Helmets

In article <[email hidden]>,
junk@raven- family.com says...

Quoted message said:

Pedal Reflectors Four are required, coloured amber and
marked BS6102/2 (or equivalent), positioned so that one is
plainly visible to the front and another to the rear of
each pedal. (exempt on pre Oct 1985 bikes) .

Can't see how thats going to be possible on the Grasshopper
(5 weeks and counting 🙁
--
.paul

If at first you don't succeed... Skydiving is probably not
the sport for you.

David Martin said:

Never ridden a bike in snowdonia though I was always
tempted to sling one onto the minibus.

Rhyd-Ddu, Snowdon Ranger and the Tourist Path are all
bridleways, as is the bottom half of the Miners' Track. You
are free to cycle any of them, although there is an
unenforceable ban on bicycles.

"JustMe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

To view an interesting AND new product used for additional
safety on motor cycle helmets please visit this site:
riderlight.comriderlight.comOpen ↗

Keep posting this [censored] and you might find the additional
safety features very handy indeed.

Patrick Herring said:

But we know some insurers now try to use an absence of a
helmet as a reduction mechanism, and that's without a MHL.
I suspect it would be much worse than "might get reduced
compensation", particularly as they could write it in as a
specific clause so it would get invoked as indicating
contributory negligence, when there was doubt as to who
caused what, even when irrelevant to the injury.

They keep trying but only in relation to head injuries AFAIK
and so far they are not having much success making it stick
in court thanks to the sterling efforts of the CTC. Insurers
can only invoke contributory negligence clauses on their own
policy holders.

Tony

Gonzalez said:

Rhyd-Ddu, Snowdon Ranger and the Tourist Path are all
bridleways, as is the bottom half of the Miners' Track.
You are free to cycle any of them, although there is an
unenforceable ban on bicycles.

Its a voluntary ban on riding at certain times and the local
cyclists do strongly request that you respect it. It is
being actively monitored and there is a real threat of a TRO
to ban bikes if the voluntary ban is disregarded. Please
read the National Parks press release - eryri-eryri-Open ↗
npa.co.uk/English/authority/press/data/popUp.php?id=9

Tony

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 22:48:02 GMT someone who may be [email hidden]
(Patrick Herring) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

There is an easy (devils-advocate) answer to that: "we
have to start somewhere and there already is a purpose-
designed helmet

Not purpose-designed for use or effectiveness while cycling
as a means of transport. Just like the flame-resistant
overalls, helmets and proper seatbelts worn while racing
cars are not designed for use when driving as a means of
transport.

Quoted message said:

familiar to cycling culture".

Not familiar to the "culture" of transport cycling.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:10:17 +0100 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

The comparison between a climber and a cyclist is probably
your best comparison to date since both are recreational
activities

Incorrect. Cycling may be a recreational activity under some
circumstances. Under other circumstances it is not.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

paul said:

Quoted message said:

Pedal Reflectors Four are required, coloured amber and
marked BS6102/2 (or equivalent), positioned so that one
is plainly visible to the front and another to the rear
of each pedal. (exempt on pre Oct 1985 bikes)

Quoted message said:

Can't see how thats going to be possible on the
Grasshopper (5 weeks and counting 🙁

chapmancentral.co.ukRVOpen ↗
LR

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

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Gonzalez said:

I don't wear gloves in my classroom - that doesn't make
gloves something special.

Your argument fails.

Gloves are associated with a need for protection, from cold
or from roughness. You don't wear them if you don't need
protection, because they are something special for those
situations when basic human construction and habit aren't
good enough. Helmets are associated with a need for
proetction. You don't wear them if you don't need
protection, because they are something special for those
situations when basic human construction and habit aren't
good enough. Cycling is not one of these situations. A
construction worker not taking one off when off-site for a
few minutes hardly counts as he'll be going back and they're
not uncomfortable enough in many situations to make it worth
the bother. Does he leave it on while drinking his tea that
evening at home? No. Why would he not, if they weren't
anything special?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Patrick Herring said:

Quoted message said:

Now give us your reasons why two groups of people engaged
in human-powered transportation, whose injury severity
ratios and head injury proportions are comparable, and
who are both most likely to die or be seriously injured
when encountering a motor vehicle, should be treated
completely differently?

Quoted message said:

There is an easy (devils-advocate) answer to that: "we
have to start somewhere and there already is a purpose-
designed helmet familiar to cycling culture". What would
you reply to that?

1. Compulsory helmet use has been tried in several places
and failed in every one.

2. Helmets also do not prevent a substantial proportion of
serious and fatal cyclist injuries, and may (on the
evidence form around the world) increase the risk of
crashing. The jury is still out on whether helmets worsen
the most serious brain injuries (which would also help
explain the failure of helmet laws).

3. There is no evidence to suggest that cycling is uniquely
dangerous or uniquery productive of head injuries.

Ultimately, if there was a universally obeyed helemt law
which delivered the Government's predictions for serious
injury savings without causing risk compensatory behaviour
or reducing the levels of cycling (and that is two very big
ifs), it could reduce the child road fatality toll by
around 1%. Home zones, traffic calming and other measures
aimed at reducing danger at source have far greater
potential to reduce risk, and as a side benefit they
encourage active travel.

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

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Vivian said:

I don't really pay much attention to statistics. In my
job, I'm a slave to stats, and I know for a fact, at
least in my case, they don't show the reality, not 100%
at least.

Just dismissing statistics is pretty daft though. If you
/really/ think otherwise, ask yourself how casinos manage to
make consistent profits.

Quoted message said:

At work (an investment bank in Canary Wharf), many times
when I get on the lift with other people, suit on, helmet
in my hand, and people tell me "you cycle to work? you're
so brave!". Brave???? Most of the people I talk to are
amazed that I have the "courage" to cycle in London. Why?
they think it's dangerous. They don't think that cycling
is dangerous per se, they think that traffic in this city
is dangerous.

Or, in other words, they are using gut reactions /instead/
of looking at statistics. If you look at the data you'll see
that they're wrong and can point them specifically at the
numbers that say so.

Quoted message said:

etc, etc. And that's what my point is: traffic, at least
in London, can be a bit dangerous sometimes (they don't
seem to know what indicators are for here!), and wearing a
helmet can protect your head if you go through a
windscreen or you go over a car and land head first on the
pavement!

It *might*, but there is no evidence it will make the
difference between a potentially lethal injury and not. They
are simply not designed to whitstand the sort of forces that
will put you through a windscreen. And if you fly over a car
you will probably not land directly on your head anyway. If
helmets were really much use in these circumstances then
we'd see lower KSI rates for helmet wearers, but we don't.

Quoted message said:

I wear a helmet, it doesn't bother me. I honestly don't
care if they are make it compulsory or not, it won't
change my life at all. But I just can't get into my head
that some kid that wants to ride a bike would be put off
it because he/she has to wear a helmet. Maybe I'm too
naive, right?

You may wish to say it's statistics, and thus you don't
believe it, but whatever the reason for it happening, it
*has happened* everywhere it's been tried. That's a fact.
Nobody foresaw a reason /why/ it would happen, but it did.
Then when it was tried somewhere else, same happened. And
then the next place. Do you see a pattern emerging? Why do
you feel the UK is different and will be exempt from such
a pattern.

As for "it won't change my life at all", you should be aware
that it is practically a universal view, held by supporters
of both "gut feeling" as well as people looking at stats,
that greater cycling numbers equates to more safety for
cyclists through lower accident rates. If the numbers go
down, as they will do if the UK followed a pattern like the
one already demonstrated in every place helmet compulsion
has been introduced, then the converse is also true. i.e.,
you will be more likely to be in an accident. That could
well change your life, possibly by ending it.

Quoted message said:

When I said in my original post that we should trust
people more, what I meant is that we should trust that
people would see the benefits of cycling (health,
environment) regardless of whether they have to wear a
helmet or not.

In the UK at the present time? Again we have historical
precedent as a very reliable guide. Such a thing certainly
isn't going to happen overnight.

Quoted message said:

I'm going to bed now. Goodnight. Vivian
-------
"We learned more from a three minute record than we ever
learned in school". No Surrender

I learned more at school about statistics, probability and
risk than I learned about it from music. You may think
"trusting your feelings" is a sound basis for public health
policy but I don't. Historical precedent and hard data from
testing helmets and finding their very serious limitations
counts for more to my mind.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Peter Clinch said:

Just dismissing statistics is pretty daft though. If you
/really/ think otherwise, ask yourself how casinos manage
to make consistent profits.

Its an interesting topic which I learnt about from an
investment banker who was doing the first casino IPO in the
US. There is a very narrow margin between taking enough off
the punter to make a profit and giving the punter enough
back in winnings to keep them playing.

Tony

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Patrick Herring said:

But we know some insurers now try to use an absence of a
helmet as a reduction mechanism, and that's without a
MHL. I suspect it would be much worse than "might get
reduced compensation", particularly as they could write
it in as a specific clause so it would get invoked as
indicating contributory negligence, when there was doubt
as to who caused what, even when irrelevant to the
injury.

They keep trying but only in relation to head injuries
AFAIK and so far

they

Quoted message said:

are not having much success making it stick in court
thanks to the

sterling

Quoted message said:

efforts of the CTC. Insurers can only invoke contributory
negligence

clauses

Quoted message said:

on their own policy holders.

Tony

which is why I found it rather odd two weeks ago to be asked
whether I was wearing a helmet by the CTC legal people. No
head injury at all, so why ask? Perhaps I'll ask my
councillor.

burt said:

Quoted message said:

which is why I found it rather odd two weeks ago to be
asked whether I was wearing a helmet by the CTC legal
people. No head injury at all, so why ask? Perhaps I'll
ask my councillor.

Probably because its easier to knock that avenue on the head
with a "yes he was" than to have to plough through arguing
it with them if you didn't.

Tony

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 11:08:37 +0100 someone who may be "burt"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

which is why I found it rather odd two weeks ago to be
asked whether I was wearing a helmet by the CTC legal
people. No head injury at all, so why ask?

Did you ask them? If so, what did they say?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number
F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK
government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

In article <[email hidden]>,
junk@raven- family.com says...

Quoted message said:

Its an interesting topic which I learnt about from an
investment banker who was doing the first casino IPO in
the US. There is a very narrow margin between taking
enough off the punter to make a profit and giving the
punter enough back in winnings to keep them playing.

But you don't have to give monet back to all the punters.
Just make sure that all biggish wins are well advertised.

Jon

Jon Senior said:

But you don't have to give monet back to all the punters.
Just make sure that all biggish wins are well advertised.

Apparently not. Unless the punter wins back more than a
certain percentage of their money recycled back to them in
winnings they move on to another game or casino. There is
only a few percentage points between what stops them moving
on and what turns a profit for the casino.

Tony

Quoted message said:

But you don't have to give monet back to all the punters.
Just make sure that all biggish wins are well advertised.

Sounds familiar. Every Wednesday and Saturday night The
National Lottery does precisely this!

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But you don't have to give monet back to all the
punters. Just make sure that all biggish wins are well
advertised.

Sounds familiar. Every Wednesday and Saturday night The
National Lottery does precisely this!

Exactly. If you ever go into a casino (Or indeed pub) which
has some of the electronic irritating, bleepy, games
machines, check the side or back of them for a label which
states their payout. It's normally less than 20%. ie. 80% of
what the punters put in goes to the operator / owner.

Jon

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:33:28 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The comparison between a climber and a cyclist is probably
your best comparison to date since both are recreational
activities which involve the production of body heat,

Why do you consider cycling to and from work 'recreational'?

Do you consider driving to and from work to be
'recreational'?

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗