Helmets

David WE Roberts said:

My perception is that I am more likely to have an accident per hour spent
cycling than per hour spent walking/strolling.

Is this not the case?

Put up a representative video of your cycling and another of your
walking/strolling on a website somewhere and we'll take it from there.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

David WE Roberts said:

Granted that if the helmet is only good for the kind of accidents
pedestrians also have then the benefits are limited.

Actually, the manufactures don't even claim they are any good for the
kinds of accidents pedestrians have.

The benefits (as demonstarted by all teh population statistics in
existence) are non-existent. You seem to have trouble grasping this
point - teh argument is not that helmets would be ineffective because
of risk compensation, or that helmets would be ineffective because of
torsional injuries, or whatever. The observation is that helmets are
ineffective. Full stop. Nothing more to say. Dramatic increases in
teh wearing of helmets do not result in detectable reductions in teh
rate of head injuries. Having noticed this, the rest is speculation
as to why. The fact that it is speculation, however, in no way
affects the observation that the things simply don't work. Since they
don't work, mandating them is stupid, and since it has other
detrimental effects, is to be resisted.

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

David WE Roberts said:

Why would I favour compulsion?
Well, mainly because of the distress and ongoing expense for the rest of
us looking after the victims.

I take it you'd prefer the greater distress an dgreater ongoing
expense of looking after a nation of obese heart-attack victims.

Well, at least that's cleared up.

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

David WE Roberts said:

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:41:15 +0000, MSeries wrote:

...... snip

Quoted message said:

I am a strong proponent of wearing high visibility clothing instead
of fashion statements.
[By fashion statements I mean everything from street cool black

(along

Quoted message said:

with no lights at night) to the latest TDF gear which looks like the
business close up (but not from a distance).] The cyclist I see
first when I am driving (day or night) is the one with the
unfashionable fluorescent yellow top.

This seems to be one of those "common-sense" arguments that have no
basis in science. You need to be seen that's all. Meeting legal
requirements is sufficient. Being decorated and lit up like a Christmas
tree on a bike adds nothing to one's safety. Could be a nice placebo
for reducing stress though.

.... snip

Quoted message said:

Why would I favour compulsion?
Well, mainly because of the distress and ongoing expense for the
rest of us looking after the victims.

Ah the old "justify-one-piece-of-social-engineering-with-another"
argument. A true nanny-statist!

You might wish to think about your universal health care system the
same way you think about private insurance. Policy holders pay for the
cost of errors and misfortunes of others.

Quoted message said:

It is not only the injured person who can
suffer long term effects, so I think that proven safety measures

should be

Quoted message said:

enforced. Always a tricky line between personal freedom and sensible
controls, and you can never find a line which pleases everybody.

Your "tricky line" is arbitrary. There is no conflict with personal
freedoms. Somebody else's business is none of yours provided they are
not infringing on your freedoms. (Suggest you read John Stuart Mill).
Don't blame the patient if choice is removed and you are forced into a
universal (virtually monopolistic) health insurance system where
everyone must pay the premiums. Talk to nanny and demand to be excused.

Quoted message said:

In the same way, I think extreme arguments about such things as
wearing helmets can prejudice the public against the more
reasoned arguments, which is what got me into this discussion
in the first place.

It's like one man's terrorist as another man's freedom fighter. I
consider your attempted justification of compulsory helmet use not a
reasoned argument but an extreme one.

Quoted message said:

So boringly middle of the road, really.

Yes, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
....

David WE Roberts said:

[I am wondering why horse riders and white water kayakers both wear
hardish hats to protect themselves (both of which are a lot more sturdy
than the average cyclists helmet) without the same kind of issues. Is it
because the main requirement for a cyclist is ultra light weight and
breathability, which runs contrary to strong structure?]

When I did a bit of kayaking, I was learning to kayak. I'd got to the
point where I could Eskimo roll in the wild and hand roll in the pool.
So, not very experienced, then. I went to Matlock and hit the white
water (sic), rolled upside down, and spent the next fifty yards
headbutting rocks underwater as I tried to get the damn paddle into the
right position to roll up. :-)

Kayakers tend to be water-cooled so heat isn't an issue. Nor is the
convenience thing - it's not something you need to keep putting on and
taking off. The ones I've seen look as though their construction
favors penetration resistance rather than shock absorption, but I'm not
aware of any studies into modes of kayaker injuries.

R.

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:06:44 +0000 (UTC), Richard
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Kayakers tend to be water-cooled so heat isn't an issue.

Just as well.

You can't have your kayak and heat it.

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

Response to Just zis Guy, you know?:

Quoted message said:

the
substantive point that no country in the world has achieved better
cyclist safety through increased helmet use.

It's tempting to save a little typing and just call it the elephant in
the room. <sigh>

--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

Response to Just zis Guy, you know?:

Quoted message said:

The last time I was injured falling, my bike was seventy
miles away at the time.

OMG! I know recumbents can be fast, but that's *impressive*! ;-)

--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

Patrick Herring said:

David WE Roberts <[email hidden]> wrote:
...
| What I think you have just proposed is that a defensive cyclist should
| ride erratically with plenty of wobbles and swerving because then cars
| will give a wider berth and the cyclist will therefore be safer.

I have actually done that. Medium width country A road, twisty but
reasonable visibility; heard/felt some [censored] in a Cosworth 4x4
wanking it along at 70+. When I saw him in the mirror I deliberately
wobbled slightly, he slammed on the brakes and passed me at a
reasonable 30ish. This was in the days before helmets were an issue
either way, in case you were wondering.

Nice to know the theory of BIG is backed up by real world evidence..

It always perplexes the car drivers of my acquaintance whne I speak of
'herding traffic'. They don't understand just how much their actions can
be controlled by a bike, a bit like a dog herding cattle.

...d

In article <[email hidden]>,

Mark McN said:

Quoted message said:

The last time I was injured falling, my bike was seventy
miles away at the time.

OMG! I know recumbents can be fast, but that's *impressive*! ;-)

Hey, I managed four times that distance, and mine's an upright!

--
Nick Kew

Quoted message said:

Why would I favour compulsion?
Well, mainly because of the distress and ongoing expense for the rest
of us looking after the victims.

Distress and ongoing expenses? Cycle helmets are desinged to prevemt minor
injuries to the head that wreck your ride, not your life!

Quoted message said:

My perception is that I am more likely to have an accident per hour
spent cycling than per hour spent walking/strolling.

Um, per hour is a little unfair - cycling to the shops,for example, might
take 15 minutes on the bike, but an hours worth of walking. Figures per
mile would be better, although it would make cycling look worse.

Oh, or less better anyway :-) :

<URL:http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7250.xls>

David WE Roberts said:

...In the same way, I think extreme arguments about such things as wearing helmets can prejudice the public against the more reasoned arguments...

Dave R

Focusing on the use of the words"extreme argument" in the statement above - David would have us accept his description that what was described was extreme rather than say "moderate argument" or some other suitable description without a built in value judgement in the adjective chosen. It's so easy - any expression of a point of view which you may disagree with can easily be attacked by simply labelling it as extreme and relying on the general public disdain for anything "extreme".

The point I'm getting at is the tenditious use of calling any argument that you may disagree with as "extreme" is really just another dirty tricks to dismiss perspectives and points of view which may well have some (perhaps limited) merit.

Roger

David WE Roberts said:

So - (for the anti-helmet brigade) if safety helmet design was revised and a helmet of proven worth was produced, would you wear it or would you still be against it?

Dave R

David naively assumes that it is possible to revise helmet design in order to produce "a helmet of proven worth". Alas this shows that he has no appreciation of the state of affairs regarding the huge amount of research that has gone into helmets in the past few decades, and that the helmets that are produced are subject to limitations and design trade-offs that are simply not able to be overcome by following what David naively suggest - revising the design to improve their effectiveness - can't be done.

The question David asks is if helmets were able to be made more effective (protective) would we wear them?

Personally I'd be prepared to say that if motorists and pedestrians would be prepared to accept that they need to wear them and be prepared to accept legislation requiring them to wear them - if this were to happen - I would be prepared to say "that'll do it - I'm prepared to wear one if we can get past this hypocrisy." But I feel pretty confident that that'll never happen - wonder why?

If everyone could see fit to take a dose of the medicine that they're so keen to prescribe for cyclists - well, let's pursue that argument.

Someone remind me please - what is hypocrisy?

Roger

David WE Roberts said:

Again I say that pushing the more extreme arguments to support a position where there have been a good range of reasoned arguments can only weaken the overall position.

Dave R

You are either Steven Scharf or PK and ICMFP.

Who says this is an extreme argument?

Who says that anyone is "pushing" it? Seems to me that it is being "expressed" not "pushed" and since when did expressing a concern or point of view get to become "pushing it"?

I'm sure that any argument that we may care to present would fall into the category that David WE Roberts would claim is extreme, or not reasoned or some other dismissive.

This type of argument seems to keep cropping up - I'd suggest that the suggestion that we shouldn't present arguments because they will "only weaken our position" is a pitifuly thinly disguised attempt to get us to suppress and not voice our arguments and opinions. I say Bollocks!

Roger

David WE Roberts said:

I can think of some notable differences:

(1) The cyclist is generally travelling much faster than the pedestrian.

(2) The cyclist is mingling in with the traffic.

(3) The cyclist is generally more unstable than the pedestrian when
starting/stopping.

Well then tell that to the DfT's casualty figures, which take all that
into account because they reflect what actually happened, as opposed to
what you think might happen.

Quoted message said:

Walking is, after all, something we are born to and evolved to do over
millenia. Cycling is a fairly recent invention.

Repeat first paragraph.

Quoted message said:

I would be interested to know the statistics for pedestrian head injuries
that are alluded to - are these only to do with RTAs or for all types of
accidents including falling down the pub steps?

The DfT are publicly available online: For example, go to dft.gov.uk
and search on "Accidents involving pedestrians". These give you road
accidents including adjoining footways. For example, in 1995 76 men and
44 women died falling on the pavement, with head injuries the most
common factor for the men but lower limb injuries more common amongst
the women.

Quoted message said:

Are they only for people outside their homes, or does it include accidents
in the home?

Those are separate. But all your arguments for why cyclists should wear
helmets also apply to coming down stairs

Quoted message said:

My perception is that I am more likely to have an accident per hour spent
cycling than per hour spent walking/strolling.

I think you're missing the primary point here: You are probably more
likely to have an accident coming down stairs per hour than walking or
strolling, so is that an argument to wear a lid to use the stairs?
"More dangerous than" is not a useful measure if it's pretty safe to
start with, or there's no end of things your logic /should/ have you
wearing a helmet for.

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/

David WE Roberts said:

There you go again - if this forum (or at least the helmet threads) is to
be taken as representative then the general trend is for naive and/or
inexperienced cyclists to wear helmets (because they believe they are a
safety measure), but experienced cyclists to decide not to wear them
because they feel that they can do more harm than good.

I have not seen anything to demonstrate that the vast majority of
inexperienced riders do not wear helmets, but that the vast majority of
experienced riders do.

I don't really see it as relevant either way. The important factor is
that people need an accurate view of what they can really expect of them
and that the logic applied to their use scales from other similar places.

Quoted message said:

Only if you can prove this can you draw a logical conclusion that helmeted
riders are given less consideration than helmetless riders.

It's only a single anecdote, granted, but it seems you clearly didn't
read the thread last week where someone was reprimanded for not wearing
a helmet because it meant the driver felt she couldn't squeeze past
safely and had to wait behind the bike.

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/

David WE Roberts said:

On helmets, I have always worn one because I believed that it would
provide some protection to my head if I fell off. I never expected
protection from high speed impact, but (from my very limited experience of
falling off) I thought it would protect me from the more likely low speed
impact where I slithered to a stop then fell off.

There are a couple of points here. First, you assume you're likely to
hit your head, but you're not if you "slither to a stop and fall off"
because you have reflexes that protect your head. I go MTBing from time
to time with the mindset that if I don't part company with the bike at
some point I'm not really trying, and I usually fall off (while wearing
a helmet), and despite my helmeted head being bigger and heavier and
thus more likely to take a blow I have never yet banged it while on the MTB.
Second, your argument can also be applied to using stairs. So do you
wear a helmet to use stairs? If not, why not?

Quoted message said:

I am now concerned, but think that on balance I will continue to wear a
helmet because of the limited protection in slow speed impacts. Reinforced
by my friends experience when she was knocked off and hit her head.

As above, this argument can be applied to using the stairs. Anecdotal
evidence is dangerous to use for reasoning. At the moment you might
want to avoid train travel based on anecdotes of people being injured,
yet it is still much safer than a car.

Quoted message said:

Given the posted evidence of the limited benefits of helmets, I am against
compulsion in their current form.
Were there a proven helmet design which gave significant reductions in the
number of permanent head injuries for cyclists then I would tend to favour
compulsion
[I am wondering why horse riders and white water kayakers both wear
hardish hats to protect themselves (both of which are a lot more sturdy
than the average cyclists helmet) without the same kind of issues. Is it
because the main requirement for a cyclist is ultra light weight and
breathability, which runs contrary to strong structure?]

No, it's the amount of danger they're subjected to. I am a kayaker,
mainly sea but sometimes surf and WW. I don't wear the helmet in the
sea tourer because I'm very unlikely to hit my head. I've never done so
in hundreds of miles. My surf days number far less in terms of both
occasions and overall time spent, yet I've had my (helmeted) head
bounced off the bottom on more than one occasion, and I'd also suggest
that being knocked senseless while upside down in a boat in an
environment one cannot breathe is a damn site more serious than being
knocked senseless in the air. My WW trips are probably still in single
figures, but I've had a helmet actually physically dragged off my head
against the bottom of the river Tummel. If you're in white water it'll
be shallow and if you go over you will be subjected to rocks passing at
speed that you cannot really do anything about. Control of a river boat
is a far less precise thing than control of a bike on the road and
you're doing something deliberately difficult. Comfort is almost a
total non-issue in WW kayaking, but sea touring, where it's very much an
issue, nobody wears one outside of temporarily for caves and surf
landings. WW really doesn't compare in any way to utility road cycling.
Horse riders are higher up than cyclists and taking a naturally much
bumpier ride. Bikes don't get spooked or have their own agendas, horses
do. Equestrian doesn't require a level of personal input to power the
horse, so heat is less of an issue.

So you're comparing very disparate things. More disparate than utility
cyclists on the roads and people getting about by using stairs for
example, and stairs kill and seriously injure people every year yet
there's no move to wear protective clothing on them.

Quoted message said:

Why would I favour compulsion?
Well, mainly because of the distress and ongoing expense for the rest of
us looking after the victims.

As before, exactly the same arguments can be applied outside of cycling,
so why don't you apply them there? Motor vehicles, pedestrians, stair
users could all benefit in terms of reducing absolute risk from wearing
suitable safety equipment, so it is inconsistent to single out cycling.

But beyond that, nobody currently /is/ making this mythical better
helmet, so why not keep the discussion where we are now?

Quoted message said:

not support any laws which will not be realistically enforced - including
most of the recent 'crowd pleasers' from Blunkett such as mobile phone
whilst driving bans.

But within hours of that law coming into force someone had been done for
it. The most important thing about such a law is its effect on the
culture. As mobile 'phone use in cars becomes perceived as selfish and
dangerous it will be reduced, just as drunk driving has been. That one
was a good law AFAICT.

Quoted message said:

[Apart from when cycling, where I try to be thoughtful towards car drivers
and find they are generally thoughtful in return].

I find that too. If I cycle well I'm likely to be safe. So why
distract the safety agenda by bringing up helmets as the #1 point for
being safe? And this is often done: look at a safe cycling poster such
as the DfT's X-Ray series and see what it says about anything else if
you want evidence.

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/

Ian Smith said:

David WE Roberts said:

Why would I favour compulsion?
Well, mainly because of the distress and ongoing expense for the rest of
us looking after the victims.

I take it you'd prefer the greater distress an dgreater ongoing
expense of looking after a nation of obese heart-attack victims.

Well, at least that's cleared up.

regards, Ian SMith

Now, now - stop being childish.

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:38:55 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Exhibit A: TRL report 549, 2003 "A key finding which should be noted
was that, when commenting on the scenarios it was usually the
behaviour of the cyclist that was criticised – no matter how small the
misdemeanour. Few links were made between the cyclist’s behaviour and
any external influences that could be affecting their choice of
behaviour; i.e. the respondents’ comments indicated that they thought
the cyclist’s actions were inherent and dispositional behaviours. In
contrast, the motorists’ misdemeanours were excused or justified in
terms of the situational influences. As this tendency seemed to
continue across the groups and the individual depth interviews and was
unprompted, it is unlikely that group dynamics had any significant
effect on this finding. [...] This aligns with the psychological
prediction of targeting of members of an ‘out group’"

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Bloody_cyclists

Hang on a minute - I think we may be in agreement here :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In the same way, I think extreme arguments about such things as wearing
helmets can prejudice the public against the more reasoned arguments,
which is what got me into this discussion in the first place.

Ah. So how about the publicly funded charity which in order to
promote a helmet law uses an "estimate based on under-reporting" of
fatal child cyclist head injuries which is five times the correct
number, although they have been told what the correct number is? Mind
you, according to them, if helmets were made compulsory for children
the saving in healthcare costs alone would be a third more than the
NHS spends on all treatment for children aged 5-15.

Nowhere have I supported such 'pressure groups' or their methods.

I would prefer that cycling friendly groups did not behave in a similar
manner.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So boringly middle of the road, really.
[Apart from when cycling, where I try to be thoughtful towards car drivers
and find they are generally thoughtful in return].

Exhibit B: Cyclecraft. Specifically, the "primary riding position,"
aka the middle of the road.

err... isn't the middle of the road where the white line goes? (assuming
single carriageway?
Not AFAIK the recommended riding position :-)

Quoted message said:

Guy