Helmets

Mark Thompson said:

Brain for Sale. Faulty so suitable only for spare
parts/dog food.

You are Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr and ICMFP ;-)

Tony

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 15:03:11 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We do not know because there are no mileage figures, but
we do know that for adults the pedestrian is actually
somewhat more likely, per mile, to suffer serious injury;
by extension, per /mile/ cycling is substantially safer,
since cyclists travel faster.

Quoted message said:

The infirm rarely cycle, but comparatively frequently
fall over.

Few children are infirm.

Quoted message said:

Why not just look at cyclists. Per mile walked by a regular
cyclist with per mile cycled by a regular cyclist. Which do
*you* think has a greater risk of head injury.

It's impossible to say, because the figures are incomplete.
But I do know that, numerically, far more children suffer
head injuries from walking than form cycling; taking only
the transportational component, the same applies to child
pedestrians vs. child road cyclists. We also know that there
is no known case where cyclist safety has improved with
increased helmet usage (the Government admits tihs).

Of couse, I am not the one proposing special protective
measures for one activity alone. It is up to those who
propose that helmet wearing is particularly desirable, to
prove their case. The fact that they appear to be unable to
do this without using known inaccurate statistics appears to
me to indicate an underlying weakness in their case.

It is also up to them (and in this case you) to prove that
cycling is uniquely dangerous. Using actual figures, not
appeals to "common sense", please.

Quoted message said:

If children walk five times or more further than they cycle
then the risk is higher for the child cyclist.

But we don't know. All we know is that the head injury rates
and severity ratios are comparable. Actually we really know
somewhat more than that: what we know is that the primary
cause of injury is motor traffic, that only a small
proportion of those injured by motor traffic are cyclists,
that only a proportion of those suffer head injuries; that a
small proportion of those injuries might be mitigated by a
helmet (one in ten is the best we can hope for, according
tot he Government). A back-of-an-envelpe calculation shows
that a universally obeyed helmet law which did not reduce
levels of cycling or cause balancing behaviour on the part
of cyclists (two very big "if"s), might reduce child road
fatalities by as much as 1%. In the context of a target to
reduce child road fatalities by 50%, that is insignificant.

We also know that absolutely no research has been done on
the relative merits of various mechanisms for improving
child cyclist safety. For example, earlier, more widespread
roadcraft training; maintenance initiatives and enforcement
of laws on pavement cycling, lighting and so on. Troy Parker
was in violation of two separate laws; the "solution"
proposed by BeHIT is to introduce another in the pious hope
that (a) he would obey that one, having failed to obey two
others, and
(b) that the helmet would Save His Life [tm] in a crash with
a motor vehicle, which is highly dubious.

Quoted message said:

Again you come at me as if I am campaigning for compulsory
helmet wearing. I am not.

You are pushing helmets. You require of those who oppose
mandation that we advance credible evidence. The evidence is
sufficiently credible that just about everybody on this
newsgroup is convinced, even those like me who started from
the opposite position. Much of the evidence which proposes
benefit has proved on closer inspection to be bunk. So just
as you require of those of us who oppose the law a
reasonable standard of evidence, I require of you that you
advance some credible evidence to back your assertion that
cycling is uniquely dangerous.

Quoted message said:

I aim to encourage children to cycle and to wear helmets. I
also encourage cycle training, and along with my letter to
children promoting a cycle ride saying "don't forget your
helmet", I wrote "Please check your tyres, brakes and gears
(if you have any) on Sunday morning before we set off." So
I also promote cycle maintenance.

And what relative importance do you place on these? That is
my fundamental problem with the entire pro helmet campaign
(not just the pro compulsion camapign). It is difficult to
accuse them of a lack of perspective because nobody has even
bothered to assess what the relative benefits are. It is as
if non-head injuries, and all non-cyclist injuries, are of
no importance. Just like the 1970s road "safety" campaigners
who thought the roads would be "safer" if pedestrians were
segregated into their underpasses and muggerdromes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So why do we "need" safety equipment when engaging in an
activity which is not dangerous?

I don't think of it as safety equipment any more than I
consider a waterproof for walking safety equipment.

If it's not safety equipment, what is it for? Keeping the
rain off? It's not raining today. Keeping the sun off? A
sunhat is better. What is a cycle helmet if it is not safety
equipment?

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 15:02:33 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have no high horse to sit on.

That's only because you and your high horse have dug
yourselves such a deep hole to sit in

Another five points to Tony there :-D

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 15:17:23 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'd have no problem at all with motorists and their
passengers being compelled to wear helmets.

And do you think this would yield the same kind of safety
benefits as compulsory seat belt use did? [1]

[1] this may be a trick question.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 15:15:09 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I suspect that we agree on more than we disagree. The same
is possibly true with Tony & Guy. Guy's website shows him
on a three person tandem with his two children wearing
helmets, and his "Bike Safe" page is full of common sense,
although I'd like to see helmets and their correct wearing
included in the bullet points.

As soon as you provide some evidence for prioritising it
equally with the other things there, it'll be included.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 15:18:52 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I guess a lot of people on the ng don't like the way that
they are often promoted by implying or stating that they
will save your life, when what they really should be
saying is that they may save you from being hurt.

Quoted message said:

Why don't they say than then?

The Liddites? Because saying "you *must* wear a helmt to
prevent a nasty cut or bruise int he event of falling off"
sounds much less compelling than "you *must* wear a helmet
or there is a good chance that you will end up a vegetable
for the rest of your life". Although the latter is Clearly
Bollocks it is the theme of not only much of BeHIT's
literature, but their sick promotional video as well.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

On 24 Apr 2004 14:36:41 GMT, Mark Thompson
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I suppose that if there is an abscence of a significant
positive effect on populations increasing their helmet use,
the argument that helmet promotion is a waste of money/time
seems justified, particularly if that money could have been
spent on something that would have had an impact.

Correct.

Quoted message said:

Of course, this ignores the positive, proven and
universally acknowledged benefits of helmets to prevent
many 'minor' injuries.

Is it really worth expending significant resources (e.g.
£400,000 of Government money to BeHIT) on promoting
something which prevents minor injuries, when the method of
promotion includes as an integral component the portrayal of
cycling as uniquely dangerous? There is no doubt that many
trivial injuries would be prevented if all children wore
gloves, elbow and knee pads when playing. Why is there no
official Government policy that no child may be shown
playing nunless wearing gloves, elbow and knee pads?

The whole pro-helmet argument is founded on the idea that
significant numbers of serious injuries could be saved.
There is simply no creidble evidence to support this. Once
that is accepted, as the Government has now effectively done
(through its statement that it knows of no case where
cyclist safety has improved through increased helmet wearing
rates) the entire house of cards surely collapses.

The foundations of the pro-helmet lobby are a very small set
of reports from people who had already made up their minds.
Thompson, Rivara and Thompson is /still/ quoted by most pro-
helmt campaigners (see Brake press release elsewhere). This
report is known to be fatally flawed. Not just a bit off
target, but completely invalid. BeHIT and their fridns are
still passing it out as gospel, because to them it is
gospel. It is the Received Truth of the True Believers and
part of their creed. Trust me, as a churchgoer I recognise
an article of faith when I see one ;-)

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 15:20:12 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And do you wear a helmet whenever you are around other
poeple? You /do/ know that more children suffer head
injury due to assault than due to cycling, don't you?

Quoted message said:

Does that imply that we should not promote safe cycling?

Non sequitur.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:00:52 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

So because I promote safe cycling I should also promote
safe interpersonal interaction? I fail to see the logic.

You promote safe cycling as well as helmets? Good.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

"Vivian" <[email hidden]> wrote: ...
| > Also wondered what you think about how dangerous cycling
| > is compared to other things (walking etc).
|
| I don't consider cycling dangerous; I consider drivers,
| especially in a city like London, bloody dangeours!!

Me2. My judgement, knowing that cycle helmets won't save me
from drivers' worst mistakes, is that presenting myself
with maximum vulnerability is my best defence, so I
purposely don't wear a helmet in town cycling.

--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK anweald.co.ukanweald.co.ukOpen ↗

you know? said:

Now, to return to reality, given that walking and cycling
have comparable levels of risk, where is your justification
for singling out cyclists for these special protective
measures?

May I mention cricket? Yes? Thank you!

Batsman facing fast bowler = probably needs to wear
helmet Batsman facing spin bowler = probably doesn't need
to wear helmet

Close in fielder = probably needs to wear helmet Deep
fielder = probably doesn't need to wear helmet

Regular cyclist = probably doesn't need to wear helmet
Downhill racer, MTBer actually MTBing or rider in fast-
moving pelaton
= probably does need to wear helmet

James

"Gonzalez" <[email hidden]> > >

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cyclists are not singled out for being the only people
to use helmets.

snip snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How about child car occupants? Most fatal head injuries
involve impacts of a scale beyond the capacity of a
Formula 1 helmet, but at leasta child cra occupant could
practically wear a Formula 1 helmet. And more children
suffer head injuries as car passengers than as road
cyclists.

I'd have no problem at all with motorists and their
passengers being compelled to wear helmets.

Now I'm really confused. You have no problem that car
occupants should be forced to wear helmets, but you don't
think that cyclists are being singled out?

Give my regards to the inhabitants of whatever planet
you live on.
--
cheers

Rich

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 13:54:55 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

This year my first aid kit came out once. The mother
applied the first aid. She wiped the wound with an
antiseptic wipe and applied the plaster to a small
laceration on the finger of the child. He wasn't wearing
a helmet.

Appalling. Haven't these people read Thompson, Rivara and
Thompson? Helmets prevent most upper limb injuries as
well, you know.

Yes, but only if you are rich and white. He may have been
black and poor.

--
cheers

Rich

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:41:04 +0100,

Gonzalez said:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:16:17 +0100, "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-

family.com said:

Gonzalez said:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:48:46 +0100, "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-
family.com> wrote:

> ROFL

I'm pleased to have amused you. Perhaps you could agree
or disagree that a cyclist/rider comparison is fairer
than an cyclist/pedestrian comparison, stating your
reasoning.

Let me see:

Riders heads are 8ft off the ground Cyclists
....er...aren't

6 feet.

How do you work that out?

I would have thought 8 ft is about right.

If a nag is 15 hands (about average for normal horses) that
is 5 foot high at the withers. So you will be sitting just
below 5ft off the ground. You then have to add in the height
of the rider from bum to head - say another 3ft.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden] "The Lord is my
shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:55:32 GMT, Andy Leighton <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Riders heads are 8ft off the ground Cyclists
....er...aren't

6 feet.

How do you work that out?

I'm 6' 1" tall. When cycling, sitting upright, my head is
about 6' off the ground.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:49:25 +0100,

Gonzalez said:

For hill walking I wear walking boots, for cycling I wear
a cycle helmet. There's nothing special with either.

But you don't have to wear walking boots for hill walking.
Many people walk in trainers, wellies or even sandals.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden] "The Lord is my
shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

you know? said:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 15:03:11 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We do not know because there are no mileage figures, but
we do know that for adults the pedestrian is actually
somewhat more likely, per mile, to suffer serious injury;
by extension, per /mile/ cycling is substantially safer,
since cyclists travel faster.

Quoted message said:

The infirm rarely cycle, but comparatively frequently
fall over.

Few children are infirm.

But you mentioned adults.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why not just look at cyclists. Per mile walked by a
regular cyclist with per mile cycled by a regular cyclist.
Which do *you* think has a greater risk of head injury.

It's impossible to say, because the figures are incomplete.
But I do know that, numerically, far more children suffer
head injuries from walking than form cycling; taking only
the transportational component, the same applies to child
pedestrians vs. child road cyclists. We also know that
there is no known case where cyclist safety has improved
with increased helmet usage (the Government admits tihs).

Of couse, I am not the one proposing special protective
measures for one activity alone. It is up to those who
propose that helmet wearing is particularly desirable, to
prove their case. The fact that they appear to be unable to
do this without using known inaccurate statistics appears
to me to indicate an underlying weakness in their case.

It is also up to them (and in this case you) to prove that
cycling is uniquely dangerous. Using actual figures, not
appeals to "common sense", please.

Quoted message said:

If children walk five times or more further than they
cycle then the risk is higher for the child cyclist.

But we don't know.

What does common sense tell you?

Quoted message said:

All we know is that the head injury rates and severity
ratios are comparable. Actually we really know somewhat
more than that: what we know is that the primary cause of
injury is motor traffic, that only a small proportion of
those injured by motor traffic are cyclists, that only a
proportion of those suffer head injuries; that a small
proportion of those injuries might be mitigated by a helmet
(one in ten is the best we can hope for, according tot he
Government). A back-of-an-envelpe calculation shows that a
universally obeyed helmet law which did not reduce levels
of cycling or cause balancing behaviour on the part of
cyclists (two very big "if"s), might reduce child road
fatalities by as much as 1%. In the context of a target to
reduce child road fatalities by 50%, that is insignificant.

We also know that absolutely no research has been done on
the relative merits of various mechanisms for improving
child cyclist safety. For example, earlier, more widespread
roadcraft training; maintenance initiatives and enforcement
of laws on pavement cycling, lighting and so on. Troy
Parker was in violation of two separate laws; the
"solution" proposed by BeHIT is to introduce another in the
pious hope that (a) he would obey that one, having failed
to obey two others, and
(b) that the helmet would Save His Life [tm] in a crash
with a motor vehicle, which is highly dubious.

Quoted message said:

Again you come at me as if I am campaigning for compulsory
helmet wearing. I am not.

You are pushing helmets. You require of those who oppose
mandation that we advance credible evidence. The evidence
is sufficiently credible that just about everybody on this
newsgroup is convinced, even those like me who started from
the opposite position. Much of the evidence which proposes
benefit has proved on closer inspection to be bunk. So just
as you require of those of us who oppose the law a
reasonable standard of evidence, I require of you that you
advance some credible evidence to back your assertion that
cycling is uniquely dangerous.

I have never claimed that cycling is uniquely dangerous, or
even suggested such a thing.

When children go sailing I encourage them to wear a life
jacket, when they go cycling I encourage them to wear a
helmet. Hell, you are even given instruction on how to put
on a life jacket - even if flying from Kashgar to Urumqi
when the nearest open water big enough to crash into is 1000
miles away!

It's about risk reduction. Although life jackets on planes
does seem a little absurd. I don't know of a single life or
injury which has been saved on a passenger airline in the
last three decades by a life jacket.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I aim to encourage children to cycle and to wear helmets.
I also encourage cycle training, and along with my letter
to children promoting a cycle ride saying "don't forget
your helmet", I wrote "Please check your tyres, brakes and
gears (if you have any) on Sunday morning before we set
off." So I also promote cycle maintenance.

And what relative importance do you place on these? That is
my fundamental problem with the entire pro helmet campaign
(not just the pro compulsion camapign). It is difficult to
accuse them of a lack of perspective because nobody has
even bothered to assess what the relative benefits are. It
is as if non-head injuries, and all non-cyclist injuries,
are of no importance. Just like the 1970s road "safety"
campaigners who thought the roads would be "safer" if
pedestrians were segregated into their underpasses and
muggerdromes.

If it helps, here's an extract from my letter to the
children (I prefer to address the letter to the children
than to their parents so the children can take more
responsibility.) The letter is based on a risk assessment of
the cycle ride.

=========

All along the Thames footpath/cycleway there is a fence
between the path and the river, in some places it is
possible to squeeze through the fence or climb under it
or over it. It is very important that you don't. The
River Thames has very strong currents and if you fall in
you will probably be pulled under the water before anyone
can help you.

Please dress sensibly. You should wear bright comfortable
clothes, but please remember that as you cycle you may get
hot and want to take some off. You will need a small
rucksack (or panniers) to hold your packed lunch, a bottle
of water, any spare clothes and an anorak. Don't forget your
cycle helmet!

You, or the adult looking after you, should bring a puncture
repair kit and a bicycle pump which fits your bicycle.
Please check your tyres, brakes and gears (if you have any)
on Sunday morning before we set off. It is a long walk home
if something goes wrong with your bike and you can't fix it!

=========

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So why do we "need" safety equipment when engaging in an
activity which is not dangerous?

I don't think of it as safety equipment any more than I
consider a waterproof for walking safety equipment.

If it's not safety equipment, what is it for? Keeping the
rain off? It's not raining today. Keeping the sun off? A
sunhat is better. What is a cycle helmet if it is not
safety equipment?

OK, maybe it is safety equipment. I'd still prefer to refer
to my helmet as part of my cycling equipment - like my pump,
my lights and my water bottle.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 18:12:13 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'm 6' 1" tall. When cycling, sitting upright, my head is
about 6' off the ground.

So, lower than when you are walking. Get that walking helmet
on your head /now/ :-D

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

burt said:

"Gonzalez" <[email hidden]> > >

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Cyclists are not singled out for being the only people
>to use helmets.

snip snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How about child car occupants? Most fatal head injuries
involve impacts of a scale beyond the capacity of a
Formula 1 helmet, but at leasta child cra occupant could
practically wear a Formula 1 helmet. And more children
suffer head injuries as car passengers than as road
cyclists.

I'd have no problem at all with motorists and their
passengers being compelled to wear helmets.

Now I'm really confused. You have no problem that car
occupants should be forced to wear helmets, but you don't
think that cyclists are being singled out?

Give my regards to the inhabitants of whatever planet
you live on.

Having sold my car I have little interest in any laws that
are passed on motorists and/or their passengers.

Just zis Guy said:

Quoted message said:

It's impossible to say, because the figures are
incomplete. But I do know that, numerically, far more
children suffer head injuries from walking than form
cycling; taking only the transportational component, the
same applies to child pedestrians vs. child road cyclists.

I do hope that you do not use such ideas in you letters to
ministers etc. the logic is so flawed as to be risible.

The proportion of children who cycle and the time they cycle
is trivially small compared to the number who walk and the
time they walk. the risk per hour for cycling children could
be enormously higher than for walking children and there
would still be, numerically, "far more children suffer(ing)
head injuries from walking than form cycling"

If you want to convince the wider community the use of stats
by bhit is flawed and deceitful, you had best ensure that
your own use of stats is clear and correct. If you in turn
use stats that can be argued about then your criticism of
their use is devalued.

pk