Helmet Debate

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At Tue, 05 Jul 2005 18:41:25 +0100, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Simon
Brooke <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

>>>However, I think I can say with fair confidence that one reason there's
>>>no detectable improvement in casualties given helmet wearing is that
>>>the amount of protection offered by a helmet in a traffic-speed impact
>>>is at best so small as to be lost in statistical noise.

>> I think that is uncontroversial.

>It clearly isn't. BHIT would controvert it extremely strongly, and I
>think you'll find they'd have most of the less informed public on their
>side.

Ah, but these things are culturally constructed...


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

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

 

[Mike Causer]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 13:03:27 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> That used to be me, too. But these days I find that I am just as likely
> to hop on the Brom without adding gloves, coat, hat or anything else I
> wasn't already wearing.

Do people point at you and snigger when you go to the post-office in
dressing gown and slippers?



Mike

 

[Tony Raven]

Chris Slade wrote:
>
>
> I presume it means:
>
> The "great goal" is to get mandatory helmut use. After that, they have no
> goal.
>

After that their goal will be to ban cycling on safety grounds after
finding the head injury rates stay stubbornly unchanged.

--
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 Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:30:12 +0100, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Tony Raven
<[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:

>> The "great goal" is to get mandatory helmut use. After that, they have no
>> goal.

>After that their goal will be to ban cycling on safety grounds after
>finding the head injury rates stay stubbornly unchanged.

That's not funny.


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

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

 

[Chris Eilbeck]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:

> in message <[email protected]>, davek
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> Mark Thompson wrote:
>>> IMO this puts 'em up there with track mitts. Great at what they
>>> do but not essential wearing.
>>
>> Track mitts - or any other kind of suitable gloves - are up there
>> with shoes in my book. Yes, you /can/ cycle without them, but I
>> very rarely do, if I can help it.
>
> They're way above helmets in my book. I feel /very/ unsafe on a bike
> without them - even though I haven't had a hand injury in a fall for
> years.

I agree. I always wear gloves and it feels very wrong to ride without
them.

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck

 

[MartinM]

James Annan wrote:
> 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.

I think that this stance is as extreme as pro-compulsion. You are
suggesting that helmet wearers are forcing compulsion; they are not, at
least not voluntarily. TPTB may take this as a sign of evidence for
compulsion but most helmet wearers are more concerned with their own
safety than making any kind of political statement (and I am well aware
that many think helmet wearers are more at risk of injury). Millions of
cyclists either hate or feel no benefit in wearing the things and that
is why compulsion is not the way to go, but the fact is that millions
do wear them with no desire to force their wishes on those who don't.

 

[James Annan]

MartinM wrote:

>
> James Annan wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> I think that this stance is as extreme as pro-compulsion.

No, I would never want to _compel_ anyone to not wear a helmet. I would
_prefer_ it if fewer people did, as it would reduce the risk of an MHL
being passed.

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

 

[davek]

Guy wrote:
> That used to be me, too. But these days I find that I am just as
> likely to hop on the Brom without adding gloves, coat, hat or anything
> else I wasn't already wearing.

Oh, so you have a Brompton, do you? I don't recall you mentioning that
before. ;-)

d.

 

[davek]

Patrick Herring wrote:
> But they're also great at reducing the fear of RTAs. Not the risk, just
> the fear.

That sounds to me like a very bad reason for wearing one - if you fear
a traffic accident, you should not place your faith in something that
is not designed to protect you from such an event.

d.

 

[Ian Smith]

On 5 Jul 2005 23:58:02 -0700, davek <[email protected]> wrote:
> Patrick Herring wrote:
> >
> > But they're also great at reducing the fear of RTAs. Not the risk, just
> > the fear.
>
> That sounds to me like a very bad reason for wearing one - if you fear
> a traffic accident, you should not place your faith in something that
> is not designed to protect you from such an event.

Unless teh person is unreasonably afraid of RTAs.

If someone won't ride a bike at all, because it's 'too dangerous', but
slapping some polystyrene on their head means they are out enjoying
cycling, then that's of benefit, surely?

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

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Just zis Guy,
you know? ('[email protected]') wrote:

> At Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:30:12 +0100, message
> <[email protected]> was posted by Tony Raven
> <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:
>
>>> The "great goal" is to get mandatory helmut use. After that, they
>>> have no goal.
>
>>After that their goal will be to ban cycling on safety grounds after
>>finding the head injury rates stay stubbornly unchanged.
>
> That's not funny.

But probably true.

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

;; this is not a .sig

 

[davek]

Ian Smith wrote:
> If someone won't ride a bike at all, because it's 'too dangerous', but
> slapping some polystyrene on their head means they are out enjoying
> cycling, then that's of benefit, surely?

Of course. Whatever it takes to get more cyclists on the road is fine
by me.

Just don't let /feeling/ safer lead you to believe it's OK to take more
risks, or neglect other aspects of safety (such as personal competence
at handling a bike, mechanical fitness of the bike, and attention to
the rules of the road).

The reason for my concern at Patrick's comments was that if he feels
vulnerable without a helmet, he should continue to feel vulnerable even
when he is wearing a helmet. (Though he should also understand that
cycling is not an inherently unsafe activity, and that feelings of
vulnerability are useful because they serve to heighten the
self-preservation instinct.)

d.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 5 Jul 2005 23:58:02 -0700, "davek" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> But they're also great at reducing the fear of RTAs. Not the risk, just
>> the fear.

>That sounds to me like a very bad reason for wearing one

I have a sneaking suspicion that was Patrick's point.

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

 

[dkahn400]

Chris Slade wrote:
> Patrick Herring wrote:
>
> > "dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > |
> > | Patrick Herring wrote:

> > | > But what's in it for them, in the longer term? Maybe they
> > | > want to make some political capital, but they're not really
> > | > angry young politicians on the make.
> > |
> > | For them there is no longer term beyond the great goal.
> >
> > Eh?
>
> I presume it means:
>
> The "great goal" is to get mandatory helmut use. After that, they
> have no goal.

That is what I meant, yes. Of course once the goal is achieved that
will change but for now they will do or say anything to get an MHL
passed. After all, it will save lives. It's a clear moral duty which
overrides all other moral considerations including telling the truth,
and other long term considerations are simply irrelevant.

--
Dave...

 

[davek]

Guy wrote:
> I have a sneaking suspicion that was Patrick's point.

Ah. Now he sees.

d.

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Chris Slade <[email protected]>typed


> 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?

Angela Lee, BHIT's founder is a nurse who has had a 12-year-old cyclist
die from a head injury, in her arms.

She believes this kid would still be alive if a helmet had been worn.

Therefore, all kids should wear a helmet, right?

I am tempted to quip about nurses' intellects...

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

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

David Bentley <[email protected]>typed

> 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!)

Unfortunately, just wearing a helmet might be a silent vote for
compulsion as the guvmint may introduce compulsion when wearing levels
exceed a certain threshold...

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

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

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

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

So was I...

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

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Mark Thompson <[email protected]>typed


> No no no. What they see about the Xmph situation is with a helmet it's X-
> 12mph. So they think a crash with helmet at 20mph becomes a crash at 8mph.

> Could somone post some physics?

Lbh pna'g grnpu culfvpf gb n ahefr...

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

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

audrey <[email protected]>typed


> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 10:09:45 GMT, Mark Thompson
> <[email protected]> wrote:


> >IMO this puts 'em up there with track mitts. Great at what they do
> >but not
> >essential wearing.

> but track mitts Saved My Life! or at least saved my palms from some
> nasty grazing, so now I make my son and my partner wear them, too.

There is 'No Spare Skin on the Hand' (basic axiom of Plastic Surgery) so
track mitts can save you from skin loss & plastic surgery. Great! Beter
than helmet and MUCH more compact.

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