Helmets

David WE Roberts said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

ya think? ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Nowhere have I supported such 'pressure groups' or their methods.
I would prefer that cycling friendly groups did not behave in a similar
manner.

There is a world of difference between listing all the possible
arguments, including those based on moderate or weak evidence (and
that does *not* include risk compensation itself, which is robustly
supported), and posting actual lies, which is what we are up against.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

FCGVO "road" obv. In this case: carriageway.

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 WE Roberts said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Now, now - stop being childish.

Not really. There is plenty of evidence that promotion and compulsion
of helmets deters utility cycling, and there is also evidence
suggesting that utility cycling is uniquely beneficial to your health.
On the other hand, there is no good evidence (that I know of) that
cycling is either uniquely dangerous or productive of head injuries.

Your "effective helmet" theoretical scenario does not address this
fundamental problem, that helmet use can only be promoted (on the
available evidence) by exaggerating the risks of what is actually a
low-risk activity.

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

Mark McN said:

Response to David WE Roberts:

Quoted message said:

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

<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. It is not only the injured person who can
suffer long term effects, so I think that proven safety measures should be
enforced. Always a tricky line between personal freedom and sensible
controls, and you can never find a line which pleases everybody. I also do
not support any laws which will not be realistically enforced

And what if a more efficient helmet for cycling was also more efficient
for pedestrians, motorists, stair-climbers and so on? The reasons you
give for compulsion would then apply just as much, if not more so, to
them. Cycling is not at all uniquely dangerous.

I'm afraid I'm almost certainly doing you an injustice, but it sounds
rather as if you'd be in favour of compulsion for cyclists because it's
politically more feasible to remove freedoms from unpopular minorities.
That is no sort of reason for reducing anybody's freedom.

I think you may be - good of you to make the point :-)

My view is that if the action has a positive benefit then there is an
argument for it.

Just because it is not applied to all people does not reduce its benefit
to a target segment of the population.

It can reduce the perceived fairness but then we all realise that there is
no point in mandating something that is not feasible to implement.

The world is not a fair place (especially where politics are concerned).

Far more lives could be saved by banning (for example) smoking but this is
politically unacceptable (for all the wrong reasons) at the moment.

I thought I had said:

"If compulsory helmet wearing could be proved to save lives then on
balance I would be in favour".

To me this is not a move to "remove freedoms from an unpopular minority".

If the evidence (as suggested many times) is that compulsory helmet
wearing would not save lives then I am against.

If (and I am drifting well away from expected reality here) helmet wearing
for cyclists showed such a reduction in deaths and injuries that it became
accepted as a serious safety device, and it was then realised that a
particular vulnerable segment of the population (e.g. toddlers and very
old people) were at even greater risk than cyclists from head injuries,
then the wearing of helmets could be proposed for some pedestrians. As
benefits were shown, this could spread to everyone wearing a helmet :-)

As a matter of fact, high risk pedestrians (e.g. some epileptics) already
wear helmets because they can have a fit and fall and bang their heads.
Not very commonly seen, but I have seen a few.

The problem is that if you take this to the logical conclusion we would
all live in bungalows with padded walls, footpaths would be barriered off
from roads and all the pavements and barriers padded, everyone would have
to wear a full body suit with air filters, all our food intake would have
to be approved as fit for our physique and lifestyle etc. etc.

Skydiving, bungee jumping, white water rafting? Nah, too risky!

So the test should be 'can you improve safety and quality of life without
a serious reduction in personal freedom'?
[With the underlying proviso that you could actually pass the legislation]

To me IF AND ONLY IF helmet wearing could meet this test would I be in
favour of compulsion.

Cheers

Dave R

P.S. do the smoking groups ask you to smoke as well, so that smoking will
not be banned? Wouldn't be surprised :-)

David WE Roberts said:

My view is that if the action has a positive benefit then there is an
argument for it.

So when will you start arguing for crashmats to be installed at the
bottom of staircases and for pavements to have the same surfaces as
children's play areas. There might well be a positive benefit, just
look at the casualty figures, which are comparable to cycling!

Quoted message said:

If (and I am drifting well away from expected reality here)

Well why bother doing that, when we're faced with actual reality, right
here and now?

Quoted message said:

As a matter of fact, high risk pedestrians (e.g. some epileptics) already
wear helmets because they can have a fit and fall and bang their heads.
Not very commonly seen, but I have seen a few.

Thus showing that particularly high risk individuals can benefit. But
you haven't said anything that shows cyclists to be high risk
individuals as a group.

Quoted message said:

The problem is that if you take this to the logical conclusion we would
all live in bungalows with padded walls, footpaths would be barriered off
from roads and all the pavements and barriers padded, everyone would have
to wear a full body suit with air filters, all our food intake would have
to be approved as fit for our physique and lifestyle etc. etc.

Well, quite.

Quoted message said:

So the test should be 'can you improve safety and quality of life without
a serious reduction in personal freedom'?
[With the underlying proviso that you could actually pass the legislation]

So, again, if helmets are okay for cyclists, why not pedestrians? They
don't cross any boundaries of freedom that cyclists don't.

Quoted message said:

To me IF AND ONLY IF helmet wearing could meet this test would I be in
favour of compulsion.

And would you be in favour of mandating them for people walking? If
not, why not?

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/

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:51:04 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

You seem to be picking on the incidental arguments and ignoring the
substantive point that no country in the world has achieved better
cyclist safety through increased helmet use.

No, I am not ignoring this - I consider this to be a very serious,
reasoned argument supported by scientific research as posted here.

This argument alone should be sufficient (although we all suspect it may
not be) to squash any attempts to make helmet wearing compulsory.

Quoted message said:

There are all sorts of
evidence. The evidence that drivers may behave differently around
cyclists with and without helmets is relatively weak - in as much as
we have no proof of either magnitude or sign of the difference - but
it is unlikely that their behaviour will be entirely uninfluenced.

[If I understand this correctly, you are conceding that (possibly) drivers
may give more consideration to helmeted cyclists?]

Quoted message said:

Guy

This is the point that I am trying to get across - using relatively weak
arguments which have no statistical support clouds the issue and detracts
from the main argument(s).

If you can say "Helmets don't save lives - we have the statistics to prove
it" that is a clear and straightforward argument.

If you add a weak and unprovable argument then your opponent will
naturally target the area of weakness, and use this to discredit the other
arguments by association.

This makes the overall position seem much weaker, and reduces the
effectiveness of the stronger arguments.

That is ALL I am trying to say!

Cheers

Dave R

Rich said:

"David WE Roberts" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:57:42 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

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.

OK, here's a reasoned argument: nowhere that has introduced mandatory cycle
helmet laws has seen any reduction in risk to cyclists, and at least one
huge study showed an increase in cyclist deaths and injuries with increased
helmet wearing - all good, peer-reviewed research which has not been
challenged.

Almost all, if not all, the research showing massive benefits from
helmet-wearing by cyclists has been shown to be false in practice, and most
of them were very small scale, short-term and have been peer-reviewed and
found to contain serious errors.

Which do you believe? and why do you seem to keep promoting cycle helmets?
do you sell them or something?

See my response to Guy.

I am NOT promoting compulsory cycle helmet use.

I am NOT doubting the research as posted here.

I am saying that the focus should be on the scientific studies, and not on
unprovable assumptions and opinions which can cloud the issue and detract
from the main argument.

"David WE Roberts" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:08:27 +0000, Mark McN wrote:

I think you may be - good of you to make the point :-)

My view is that if the action has a positive benefit then there is an
argument for it.

Just because it is not applied to all people does not reduce its benefit
to a target segment of the population.

It can reduce the perceived fairness but then we all realise that there is
no point in mandating something that is not feasible to implement.

The world is not a fair place (especially where politics are concerned).

Far more lives could be saved by banning (for example) smoking but this is
politically unacceptable (for all the wrong reasons) at the moment.

I thought I had said:

"If compulsory helmet wearing could be proved to save lives then on
balance I would be in favour".

To me this is not a move to "remove freedoms from an unpopular minority".

If the evidence (as suggested many times) is that compulsory helmet
wearing would not save lives then I am against.

If (and I am drifting well away from expected reality here) helmet wearing
for cyclists showed such a reduction in deaths and injuries that it became
accepted as a serious safety device, and it was then realised that a
particular vulnerable segment of the population (e.g. toddlers and very
old people) were at even greater risk than cyclists from head injuries,
then the wearing of helmets could be proposed for some pedestrians. As
benefits were shown, this could spread to everyone wearing a helmet :-)

As a matter of fact, high risk pedestrians (e.g. some epileptics) already
wear helmets because they can have a fit and fall and bang their heads.
Not very commonly seen, but I have seen a few.

The problem is that if you take this to the logical conclusion we would
all live in bungalows with padded walls, footpaths would be barriered off
from roads and all the pavements and barriers padded, everyone would have
to wear a full body suit with air filters, all our food intake would have
to be approved as fit for our physique and lifestyle etc. etc.

Skydiving, bungee jumping, white water rafting? Nah, too risky!

So the test should be 'can you improve safety and quality of life without
a serious reduction in personal freedom'?
[With the underlying proviso that you could actually pass the legislation]

To me IF AND ONLY IF helmet wearing could meet this test would I be in
favour of compulsion.

Cheers

Dave R

P.S. do the smoking groups ask you to smoke as well, so that smoking will
not be banned? Wouldn't be surprised :-)

As far as I'm aware there has been no improvement in saving lives where
helmet compulsion has been implemented. This evidence is widely available
and has been quoted on this group times innumerable to mention. It seems
therefore that your basic premise - if it saves lives make cyclists wear a
helmet - is based on information gathered from speculative studies rather
than real world results.

Julia - who wears a helmet sometimes in the intersts of marital harmony.

you know? said:

David WE Roberts said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Now, now - stop being childish.

Not really. There is plenty of evidence that promotion and compulsion
of helmets deters utility cycling, and there is also evidence
suggesting that utility cycling is uniquely beneficial to your health.
On the other hand, there is no good evidence (that I know of) that
cycling is either uniquely dangerous or productive of head injuries.

Your "effective helmet" theoretical scenario does not address this
fundamental problem, that helmet use can only be promoted (on the
available evidence) by exaggerating the risks of what is actually a
low-risk activity.

As I say - ONLY if it is a provable benefit.

On the subject of obesity - I think it is childish to imply that I am in
support of obesity if I raise questions over cycling helmets.

This is another example of the weak argument which detracts from the
strong arguments.

Also probably highly misleading as cycling (though effective) may not be
the only or the best way to tackle the obesity problem. Eating less may be
an alternative? A brisk walk is also reported to be very effective and
doesn't require the level of commitment and expenditure that cycling
requires.

Cheers

Dave R

David WE Roberts said:

I am NOT promoting compulsory cycle helmet use.

But some people are...

Quoted message said:

I am NOT doubting the research as posted here.

And they do doubt it (or just ignore it)...

Quoted message said:

I am saying that the focus should be on the scientific studies, and not on
unprovable assumptions and opinions which can cloud the issue and detract
from the main argument.

And they are using emotive shroud waving and asking how can it
/possibly/ be the case that cycle helmets don't help? And since they
will not listen if you just say, "we don't know, but look at the
figures" and Mr. and Mrs. J. Public follow their lead in demanding to
know how this can be so then there is little one can do except outline
some of the possibilities.

Have a look in the CTC Forum at
http://www.ctcforum.org.uk/MesReplist.aspx?bcid=7&id=10602

"JS" at the end comes across as a reasonable person looking to get
sensible answers, but I've had to go to quite serious lengths to point
out that knowing /why/ the figures don't get better with helmet use is
of less importance than the fact that they don't in itself.

But "JS" is probably better informed and more willing to listen than
many members of the general public. We are not dealing with completely
sensible matters here!

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/

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:43:32 +0000, JBB wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

As far as I'm aware there has been no improvement in saving lives where
helmet compulsion has been implemented. This evidence is widely available
and has been quoted on this group times innumerable to mention. It seems
therefore that your basic premise - if it saves lives make cyclists wear a
helmet - is based on information gathered from speculative studies rather
than real world results.

Julia - who wears a helmet sometimes in the intersts of marital harmony.

My premise is precisely that.

IF it saves lives.

I have not said that it does save lives, or supported the studies claiming
this.

Current status seems to be that helmets don't (overall) save lives.

So my position is that I wouldn't support compulsion.

David WE Roberts said:

Also probably highly misleading as cycling (though effective) may not be
the only or the best way to tackle the obesity problem. Eating less may be
an alternative?

Doesn't give you any exercise and people already have the opportunity
but don't take it.

Quoted message said:

A brisk walk is also reported to be very effective and
doesn't require the level of commitment and expenditure that cycling
requires.

But a brisk walk will generally not do you anything but get you in a
brisk walk. OTOH most of my personal exercise is based on doing things
I'm going to do anyway: going to the dump, getting the shopping,
visiting friends, etc. Utility cycling is highly effective both as
exercise and getting things done. And it's a damn site cheaper than
getting the same things done by car, even if you've already got the car
and have yet to buy the cycle.

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:

Quoted message said:

You seem to be picking on the incidental arguments and ignoring the
substantive point that no country in the world has achieved better
cyclist safety through increased helmet use.

Quoted message said:

No, I am not ignoring this - I consider this to be a very serious,
reasoned argument supported by scientific research as posted here.
This argument alone should be sufficient (although we all suspect it may
not be) to squash any attempts to make helmet wearing compulsory.

Indeed - we all suspect it might not be. And not without
justification.

So we fall back on: "here is a long list of reasons this might not be
a good idea."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are all sorts of
evidence. The evidence that drivers may behave differently around
cyclists with and without helmets is relatively weak - in as much as
we have no proof of either magnitude or sign of the difference - but
it is unlikely that their behaviour will be entirely uninfluenced.

Quoted message said:

[If I understand this correctly, you are conceding that (possibly) drivers
may give more consideration to helmeted cyclists?]

No, the point is that drivers will react in a different way to
helmeted cyclists. Some people suggest that the change will be for
the worse, based on personal experience (a notoriously poor guide),
and suggest some reasons why that might be. These reasons may apply
to some or fewer drivers; others may react in a different and possibly
opposite way.

Since this is merely included by way of a "have you thought through
all the implications" pointer, the appropriate test is plausibility.
A lot of us find it plausible based on our experience. Your
experience may vary, as they say.

Quoted message said:

This is the point that I am trying to get across - using relatively weak
arguments which have no statistical support clouds the issue and detracts
from the main argument(s).

Unless they are at the end of a very long list of arguments, and
included to ensure that people realise that the issue is vastly more
complex than the Liddites would have you believe.

Quoted message said:

If you can say "Helmets don't save lives - we have the statistics to prove
it" that is a clear and straightforward argument.

But counter-intuitive; it is necessary to support it by detailed
reasoning.

Quoted message said:

If you add a weak and unprovable argument then your opponent will
naturally target the area of weakness, and use this to discredit the other
arguments by association.

If they are incapable of logic, yes ;-)

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 7/12/04 1:21 pm, in article [email hidden],

Just zis Guy said:

Quoted message said:

If you add a weak and unprovable argument then your opponent will
naturally target the area of weakness, and use this to discredit the other
arguments by association.

If they are incapable of logic, yes ;-)

Well, that is what significantly large proportion of the population?

(Pick a numebr between 'most' and 'almost all'.)

...d

"JBB" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Julia - who wears a helmet sometimes in the intersts of marital harmony.

Whatever turns him on... ;-)

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

David WE Roberts said:

Quoted message said:

Your "effective helmet" theoretical scenario does not address this
fundamental problem, that helmet use can only be promoted (on the
available evidence) by exaggerating the risks of what is actually a
low-risk activity.

Quoted message said:

As I say - ONLY if it is a provable benefit.

No, *regardless* of whether there is a provable benefit. There is no
possible doubt that helmets are better specified for pedestrian
injuries than cyclist injuries, and pedestrians are more at risk per
unit exposure, so however effective helmets might be there is another,
much larger and more deserving group to target first.

Except, of course, that when they tried walking helmets for children
(in Japan) it failed to reduce injuries. Amazingly.

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 said:

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 18:35:10 -0000, "Jeff A" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

All I'm saying, in my example is that the helmet reduced the injury
to my head. It wasn't a mild wallop. It was13 stone of me hitting a
wall on my head at ~20mph. I was groggy after that hence the visit
to A&E.

This is what doctors call a "brain injury" and was supposed to have
been prevented by the helmet :-)

Guy

WTF was that smiley for? I've had a brain injury. I've never worn a helmet
to prevent an injury, just to reduce a potential one. I've spent this pm in
A&E saw brain specialists, saw my GP on Monday and was in in A&E on Friday.
All agreed that wearing a helmet reduced my injury. I've got concussion.
That's all besides a few cuts and bruises that will heal.

Troll?

Regards :-P

Jeff A said:

WTF was that smiley for? I've had a brain injury. I've never worn a helmet
to prevent an injury, just to reduce a potential one. I've spent this pm in
A&E saw brain specialists, saw my GP on Monday and was in in A&E on Friday.
All agreed that wearing a helmet reduced my injury. I've got concussion.
That's all besides a few cuts and bruises that will heal.

Reduced your injury from what?

I would be very surprised if A&E brain specialists and GPs were
sufficiently knowledgeable materials experts on polystyrene and its
impact-reducing and energy-absorbing properties to be accurate about how
much it reduced your concussion.

R.

Jeff A said:

WTF was that smiley for? I've had a brain injury. I've never worn a helmet
to prevent an injury, just to reduce a potential one. I've spent this pm in
A&E saw brain specialists, saw my GP on Monday and was in in A&E on Friday.
All agreed that wearing a helmet reduced my injury. I've got concussion.
That's all besides a few cuts and bruises that will heal.

Ouch! best wishes for a speedy recovery.

It is often assumed by the ex-medical students, that becasue you were
wearing a helmet it must have done some good and couldn't have hurt.

Given the large number of MHSML stories, one must presume that somewhere
there is the statistics equivalent of dark matter, tens, if not hundreds
of people having injuries to their head to balance out the statistics so
the population figures match what is actually seen.

Noone ever posts[1] saying 'My helmet made my HI worse', so why are the
stats for whole populations not showing this surely significant effect
on the severity of HI?

...d

[1] Not strictly true. I know someone who was told by the doc who
examined her that the helmet probably contributed to the neck injury.

David Martin said:

Jeff A said:

WTF was that smiley for? I've had a brain injury. I've never worn a
helmet to prevent an injury, just to reduce a potential one. I've
spent this pm in A&E saw brain specialists, saw my GP on Monday and
was in in A&E on Friday. All agreed that wearing a helmet reduced my
injury. I've got concussion. That's all besides a few cuts and
bruises that will heal.

Ouch! best wishes for a speedy recovery.

Thanks :-)

Quoted message said:

It is often assumed by the ex-medical students, that becasue you were
wearing a helmet it must have done some good and couldn't have hurt.

Given the large number of MHSML stories, one must presume that
somewhere there is the statistics equivalent of dark matter, tens, if
not hundreds of people having injuries to their head to balance out
the statistics so the population figures match what is actually seen.

Noone ever posts[1] saying 'My helmet made my HI worse', so why are
the stats for whole populations not showing this surely significant
effect on the severity of HI?

..d

[1] Not strictly true. I know someone who was told by the doc who
examined her that the helmet probably contributed to the neck injury.

Fair enough, I've also heard stories about people being injured because they
were wearing seat belts in cars. It won't stop me wearing a seatbelt in a
car or a helmet on a bicycle.

Cheers,

Jeff.

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 19:50:17 -0000, "Jeff A" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All I'm saying, in my example is that the helmet reduced the injury
to my head. It wasn't a mild wallop. It was13 stone of me hitting a
wall on my head at ~20mph. I was groggy after that hence the visit
to A&E.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is what doctors call a "brain injury" and was supposed to have
been prevented by the helmet :-)

Quoted message said:

WTF was that smiley for?

WTF do you think? You just posted an account of how your helmet
failed to save you from a hospital visit due to brain injury,
precisely what the studies tell you they prevent, and that's supposed
to show me they /work/?

Quoted message said:

I've had a brain injury. I've never worn a helmet
to prevent an injury, just to reduce a potential one. I've spent this pm in
A&E saw brain specialists, saw my GP on Monday and was in in A&E on Friday.
All agreed that wearing a helmet reduced my injury. I've got concussion.
That's all besides a few cuts and bruises that will heal.

Right, so a bunch of former medical students have all agreed that had
the exact same crash happened without the helmet, you might have been
worse injured than you were.

Where we differ is in the emphasis we place on the two halves of that
sentence.

According to a very large body of evidence, helmets make no
significant difference to head injury rates at the population level.
So either the doctors are wrong and helmets make no measurable
difference, or the doctors are right but cyclists respond to the
perceived extra protection by taking more risks.

As proposed by Mok et. al, in fact. And Adams. And Hilllman.

Quoted message said:

Troll?

YA John D'oh & ICMFP :-)

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