Helmet Debate

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Chris Slade wrote:
>Peter Clinch wrote:
>>
>> 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?

More votes to be gained from being seen to be doing something about
safety than there are to be lost? (If it was just about reducing injury,
or they had an obsessive desire to make things compulsary for the sake
of it, they'd logically be arguing for walking and car passenger compulsary
helmets too. Though I suspect it's just that common sense takes over in
the non-cycling cases they have more experience of.)

 

[David Bentley]

In message <[email protected]>, Simon
Brooke <[email protected]> writes
>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?
>
Thanks Simon and others for coming to rescue me. I was beginning to
become slightly paranoid ;-)

I had to lautgh when I read this, taken from www.bhsi.org/negativs.htm
which davek posted a link to:-

"We still see messages on helmets in Internet newsgroups that fall under
the heading "helmet wars." There are fewer now, but they persist. They
are mostly to or from a group of about a dozen people who oppose helmet
laws, and are always delighted to find a new victim unaware of the long
debate."


I didn't realise that mentioning my thoughts after having a really nasty
fall would

a) Be misinterpreted so much.

b) Start a virtual flame war.

For the record, I am not pro-compulsion but respect anyone's wishes to
wear one (and if I could get away with it, would not wear one when
cycling in the dry, miles from any cattle grids/level crossings!)

--
David Bentley

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:38:04 +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...

Indeed. There is something funny going on with my browser (or maybe
my web cache). Time to go to Firefox in the office, methinks...

>> "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?

Nowhere - but I didn't say there was. I was referring to the ladder
incident, and to anecdotal evidence, value thereof.

But maybe I wasn't. Maybe I am just tired, confused and going senile.
Perhaps I should see a doctor. On second thoughts, maybe not, given
yesterday's bit of foolishness...

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?]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:29:02 GMT, David Bentley <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Thanks Simon and others for coming to rescue me. I was beginning to
>become slightly paranoid ;-)

Yes, well, I was having a bad day, OK? Sorry. There, I said it.

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

 

[Patrick Herring]

| "davek" <[email protected]> wrote:
....
| 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.

'Twas <[email protected]> (http://tinyurl.com/dad2e) in this
ng.

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

 

[Patrick Herring]

| Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| 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

Me I'll just put up with the effects of civil disobedience.

| 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.

Though that noise is presumably from wanting to take greater risks in
TTs and so get better times, rather than a wish to impose magic hats on
all cyclists in all circumstances.

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

 

[Not Responding]

David Bentley wrote:
> I had to lautgh when I read this, taken from www.bhsi.org/negativs.htm
> which davek posted a link to:-
>
> "We still see messages on helmets in Internet newsgroups that fall under
> the heading "helmet wars." There are fewer now, but they persist.

There are fewer because a consensus has been reached that helmets are an
abomination. It's only when an uninformed newcomer pitches up and comes
out with the bhit newthink that we have to go through it all again.

 

[Not Responding]

Tony Raven wrote:
> 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.
>
>

I, on the other hand, am anti-helmet. Not that I force my decision on
others (my children even own helmets that they occasionally choose to wear).

I am anti-helmet because (a) they are of no value in preventing injury,
(b) they put people off cycling and (c) all voluntary use of helmets is
a vote for compulsion.

 

[Not Responding]

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
>

But it surely will. I think the one outcome from the Australian law was
not the blindly hoped for increase in safety but a massive reduction in
the amount of cycling.

One of the biggest hinderences to my utility cycling is having to store
or carry lights and waterproofs at my destination. It's irritating
enough for me to get a taxi. If I have to wear a helmet for every trip,
I expect my utility cycling will rapidly decrease. If that's true for
me, I'm sure it'll be even more true for someone with a car sat on the
drive.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At Fri, 01 Jul 2005 18:08:38 +0100, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Not
Responding <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

>There are fewer because a consensus has been reached that helmets are an
>abomination. It's only when an uninformed newcomer pitches up and comes
>out with the bhit newthink that we have to go through it all again.

Hey, I was that uninformed newcomer once, y'know ;-)


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

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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At Fri, 01 Jul 2005 18:20:06 +0100, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Not
Responding <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

>I think the one outcome from the Australian law was
>not the blindly hoped for increase in safety but a massive reduction in
>the amount of cycling.

AIUI all six jurisdictions where helmet use rose by forty percentage
points or more due to compulsion share the following:

* substantial reductions in cycling
* substantial enforcement costs (much more than forecast)
* no reduction in head injury rate (some stayed steady, some
increased, depending on the scale of reduction in cycling).

In no case were the forecast benefits, or anything even close,
realised.

An article on this is in press at present, hopefully it will be
published soon.


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

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

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Patrick Herring
('[email protected]') wrote:

> | Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> | 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.
>
> Though that noise is presumably from wanting to take greater risks in
> TTs and so get better times, rather than a wish to impose magic hats
> on all cyclists in all circumstances.

It is said (and I don't particularly doubt that this is true) that our
insurance requires it, and that my refusal to wear one exposes other
officers of the club to financial risk.

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

;; It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
;; Voltaire RIP Dr David Kelly 1945-2004

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:05:42 +0100, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Simon
Brooke <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

>It is said (and I don't particularly doubt that this is true) that our
>insurance requires it, and that my refusal to wear one exposes other
>officers of the club to financial risk.

Even if it were, insurers surely exist who do not make such
requirements. CTC events are not, I think, subject to such a
requirement.


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

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

 

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> 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.
>

They can't stop you cycling on a public road. It could be just a
coincidence that it was at the same time and place that they were
holding a time trial.

--
Tony

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

 

[Colin McKenzie]

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

I would keep cycling without a lid. If the fines got too onerous I'd
probably construct and wear something that looks like a helmet from a
distance but doesn't boil my head.

I doubt if I would be allowed to carry on doing cycle training.

Colin McKenzie

 

[James Annan]

Not Responding wrote:

> I, on the other hand, am anti-helmet. Not that I force my decision on
> others (my children even own helmets that they occasionally choose to
> wear).
>
> I am anti-helmet because (a) they are of no value in preventing injury,
> (b) they put people off cycling and (c) all voluntary use of helmets is
> a vote for compulsion.

Me too. Plus wearing a helmet is f#$%ing awful in Japan in the summer.
It was only when I gave up wearing mine last summer that I realised just
how much extra irritation and stress it caused. I'm sure I am a safer
rider without it.

Now, after a year of incident-free cycling, my stoker has decided to
join me - which is a shame, cos by wearing a helmet she was protecting
me (Crook and Feikh).

I do wear one when MTBing, mostly to fend off the branches.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

 

[Patrick Herring]

Chris Slade <[email protected]> wrote:
|
| 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?

It puzzles me too. In http://www.bhsi.org/negativs.htm, which David
Bentley reminded me of in a post today, there's a section answering
"Helmets are not effective except in minor crashes" which contains "If a
rider is hit by a car or hits a brick wall at 30 mph and the head takes
a direct blow at that speed, no helmet will prevent injury or death".

This suggests to me that there are people (I don't know if BHIT see it
this way) who regard the 14mph+ situation as essentially beyond
solution, so they turn to what can be done about other situations. If
they're right about that then I can see why they think the best that can
be done is eliminating all those cuts and bruises, although putting
people off cycling is still a massively out-of-proportion own-goal. They
also claim that the head impact speed in a 14mph+ collision is likely to
be less than 14mph, to which bllluuuurrgghh...

But I don't think they're right to ignore the 14mph+ range. I think one
can influence it greatly by appearing maximally vulnerable to drivers
and by helping to create a general road culture which doesn't put people
at increased risk.

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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 00:55:29 +0100, Patrick Herring <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I don't think they're right to ignore the 14mph+ range. I think one
>can influence it greatly by appearing maximally vulnerable to drivers
>and by helping to create a general road culture which doesn't put people
>at increased risk.

But BeHIT don't care about that. As long as every cyclist wears a
helmet they don't care if injury rates stay the same, or if a fair
proportion of cyclists simply give up riding.

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

 

[Buck]

On 07/02/2005 09:34:18 "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 00:55:29 +0100, Patrick Herring <[email protected]>
> wrote:

>> I don't think they're right to ignore the 14mph+ range. I think one can
>> influence it greatly by appearing maximally vulnerable to drivers and by
>> helping to create a general road culture which doesn't put people at
>> increased risk.

> But BeHIT don't care about that. As long as every cyclist wears a helmet
> they don't care if injury rates stay the same, or if a fair proportion of
> cyclists simply give up riding.

Are they still excluding us trikers?

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:25:17 GMT, Buck
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> But BeHIT don't care about that. As long as every cyclist wears a helmet
>> they don't care if injury rates stay the same, or if a fair proportion of
>> cyclists simply give up riding.

>Are they still excluding us trikers?

No, tricycles are included, even toy tricycles ridden in playgrounds.
Unicycles are OK, though. Perfectly safe, no risk of head injury at
all.

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