tarmac, etc., so it is reasonable to suggest that in a certain
percentage of cases, the helmet will be the difference between life or
death or vegitabledom.

Yes, it is _reasonable_, until you look at the evidence. If it were
true, injury rates per kilometer cycled would fall when more people
wore helmets. But they don't. They stay the same, or even (in the USA
and Canada) rise. So in this case the reasonable assumption turns out
to be wrong.

Quoted message said:

Just
don't try and argue that helmets shouldn't be compulsary because they
are ineffective, that's just [censored] and getting away from the point.

What is the point in being forced to wear something which is
ineffective? Do you think there should be legislation to make everyone
carry lucky rabbits feet, or St Christopher medallions?

Quoted message said:

Would you be happy to accept compulsion if a far more effective helmet
was available, made of foamed-ferro-kevlar with built-in all-body
air-bags?

Look, let's be clear about this: on average, you will live about five
years longer if you cycle without a helmet than if you don't cycle at
all. Cycling without a helmet isn't more dangerous than not cycling:
it's a lot safer. So anything which puts people off cycling is bad for
people. Would you cycle in a ferro-kevlar helmet with built-in all-body
air-bags? No, thought not. Every single person you put off cycling is
going to have more health problems and cost the NHS more money, and
live a shorter, less fit life. Where is the public policy benefit of
doing that?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Lusers are from Uranus.

On 17/9/04 12:21 pm, in article
[email hidden], "Rory"

Quoted message said:

so it is reasonable to suggest that in a certain
percentage of cases, the helmet will be the difference between life or
death or vegitabledom.

You make the error of assuming that a helmet can only have a positive effect
on outcome. I would suggest that you learn what rotational head injury is,
how much more serious than injuries arising from direct linear blows and
whether it is made better or worse by helmets.

Personally at 30mph I'd rather not wear a helmet. I value my brain too much
for that. At walking pace I would wear a helmet[1] as potential accidents
are likely to be within the design criteria and it would save some scratches
and bruising.

So it is reasonable to suggest that the helmet may make a difference. The
problem is that from the real world data the helmet is making vegetables out
of otherwise scratched and bruised individuals, or whether it is saving
lives and injuries (or even both in similar proportions.)

...d

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Rory wrote:

Quoted message said:

Nobody believes they engage in risk compensation themselves, which is of
course why it happens. You can find out more by reading Risk by John Adams.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I do not think a helmet will prevent me from falling off, or save me
if I do in every case. But try this, ride down a hill at 30mph, and
look at the curb flashing by (not for too long!), or a bit of street
furniture[1], if your head is going to hit that, would you prefer it
to be with or without a helmet on?

Quoted message said:

I don't think it will make any significant difference, and the observed
facts support that. Helmets which hit kerbs routinely fail. The owners
then hold up their failed helmets and claim they Saved Their Lives, which
must make the manufacturers laugh up their sleeves.

Imagine you are flying off your bike, in that split second, when you
think 'This is going to hurt!', do you lift your heavily-helmted head up
or do you let it strike the tarmac, knowing it is covered, unlike your
hands and knees?

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

Just zis Guy said:

Rory said:

So Ok, lets fan the flames: the anti-helmet camp

Where? Who? Identify them!

Quoted message said:

argue that wearing
helmets makes you take more risks cuz you perceive yourself to
be protected. Bollox. Just because I've a smoke alarm
fitted, do I start welding frames in bed? Letting off
fireworks in the house?

Er, the notoriously pro-helmet editor of Injury Prevention also
accepts that helmeted cyclists may be likely to take more
risks. This is not a controversial theory at all, the idea of
risk compensation is mainstream these days.

are you referring to the pless article on kids and protective play equipment
again?

If so you are distorting what was said.

pk

Rory said:

So Ok, lets fan the flames: the anti-helmet camp argue that wearing
helmets makes you take more risks cuz you perceive yourself to be
protected. Bollox. Just because I've a smoke alarm fitted, do I
start welding frames in bed? Letting off fireworks in the house?

No they don't. If you're going to attempt to mount a rebuttal of an
argument, it would be wise to determine what the argument you're
rebutting is. Otherwise, your on teh internet's number 2 favourite
fallacy - the straw man.

Quoted message said:

I do not think a helmet will prevent me from falling off, or save me
if I do in every case. But try this, ride down a hill at 30mph, and
look at the curb flashing by (not for too long!), or a bit of street
furniture[1], if your head is going to hit that, would you prefer it
to be with or without a helmet on?

And again. Now try this experiment - wouyld you prefer to hit your
head on a kerbstone wearing a helmet at 30mph or not to hit your head
on anything at all? Now explain why your thought-experiment is more
relevant than mine.

Anyway, you said you wouldn't weld in bed, and now you're advocating
riding at 30mph and not looking where you're going.

Quoted message said:

the tarmac, etc., so it is reasonable to suggest that in a certain
percentage of cases, the helmet will be the difference between life or
death or vegitabledom.

Quite possibly. The argument is that in a certain, potentially larger
percentage of cases, it makes death _more_ likely than not wearing it.
You have failed entirely to address anything to this point.

Quoted message said:

don't try and argue that helmets shouldn't be compulsary because they
are ineffective, that's just [censored] and getting away from the point.

Eh? The effectiveness or otherwise of helmets is _exactly_ the
point - you're not really arguing that you wear it just for teh
fashion statement, are you?

Anyway, you'll be able to point to population-level statistics
demonstrating that they are effective. After all, if its so
absolutely certain that they are effective, there'll be loads of
evidence because everywhere that's made them mandatory will have shown
immediate and dramatic reduction in serious head injury rates fo
cyclists, won't they.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Imagine you are flying off your bike, in that split second,
when you think

"Oh [censored], despite my best efforts and well practiced safe-falling technique,
my head IS going to hit the kerb!"

The high consequence - low probability accident is (literally) staring you
in the face.

Are you glad you are not wearing a helmet?

---

PK

---

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Imagine you are flying off your bike, in that split second, when you
think 'This is going to hurt!', do you lift your heavily-helmted head up
or do you let it strike the tarmac, knowing it is covered, unlike your
hands and knees?

I imagine I roll my shoulders round faster, as I have every (not many)
time I've gone over the bars since the age of 9. But then, I wasn't
wearing a helmet.

A

PK said:

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Imagine you are flying off your bike, in that split second,
when you think

"Oh [censored], despite my best efforts and well practiced safe-falling technique,
my head IS going to hit the kerb!"

The high consequence - low probability accident is (literally) staring you
in the face.

Are you glad you are not wearing a helmet?

Are you telling me that you cannot use your arms to move that tiny fraction
sideways, or even turn your head?

You are raising an extremely improbable scenario and attempting to project
it as a general case.
Doesn't wash.

...d

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:45:57 +0000 (UTC), "PK"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Er, the notoriously pro-helmet editor of Injury Prevention also
accepts that helmeted cyclists may be likely to take more
risks.

Quoted message said:

are you referring to the pless article on kids and protective play equipment
again? If so you are distorting what was said.

No, his conclusion was that helmeted children may be more likely to
take risks. And given that his previous position was to rubbish the
very idea, that is a significant concession.

Do you think that cyclists are uniquely immune from risk compensation?
I'm guessing not.

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

Quoted message said:

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

I would be very interested on what basis he uses to justify his decision.
How many pro-compulsion letters etc has he received compared to
anti-compulsion? After all he is supposed to represent the views of his
constituency rather than just put forward his own views.

I am all in favour of making safety compulsory when there is clear evidence
or there is a danger to 3rd parties e.g. the seat belt law but even as a
helmet wearer I agree the evidence is just not there. Where do you draw the
line, skateboarders? pedestrians? toddlers in push chairs?

Woody

JohnB said:

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Quoted message said:

helmets are still optional
(for now) for time trials run under CTT rules & regs.

For adults, yes, but for the under 18s they are compulsory.

But looking at today's start sheets its almost only those of advancing
hairlines who ride TTs ;-)

Cause and effect?

Seriously, helmet compulsion is already here for children who want to
participate in most organised cycling events. Rolling this back will
take sustained effort.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!

David Martin said:

On 17/9/04 5:48 pm, in article
[email hidden], "PK"

Quoted message said:

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Imagine you are flying off your bike, in that split second,
when you think

"Oh [censored], despite my best efforts and well practiced
safe-falling technique, my head IS going to hit the kerb!"

The high consequence - low probability accident is (literally)
staring you in the face.

Are you glad you are not wearing a helmet?

Are you telling me that you cannot use your arms to move that
tiny fraction sideways, or even turn your head?

You are raising an extremely improbable scenario and attempting
to project it as a general case.
Doesn't wash.

Read what I said again, I am specifically NOT projecting it as a general
case.

That is the point, we are looking at the extreme end of the probability
distribution. The low probability-high consequence accident.

It is a coherent position to say: Helmets probably provide some protection
in a highly improbable scenario that I as an individual am extremely
unlikely to ever experience, but I choose to forgo that protection because
the discomfort I always experience when wearing a helmet removes the
pleasure from cycling.

What gives many people difficulty is the intellectual gyrations some try to
go through to prove from ultra tenuous data that helmets provide no
protection and are more dangerous than not wearing one. ISTM that that
position is just as extreme and just as daft as the Bhit rubbish at the
other end of the spectrum which sees helmets as some miraculous cure all.

pk

quote='Ian Smith'On 17 Sep 2004 04:21:15 -0700 said:

So Ok, lets fan the flames: the anti-helmet camp argue that wearing
helmets makes you take more risks cuz you perceive yourself to be
protected. Bollox. Just because I've a smoke alarm fitted, do I
start welding frames in bed? Letting off fireworks in the house?

No they don't. If you're going to attempt to mount a rebuttal of an
argument, it would be wise to determine what the argument you're
rebutting is. Otherwise, your on teh internet's number 2 favourite
fallacy - the straw man.
[/QUOTE]
The ol' fallacy detector sent up a red flag here - the analogy chosen of "welding frames (in bed??) or letting off fireworks in the house" is laughable.

Ever heard of the fallacy of improper analogy, Rory?

What more needs to be said about the intelligence (or in this case the lack thereof!) of a person who trots out such a ridiculous analogy - I've seen this sort of utterly stupid stuff many times from the helmet bigots.

How can you reason with people who are apparently bereft of the ability to reason without falling into factitious fallacy?
Answer - don't bother - ridicule them instead.

Roger