Helmet Debate

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
('[email protected]') wrote:

> It's a matter of public record everywhere there's
> data available: you plot increasing helmet wearing against head
> injury rates and notice that the former has no bearing on the latter.

It's worse than that: there is a /positive/ correlation between helmet
wearing and KSI rates, as this graph
<URL:http://www.jasmine.org.uk/dogfood/pictures/1_cycle_helmets_deaths.jpg>
clearly illustrates. Of course, it clearly illustrates one of the
potential confounding factors, too - in countries where more people
wear helmets, fewer people cycle, so the increase in deaths per bn km
could be to do with fewer cyclists on the road rather than directly to
do with helmet wearing. Still, on the available figures, rational use
of the precautionary principle would be to ban helmets, not compel
them.

The fact is we that urgently need more research.

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

:: Wisdom is better than weapons of war ::
:: Ecclesiastes 9:18 ::

 

[Tony W]

"David Bentley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> *Don't get me wrong - I'm not for compulsory helmet wearing*, but I
> think that in certain instances they MUST prevent serious head injury.
> I fail to understand how wearing one can INCREASE risk of head injury.

Well the helmet has a finite weight so your head plus helmet has greater
kinetic energy to do damage to your neck or whatever else is trying to stop
it flapping around.

Secondly a helmet significantly increases the effective size of the head --
so leaving it vunerable to higher twisting forces if it comes into contact
with something like a road or truck.
>
>
> Don't bother giving any vitriolic responses as I'm going to shut up now.
> I'm obviously in a minority here.

We have gone through this arguement many times before.
>
> I will take the advice of others and read that web site
>
> www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1019
>
> Statistics can very often be made to back up either side of an argument,
> just bear that in mind.

No -- not if you understand how to read the statistics and if the data
gathered is reliable.


T

 

[Nobody Here]

davek <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nobody Here wrote:
>> Yebbut racing cyclists are presumably more likely to be involved in
>> a vrash involving only other cyclists, in which case a helmet might
>> help.
>
> Have you ever watched the TdF on TV? When they have those big pile-ups
> the injuries tend to be broken collarbones, wrists, and such like. Not
> to mention a good deal of road rash. Should they wear full body armour,
> too?

Ah, but you've no control, because they never race without helmets,
so I don't think you can conclude anything much. You could equally
argue that because the injuries are those that you mention the
helmets are doing their job. I don't know which conclusion is
correct, if either, but I don't believe you do either.

--
Nobby

 

[David Bentley]

In message <[email protected]>,
davek <[email protected]> writes
>
>
>Good grief! You /fell asleep/ on your bike?
>
I was young and immature and had drunk too much!

>
> you think the non-helmet-wearers among
>us are playing russian roulette with our lives,

I never said or inferred that.


> and yet you have so
>little regard for your own safety that you take insane risks by cycling
>when not fit to do so. Did you think somehow the magic polystyrene lid
>would protect you?

Eh? This was nearly 30 years ago before helmets even existed and
wearing a helmet wouldn't have made an ounce of difference to the road
rash on my chin.
>
>Helmets are at best a /secondary/ safety measure. You really need to
>pay a bit more attention to the /primary/ safety measures, including
>personal competence and fitness. These will protect you far better than
>any helmet - try reading Cyclecraft, as has been suggested upthread.

Agreed
>
>> *Don't get me wrong - I'm not for compulsory helmet wearing*, but I
>> think that in certain instances they MUST prevent serious head injury.
>
>I sincerely hope the cyclehelmets.org site is more helpful than I have
>been in attempting to disillusion you on this score.
>
>d.
We'll see . As I've said in previous posts (and I'm a newcomer to this
list) I was a reluctant helmet wearer (you try persuading your other
half who's lost a loved one with a head injury that you're not going to
wear a helmet, no matter what arguments and evidence you can show them -
it ain't easy) In my own mind, having experienced the speed and force
of my fall on a level crossing I am fairly certain that I would not have
been able to carry on my charity ride like I did. Let's put it like
this- I'm glad I was wearing it on *that* occasion. My head would have
hit the ground even if I wasn't wearing a helmet. This sort of
accident is rare I suspect. My two other big falls and the several
minor ones never involved my head hitting the ground.


Life is full of risks and I agree that this country is becoming so
health and safety obsessed that we'll end up producing a generation of
risk-averse wimps.

Anyway I'm not going to mention helmets again.

I have started reading the cyclehemets.org.site .
>

--
David Bentley

 

[MartinM]

Paul Healy wrote:
> I will never wear a plastic potty helmet on my head.
> If they make it compulsory then my bike goes in the bin.

your loss; I hope for the health of the nation and for cycling in
general that this doesn't happen on a wide scale if compulsion ever
occurs

 

[Simonb]

MartinM wrote:
> Paul Healy wrote:
>> I will never wear a plastic potty helmet on my head.
>> If they make it compulsory then my bike goes in the bin.
>
> your loss; I hope for the health of the nation and for cycling in
> general that this doesn't happen on a wide scale if compulsion ever
> occurs

It's okay Martin, I doubt the wearing of plastic potties will ever be made
compulsory. Though it would be nice if my youngest learned to use one.

 

[Gavin Collinson]

"David Bentley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> Why are you so angry?!
>
> If helmet wearing is for wimps/people who don't mind getting a hot sweaty
> head why is that about 90% of the roadies I saw in 15 hours of cycling
> over the weekend were wearing helmets? Aren't they on this group?
>
> *Don't get me wrong - I'm not for compulsory helmet wearing*, but I
> think that in certain instances they MUST prevent serious head injury. I
> fail to understand how wearing one can INCREASE risk of head injury.
>
>
> Don't bother giving any vitriolic responses as I'm going to shut up now.
> I'm obviously in a minority here.
>
David,

You put your head into a lions den. There are some very opionated people in
this group that love to trot out their views whenever the word helmet is
mentioned. I am extremely bored with the debate - but feel sorry for new
comers. It is not a very terribly pleasant way to treat someone who makes a
post. You have made a point from your perspective and opinion.
Unfortunately many of the posters do not respect other opinions and views.

Gavin

 

[Martin Dann]

In message <[email protected]>
David Bentley <[email protected]> wrote:

> Since having a nasty fall on a level crossing and putting a nice dent in
> my helmet, I am no longer a reluctant helmet wearer.
>
> My wife told our neighbour about the incident and she told her that a
> few years ago one of her friends came off her bike on a family ride, no
> other vehicles were involved, hit her head on the road and died. She
> wasn't wearing a helmet.
>
> My head hit the ground with quite a force and I'm sure I would not have
> managed to carry on with the ride had I not been wearing a helmet. Its
> all well and good practising how to fall and get your head away from the
> ground, but in fall such as the one I had it happens so quickly there
> is no time to think.

A f**king dog ran in front of me about four months ago, and I
consequently went over the handle bars. I was not wearing a helmet
and wish that I had been.

If I had been I would not have bruised my elbow joint and badly grazed
my elbow, which still has not healed properly. If I had been wearing a
helmet, obviously ,my elbow would be ok. (I did not hit my head).


Martin. (stupidly not wearing a helmet whilst typeing this).

--
According to the human genome project, humans are 50-60% bananas.
When emailing me, please include the word Banana in the subject line.

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:38:46 GMT someone who may be David Bentley
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I was a reluctant helmet wearer (you try persuading your other
>half who's lost a loved one with a head injury that you're not going to
>wear a helmet, no matter what arguments and evidence you can show them -
>it ain't easy)

Does she make you wear a helmet when climbing a ladder?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Hansen]

On 30 Jun 2005 13:44:27 -0700 someone who may be "MartinM"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> I will never wear a plastic potty helmet on my head.
>> If they make it compulsory then my bike goes in the bin.
>
>your loss; I hope for the health of the nation and for cycling in
>general that this doesn't happen on a wide scale if compulsion ever
>occurs

It has happened everywhere else. Why would the UK be any different?

Compulsion would indeed make the health of the nation worse, which
is a very good reason to campaign against it.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Martin Dann]

In message <[email protected]>
David Bentley <[email protected]> wrote:

> In message <[email protected]>,
> davek <[email protected]> writes
> >
> >
> >Good grief! You /fell asleep/ on your bike?
> >
> I was young and immature and had drunk too much!

What is more dangerous,
a) cycling p*ss*d
b) cycling without a helmet.

I know which I would choose.

Martin.

--
According to the human genome project, humans are 50-60% bananas.
When emailing me, please include the word Banana in the subject line.

 

[Patrick Herring]

| David Bentley <[email protected]> wrote:
....
| I did put some thought into the matter. The fact remains that my fall
| was so quick there was no time at all to get my head out of the way of
| the ground. I would have at least suffered a bad cut, possibly
| concussion or worse. Wearing a helmet allowed me to continue the ride.

Sounds likely. That's the kind of event they're designed for. But there
are other dangers out there. The main one, IMHO, is bad drivers taking
less care because they see you as more protected than you in fact are, a
lot more (up to 13mph max [1]). So wearing a helmet contributes to a
road culture that's a lot more dangerous to cyclists than the odd twang
in some tram rails.

....
| I will take the advice of others and read that web site
|
| www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1019
|
| Statistics can very often be made to back up either side of an argument,
| just bear that in mind.

But cyclist KSI per 10^8 km versus percentage helmet wearing is pretty
straightforward. You've got a dodgy research paper claiming 85%
effectiveness and data from whole populations showing 0% or even
negative effectiveness. That's not selective representation of the
numbers.

[1] anyone know what max impact speed a motorbike helmet is rated for?
Presumably that might indicate what might be in the mind of some
drivers.

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:18:29 +0100, message
<[email protected]> was posted by "Gavin Collinson"
<[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

> I am extremely bored with the debate - but feel sorry for new
>comers. It is not a very terribly pleasant way to treat someone who makes a
>post.

David is not a newcomer. He has made exactly the same point before,
and the falsity of his case has been pointed out.

Many of us are bored with the debate. Unfortunately there exists a
group of people who are not satisfied to let us make up our own minds;
they will not be happy until every cyclist is forced to wear a helmet.
The fact that all the evidence shows this will make no difference to
head injury rates, and will probably set the popularity of cycling
back a decade or more, does not appear to matter.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Tony Raven]

Martin Dann wrote:
>
> A f**king dog ran in front of me about four months ago, and I
> consequently went over the handle bars. I was not wearing a helmet
> and wish that I had been.
>

Wow....a post from beyond the grave.


--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:18:29 +0100 someone who may be "Gavin
Collinson" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Unfortunately many of the posters do not respect other opinions and views.

Yes, generally those one could call pro-helmet posters trot out
their views.

What one could call anti-helmet posters generally provide sound
arguments that explain their position.

However, a search engine would reveal that the subject has been
discussed many times before.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Bentley]

In message <[email protected]>, "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <[email protected]> writes
>At Thu, 30 Jun 2005 22:18:29 +0100, message
><[email protected]> was posted by "Gavin Collinson"
><[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
>following:
>
>> I am extremely bored with the debate - but feel sorry for new
>>comers. It is not a very terribly pleasant way to treat someone who makes a
>>post.
>
>David is not a newcomer. He has made exactly the same point before,
>and the falsity of his case has been pointed out.
>
CHECK YOUR FACTS - THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!

--
David Bentley

 

[Tony Raven]

David Hansen wrote:
>
> What one could call anti-helmet posters generally provide sound
> arguments that explain their position.
>

Please don't confuse pro-choice with anti-helmet. I think most of us
explaining why we don't wear helmets would not force our decision on
others. The problem with many of the pro-helmet people is they are
pro-compulsion and many of the most vocal are also not cyclists.


--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At Fri, 01 Jul 2005 05:30:14 GMT, message
<[email protected]> was posted by David Bentley
<[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:

>>David is not a newcomer. He has made exactly the same point before,
>>and the falsity of his case has been pointed out.

>CHECK YOUR FACTS - THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!

So you are a different David Bentley from the one who made the ladder
comment on, IIRC, 3 May 2005?


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:24:30 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>David Hansen wrote:
>>
>> What one could call anti-helmet posters generally provide sound
>> arguments that explain their position.
>>
>
>Please don't confuse pro-choice with anti-helmet.

My mistake. I meant to type anti-compulsion but it came out
differently.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[David Bentley]

In message <[email protected]>, "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <[email protected]> writes
>At Fri, 01 Jul 2005 05:30:14 GMT, message
><[email protected]> was posted by David Bentley
><[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:
>
>>>David is not a newcomer. He has made exactly the same point before,
>>>and the falsity of his case has been pointed out.
>
>>CHECK YOUR FACTS - THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!
>
>So you are a different David Bentley from the one who made the ladder
>comment on, IIRC, 3 May 2005?


You accused me of "making exactly the same point before" and referred
to "the falsity of his claim" This is obviously referring to your
completely misunderstood view that I am somehow pro-helmet compulsion
If you look at my previous posts in the "Helmet Rash" thread in early
May, there is NOTHING in those posts that says that I am pro-helmet.
The ladder thing was mentioned because I wore a helmet reluctantly at
my wife's insistence.

An apology perhaps?
--
David Bentley