Helmet Debate



Gavin Collinson wrote:

> 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.

Not, I would say, an accurate assessment. I think the Usual Suspects
(and that would include me) are very, very, very, very, very *very*
bored with having to repeat the lines again and again, but there is a
matter of public health at hand with some people trying to force through
a measure which we think will have a serious and adverse affect on
public health.

What is the basis for these opinionated views? It's what *has* happened
/everywhere a similar measure has been implemented/. A fairly sound
basis for an opinion, IMHO.

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

When we've seen them before? David raised different helmet issues back
in May (a rash problem), so he isn't completely new, and has had plenty
of opportunity (including elsewhere in the thread he started back then,
according to Google) to get up to speed on helmet efficacy.

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/
 
David Bentley <[email protected]> writes:

> 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).

Quite a few posters to urc have claimed that cycle helmets save
marriages. Has anyone suggested this to BHIT as a topic for research?
Could usefully strengthen their currently rather dubious campaign.


--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
in message <[email protected]>, Tony W
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> "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.

I really am not persuaded this is significant.

> 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.

This seems much more probable. But again, we need research, not
speculation.

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

((DoctorWho)ChristopherEccleston).act();
uk.co.bbc.TypecastException: actor does not want to be typecast.
[adapted from autofile on /., 31/03/05]
 
in message <[email protected]>,
MartinM ('[email protected]') 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

I greatly fear it will. I wouldn't give up cycling, but I'd certainly
cycle less. Members of my club are making louder and louder noises
about insisting on helmets for time trialling, and when this gets voted
through I shall stop time trialling.

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

;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor.
 
in message <[email protected]>, Just zis Guy,
you know? ('[email protected]') wrote:

> 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.

No, Guy, he has not. Check google. davek has (graciously) apologised
this very morning for the same assertion. Yes, there are serial trolls,
but David is not one of them. He's someone who has recently had a very
shocking experience, and is entitled to his personal reaction.

> Many of us are bored with the debate.

I think we're all bored with this debate. I'll continue to stand with
you in urging people to rationally consider the evidence, and to push
for further research, for as long as you like; but I think it behoves
us to conduct the debate in a courteous manner and without ad hominems.
Mind you, sooner or later I'll get so ****** off I'll post something
sharp and snappy too - but it won't make it right!

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

Error 1109: There is no message for this error
 
in message <[email protected]>, Just zis Guy,
you know? ('[email protected]') wrote:

> 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 mean this one:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/fe33a3fe40c59889?hl=en

Would you like to point out which sentence or phrase in that post
advocates helmet use?


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

;; L'etat c'est moi -- Louis XVI
;; I... we... the Government -- Tony Blair
 
Martin Dann wrote:

> What is more dangerous,
> a) cycling p*ss*d
> b) cycling without a helmet.
>
> I know which I would choose.

I chose both for my first cycling 'accident'. ****** and unhelmeted. I
broke a rib. I have now learned not to cycle while ******.

Colin
 
Simon Brooke wrote:

> 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.

Does it? Maybe I'm looking at the graph incorrectly, but the number of
fatalities per bn-km seems to be completely uncorrelated with the
percentage of helmet wearers. It does however, as you point out, seem to be
approximately correlated to the percentage of trips by bicycle - with the
exception of the UK.

> 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.

Hear hear!

I doubt it will happen though. BHIT should be funding it, IMHO. If their
motivation was to improve safety in cycling, then you would have thought
that they'd have looked into the best way of doing this. The fact that they
don't seem to have bothered leads me to question their motivation. What
exactly do they want?
--
Chris
 
Chris Slade wrote:

> I doubt it will happen though. BHIT should be funding it, IMHO. If their
> motivation was to improve safety in cycling, then you would have thought
> that they'd have looked into the best way of doing this. The fact that they
> don't seem to have bothered leads me to question their motivation. What
> exactly do they want?

They want every child (and preferably every adult to) cycling to be
wearing a helmet. That's it. They're very clear about that. They may
be misinformed about how useful that will be, but they are *very* clear
that that is all they want.

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/
 
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 08:11:49 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

>I don't think it's hard to imagine how helmets could increase
>injury. We know that the brain is especially vulnerable to rotational
>injuries, caused for example by the rapid twisting of the head if it
>hits the road while travelling forwards. We know that the extra mass
>and size the helmet adds to the heads makes it more likely that the
>helmet will hit the ground in an accident, than your head if you
>weren't wearing one. We know that current cycle design takes no
>account of this problem, e.g. the popular streamlined tear drop shape,
>and the vents, both of which increase the likelihood of damaging
>rotational acceleration.

IMO there is no need to go into this level of speculation. The paper
by Mok et. al clearly shows that helmeted children take more risks
(and the same is evident from many of the pro-helmet papers, including
the infamous Seattle study, where helmeted children were seven times
more likely to crash). As far as I can see it is unarguable that the
wearing of a helmet changes a cyclist's behaviour in unpredictable
ways.

Helmet promotion and especially compulsion are founded on the premise
that making people wear helmets will result in them becoming like the
risk-averse cyclists who wear them by choice, rather than choosing to
consume some part of the supposed safety benefit as a performance
benefit (e.g. by trying bigger and better stunts).

The flaw in this reasoning need hardly be pointed out.

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 CHS, Puget Sound
 
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 07:23:31 GMT, David Bentley <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>>>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

Where did I say you were pro compulsion? The false claim is that the
ladder incident, or any single data point, has any relevance to the
debate.

>An apology perhaps?

An apology for an argument? I'd say so :)

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 CHS, Puget Sound
 
"Colin Blackburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I chose both for my first cycling 'accident'. ****** and unhelmeted. I
> broke a rib. I have now learned not to cycle while ******.

I had a very similar experience with my last cycling -- though I was not
****** at the time -- but did break a rib.

A clear case for compulsory wearing of body armour. Perhaps we should start
a campaign.

Let see, we have two cases of broken ribs while cycling -- 100% of the
sampled cases but it sounds a bit 'definite' -- lets discount it a bit to
what? Say 88% -- has a nice ring.

Who will sign up to this new campaign??

T
 
Peter Clinch wrote:

> Chris Slade wrote:
>
>> I doubt it will happen though. BHIT should be funding it, IMHO. If their
>> motivation was to improve safety in cycling, then you would have thought
>> that they'd have looked into the best way of doing this. The fact that
>> they don't seem to have bothered leads me to question their motivation.
>> What exactly do they want?
>
> They want every child (and preferably every adult to) cycling to be
> wearing a helmet. That's it. They're very clear about that. They may
> be misinformed about how useful that will be, but they are *very* clear
> that that is all they want.

Indeed. Why do they want this? Is it because:
a) they think injuries will be reduced, or
b) some other reason?

I suspect that they have deluded themselves into believing (a). I'm not
really sure how much use reasoned argument is with the zealots who
willfully ignore the facts.

It seems unlikely to me that the reason they want compulsion is simply
because they want compulsion. Perhaps I'm being a bit naive here, but
surely there has to be more of a reason than that?
--
Chris
 
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 09:36:57 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You mean this one:
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/fe33a3fe40c59889?hl=en

No, this one:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/fe33a3fe40c59889?hl=en

"My wife's first husband died from a head injury (after falling off a
ladder). This is why she insists on my wearing a helmet!"

Following this there was a discussion of the usual.

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 CHS, Puget Sound
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 09:36:57 +0100, Simon Brooke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>You mean this one:
>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/fe33a3fe40c59889?hl=en
>
>
> No, this one:
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/fe33a3fe40c59889?hl=en
>
> "My wife's first husband died from a head injury (after falling off a
> ladder). This is why she insists on my wearing a helmet!"

Oddly he'd just been from Leicester to Hull and back. Are you sure there
isn't some sort of Groundhog Day thing going on here?

Colin
 
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 09:33:56 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

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

>No, Guy, he has not. Check google.

I did. Perhaps I was reading more into it than I should.

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 CHS, Puget Sound
 
David Bentley wrote:
> 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.

No, but if you wear a helmet for "common sense" reasons, then one does
have to wonder why you haven't always applied that common sense to
other aspects of cycling safety. But OK, you were younger and less
sensible then... we've all been there.

The problems with the common sense approach to helmet wearing become
apparent in the stories (aka anecdotal evidence) we frequently hear in
this ng that suggest people treat cycle helmets as if they have magic
powers - eg the mother who disconnected her son's brakes because they
were rubbing but thought it was OK to send him out on his bike because
he was wearing a helmet. That's a particularly extreme example, of
course (and possibly apocryphal - I can't recall if the story came with
good provenance) but it illustrates the general point about attitudes
to cycling safety.

I just wish the lobby groups would put more effort into campaigning for
measures that would /prevent/ accidents in the first place, rather than
try to force us to adopt measures that /might/ protect us after the
event. As an approach to safety, it is simplistic almost to the point
of being imbecilic and fails to address the real reasons why cyclists
die or suffer serious injuries on the road. If there was a campaign to
throw in a copy of Cyclecraft with every new bike sold, I might support
that. (Hmmm... maybe a letter to the promotional person at Halfords HQ
could be in order...)

I used to wear a helmet regularly because I just thought it was the
common sense thing to do - like you I felt they MUST offer some level
of protection... well, maybe they do, but I've come to the conclusion
that the evidence in their favour doesn't outweigh my personal
preference for riding with the wind in my hair. Fortunately, I found it
much easier to persuade my wife than you.

That said, if a compulsion law was introduced, I would most probably
start wearing a helmet again - I certainly wouldn't let it affect how
often I ride my bike because I love cycling too much.

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

You might also enjoy this:
http://www.bhsi.org/negativs.htm
- it is well written, almost persuasive, but bear in mind your own
caveat about statistics. ;-)

d.
 
"davek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> That said, if a compulsion law was introduced, I would most probably
> start wearing a helmet again - I certainly wouldn't let it affect how
> often I ride my bike because I love cycling too much.
>

I'm pro-helmet, anti-compulsion. The reason I'm anti-compulsion is that
compulsion victim-blames. What it says is that it's your fault if you die or
end up a brain-dead cabbage and you weren't wearing a helmet. No matter that
the driver has been speeding, drinking, on drugs, driven into you from
behind, opened a door on to you, cut across you on a turn... none of that
will matter. It will be, "If only..." And that is wrong. It is yet another
way to excuse poor driving standards and to give insurance companies another
avenue to wriggle out of coughing up dosh when they should be coughing up
dosh. It fails to recognise and deal with the major cause of death & injury
on our roads - poor driving standards and selfish behaviour of too many
fellow motorists. God forbid we actually had more drivers acknowledging that
having a licence is just that - a licence and a privilege - and not a
god-given right as is assumed by too many right now.

Cheers, helen s
 
wafflycat wrote:
> "davek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >
> > That said, if a compulsion law was introduced, I would most probably
> > start wearing a helmet again - I certainly wouldn't let it affect how
> > often I ride my bike because I love cycling too much.
> >
>
> I'm pro-helmet, anti-compulsion. The reason I'm anti-compulsion is that
> compulsion victim-blames. What it says is that it's your fault if you die or
> end up a brain-dead cabbage and you weren't wearing a helmet. No matter that
> the driver has been speeding, drinking, on drugs, driven into you from
> behind, opened a door on to you, cut across you on a turn... none of that
> will matter. It will be, "If only..." And that is wrong. It is yet another
> way to excuse poor driving standards and to give insurance companies another
> avenue to wriggle out of coughing up dosh when they should be coughing up
> dosh. It fails to recognise and deal with the major cause of death & injury
> on our roads - poor driving standards and selfish behaviour of too many
> fellow motorists. God forbid we actually had more drivers acknowledging that
> having a licence is just that - a licence and a privilege - and not a
> god-given right as is assumed by too many right now.

I'm the same as waffly; a helmet law would be uninforceable and would
put more riders off the road, making it worse for the rest of us; a lot
of motorists seem surprised to see us on the road as it is.
I just wish some kids (my 12yo included) would make more of an informed
decision on helmets than whether they were kwl or not.
 
in message <[email protected]>, Just zis Guy,
you know? ('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 09:36:57 +0100, Simon Brooke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You mean this one:
>>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/fe33a3fe40c59889?hl=en
>
> No, this one:
>
>
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/fe33a3fe40c59889?hl=en

.... which, oddly, happens to be exactly the same article I'd pointed
to...

> "My wife's first husband died from a head injury (after falling off a
> ladder). This is why she insists on my wearing a helmet!"

Indeed. Where does that say that he (David) thought helmet wearing was a
good idea?

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

Morning had broken, and we had run out of gas for the welding torch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Lords debate on helmet amendment (long)
Replies
18
Views
968
UK and Europe
Simon Brooke
S
R
Helmet Debate
Replies
14
Views
484
UK and Europe
Jon Senior
J
R
Helmet Debate
Replies
9
Views
490
UK and Europe
Jon Senior
J
J
Re: The Great Helmet Debate
Replies
3
Views
384
UK and Europe
burt
B
D
The Great Helmet Debate
Replies
24
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Burt
B
Top Bottom Back