Helmets

Chris Malcolm said:

It's surprising how much you can climb with your hands in
your pockets if you really try. And if allowed a strong
walking stick with a good crook you can get up a lot more
without actually placing hands on rock.

You can always use a couple of those funny walking sticks
you see people using in the mountains - ice axes I think
they call them. Just hook the crook on the holds ;-)

Tony

Gawnsoft said:

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,

I know you qualify your attribution with "(more or less)",
but this is so far on the side of less to be absurd. I
didn't write a single word of the above attribution, and
what is more, I don't believe the statement to be true. I
believe that the closest comparison out of the helmet
wearing groups to be with horse riders, but am perfectly
happy to compare children sailing dinghies and wearing life
jackets/bouyancy aids with children riding bicycles and
wearing helmets. (Neither life jackets or helmets are
compulsory, some sailing clubs insist on life jackets, some
cycling groups insist on helmets, there is anecdotal
evidence that both have saved lives, some say that both are
cumbersome, hot and uncomfortable, some claim to have been
injured as a result of both, the effectiveness of both are
questioned if not correctly fastened.) I'll leave it to
others to list the myriad of ways the two items differ.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:33:33 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden] (Chris

Malcolm) said:

Gonzalez said:

However, I will not tell children, "Don't talk to
strangers". The incidence of children being harmed by
strangers is *very* rare. If in trouble (lost, hurt etc.)
they should go to somewhere where there are lots of people
and ask (a stranger) for help.

Since they are much more likely to be injured by their
father than by a stranger, it would make much more sense
for them to avoid talking to their father.

Not true. Deliberate harm by a biological mother (usually
suffering post natal depression) is more common than
deliberate harm by a biological father. (This doesn't
include harm or injury which while deliberate was not
intensional - eg smacking, where the intension is hurt).

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:15:47 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden] (Chris

Malcolm) said:

Gonzalez said:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 10:08:23 +0100, "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-
family.com> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Gonzalez wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Have you tried running it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've walked it in summer, winter, sunshine and ice.
Running it does not mean you are running on every single
step of the way. You run where you can and don't where
you can't. That's why its a lot more energetic but not a
lot more difficult to run as to walk.

Quoted message said:

And there you have me at an advantage. I have walked it
once, Snowdon to Pen-y-pass, in summer but moderately
high winds.

Quoted message said:

I have, however, walked the Aonach Eagach in winter
conditions, and hope to walk the Cuillin in early June for
the first time. I will take a helmet.

The record for running the Cuillin Ridge is currently 3
hrs 32 mins.

I expect to take 2 or 3 days if I do it at all.

How do you run up the In Pin?

Peter Clinch said:

If helmets "aren't special" then wear one to work and see
how often anyone asks why you're doing it. Should be
basically zero if, as you say, they're not in any way
special outside in a benign environment. You could probably
get away with the hiking boots, but when you're feet have a
special smell at the end of the day you'll know why...

I wear a helmet to work daily.

Peter Clinch said:

Gloves are associated with a need for protection, from cold
or from roughness.

Hi Peter

I agree with you comment but I wear gloves because I have
very little feeling and not much strength in my right hand.
Also, my fingers on both hands tend to cramp after a while
if I don't wear gloves. Padded mits are the style I prefer
as the padding has the effect of making the size of the bars
seem larger.

Strangely, perhaps, even though I can't feel the right side
(front) brake lever particulcaly well, I have no problem
with front braking delicately.

James

Peter Clinch said:

Something like skating and downhill skiing, you *need* the
extra power because ankles can't really handle it.

Hi Peter

Agreed.

Getting back to the helmet side of things ... I'm absolutely
certain that I've fallen when skiing far more times than I
have ever fallen when riding a bike but I have never
considered wearing a helmet for recreational skiing and I'm
reasonably sure that most pro-helmet cyclists who also ski
don't wear helmets when skiing.

My second worst head injury was caused when I fell
following a pre-release on an icy mogul field. Although my
chin, face, nose and forehead looked a bit of a mess the
actual injuries were really no worse than quite serious
gravel rash. Oh, I bust a rib or several as well. Cure =
neither cough nor laugh!

I have noticed that many children, especially young ones,
wear protection when learning to ski. I wonder what the
stats comparing skiing and cycling suggest.

As a point of fact, I last skied about ten years ago on
30/04/1994, the day before Senna's death.

James

Jon Senior said:

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.

In my experience, the most common payout figure is 78%. If
the payout was 20%, people wouldn't play them.

--
Keith Willoughby flat222.orgkeithOpen ↗ Turning rebellion
into money

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:05:03 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I thought you were anti, I'm glad I was right. The
legions of the clueless, of course, refers to Fat Eric
and the Swamp Monster.

Oi!

At least he didn't insult the Honey Monster.

James

Simonb said:

Quoted message said:

that all biggish wins are well advertised.

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

Hi Simon

Indeed. However, one must bring greed into the equation. One
has to balance the probable wasting of £2.00 per week
against the very unlikely chance of winning a great deal
more. As I spend far more on wine and used to spend on
ciggies each week, I'm prepared to chuck a couple of quid
down the drain.

I've become semi-hooked on internet poker recently. I enjoy
pitting my wits against other players. However, I don't
gamble as such because I don't play for money. I merely
enjoy the game itself.

James

Keith Willoughby said:

In my experience, the most common payout figure is 78%. If
the payout was 20%, people wouldn't play them.

High 70's to low 80's was the figure I was told

Tony

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:41:48 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I believe that the closest comparison out of the helmet
wearing groups to be with horse riders

Despite evidence to the contrary and without any good
reason.

Quoted message said:

but am perfectly happy to compare children sailing dinghies
and wearing life jackets/bouyancy aids with children riding
bicycles and wearing helmets.

Despite evidence to the contrary and without any good
reason.

Quoted message said:

I'll leave it to others to list the myriad of ways the two
items differ.

The list is indeed much longer than the list of similarity
(which runs to one item: you recommend special protective
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

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

Quoted message said:

Simonb said:

Quoted message said:

that all biggish wins are well advertised.

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

Indeed. However, one must bring greed into the equation.
One has to balance the probable wasting of £2.00 per week
against the very unlikely chance of winning a great deal
more. As I spend far more on wine and used to spend on
ciggies each week, I'm prepared to chuck a couple of quid
down the drain.

You could also put it as: £2/week = about £100/year or £5000
over your lifetime => no major effect on your life (as you
say, most people waste more on other things anyway). But if
you win, it alters everything.

I have to applaud you for understanding this, especially
because of the sheer number of people who are smug about not
understanding risk/reward strategies (and often parade it in
their signatures).
--
Mark South Citizen of the World, Denizen of the Net <<Tiens!
Ce poulet a une grenade!

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

| Patrick Herring wrote:
|
| >> 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?
|
| > 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.

<devil's-advocate> They haven't made it worse and have
arguably raised awareness of safety issues in cyclists, else
why would so many no longer cycle? There are many people
alive now who wouldn't have been had they not been made
aware of the dangers of cycling. </devil's-advocate>

| 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).

<d-a> Preventing just one is sufficient reason to compel
helmets. I'll wait until the jury's in on the other aspect,
which doesn't make sense anyway. </d-a>

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

<d-a> But bikes are inherently unstable, compared to feet
and cars. You'll be telling me next that unicycles are as
easy to ride as bicycles. Cyclists have no protection around
them and travel amongst fast vehicles, unlike pedestrians
who have their own space, so the risk is more present. Gotta
be more dangerous than all other modes of road-use. </d-a>

| 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.

<d-a> Sounds like we should do both. Anyway the more people
see helmets as normal the more it won't put people off.
People ought to be made more aware of obesity generally so a
little thing like helmets won't stop them. </d-a>

I'm trying to point out that in Reason v Fear the latter has
much the best track record of winning, particularly when
Reason is mostly talking about something not existing. It's
one thing to win the argument in a committee meeting,
another to win it around the water-cooler.

I suppose I'm suggesting that as well as your sterling
efforts in getting the facts under the noses of those that
need them, there is another way of arguing the case: I think
we need banner headline sound-bites here.

For example, my own view, that helmets are on balance more
dangerous than not in urban traffic, due to driver risk
compensation, would be expressed by "Because you might think
you can get away with it", or "So you /know/ you'd kill me",
or similar.

I see a range of t-shirts in the offing: "No helmet?" on the
front, slogan du jour on the back.

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

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:43:48 GMT, [email hidden] (Patrick Herring)

wrote in message : said:

<devil's-advocate> They haven't made it worse and have
arguably raised awareness of safety issues in cyclists,
else why would so many no longer cycle? There are many
people alive now who wouldn't have been had they not been
made aware of the dangers of cycling. </devil's-advocate>

Except in Australia dna Alberta, for example, where they
have made it worse. And they have raised false awareness of
the dangers of cycling to the point wheere large numbers of
people have abandoned a safe and healthy activity.

Quoted message said:

<d-a> Preventing just one is sufficient reason to compel
helmets. I'll wait until the jury's in on the other aspect,
which doesn't make sense anyway. </d-a>

And what about the ones which may or may not have been
caused? And the fact that, by pretending they prevent almost
all injuries, you actively encourage risk compensation?

Quoted message said:

<d-a> But bikes are inherently unstable, compared to feet
and cars. You'll be telling me next that unicycles are as
easy to ride as bicycles. Cyclists have no protection
around them and travel amongst fast vehicles, unlike
pedestrians who have their own space, so the risk is more
present. Gotta be more dangerous than all other modes of
road-use. </d-a>

Which fails to explain why over half of all head injuries
are sustained due to trips and falls without the aid of a
bicycle....

Quoted message said:

<d-a> Sounds like we should do both. Anyway the more people
see helmets as normal the more it won't put people off.
People ought to be made more aware of obesity generally so
a little thing like helmets won't stop them. </d-a>

Except that the mandation causes drop in cycle use which in
and of itself reduces cyclist safety, as well as bringing
substantial other disbenefits.

Quoted message said:

I'm trying to point out that in Reason v Fear the latter
has much the best track record of winning,

Too true.

Quoted message said:

I suppose I'm suggesting that as well as your sterling
efforts in getting the facts under the noses of those that
need them, there is another way of arguing the case: I
think we need banner headline sound-bites here.

And if you can come up with some you will be very popular.

--
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

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

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 14:15:47 +0000 (UTC),

(Chris Malcolm) said:

Gonzalez said:

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 10:08:23 +0100, "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-
family.com> wrote:

Quoted message said:

>Gonzalez wrote:

Quoted message said:

>> Have you tried running it?

Quoted message said:

>I've walked it in summer, winter, sunshine and ice.
>Running it does not mean you are running on every
>single step of the way. You run where you can and don't
>where you can't. That's why its a lot more energetic
>but not a lot more difficult to run as to walk.

Quoted message said:

And there you have me at an advantage. I have walked it
once, Snowdon to Pen-y-pass, in summer but moderately
high winds.

Quoted message said:

I have, however, walked the Aonach Eagach in winter
conditions, and hope to walk the Cuillin in early June
for the first time. I will take a helmet.

The record for running the Cuillin Ridge is currently 3
hrs 32 mins.

I expect to take 2 or 3 days if I do it at all.

How do you run up the In Pin?

You don't, you run down it 🙂

Cuillins is a long day really, 2 to 3 days means either
going up and down unnessecerily, or staying over night up
there. wouldn't want to do the former, the later however
sounds positivly bonkers. IMHO of course. Oh and a helmet'll
be a waste of time, if you fall off there, concusion will be
the last of you problems. A woolie hat howerver is
obligotory. ;0)
--
.paul

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

Quoted message said:

I propose to stick to the cycling-is-as-dangerous-as-
walking point

It's the tack I've started taking too. If they really want
to get into a debate about it I can start throwing arguments
backed up by figures, but launching into the whole tirade
just seems to bore people (can't think why
:-) and the rest is completely counter intuitive so not
:really suitable for
the casual conversation, apart from maybe the 'not working
well against serious injuries anyway' bit.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:41:48 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Gawnsoft said:

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

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,

I know you qualify your attribution with "(more or less)",
but this is so far on the side of less to be absurd. I
didn't write a single word of the above attribution, and
what is more, I don't believe the statement to be true. I
believe that the closest comparison out of the helmet
wearing groups to be with horse riders, but am perfectly
happy to compare children sailing dinghies and wearing life
jackets/bouyancy aids with children riding bicycles and
wearing helmets. (Neither life jackets or helmets are
compulsory, some sailing clubs insist on life jackets, some
cycling groups insist on helmets, there is anecdotal
evidence that both have saved lives, some say that both are
cumbersome, hot and uncomfortable, some claim to have been
injured as a result of both, the effectiveness of both are
questioned if not correctly fastened.) I'll leave it to
others to list the myriad of ways the two items differ.

Woops - sorry - The attribution should be to Jon Senior, not
Gonzalez. My error when editing the thread down to the
relevant point. 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 ↗

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:19:02 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden] (Chris
Malcolm) wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

"Just zis Guy, you know?"

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:49:25 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For hill walking I wear walking boots,

Quoted message said:

But no helmet? Christ alive, man, don't you /know/ that
half of all head injury admissions are due to walking?

I often argued in the presence of a friend of mine, a fan
of cycle helmets, that walking was statistically more
dangerous to the head than cycling, especially walking down
stairs or in rough country.

I didn't know what to say when she turned up for a country
hike quite seriously wearing a cycle helmet.

Proving what a good listener she is, or how persuasive
you were! :-)

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 ↗

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:55:53 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

If helmets "aren't special" then wear one to work and see
how often anyone asks why you're doing it. Should be
basically zero if, as you say, they're not in any way
special outside in a benign environment. You could
probably get away with the hiking boots, but when you're
feet have a special smell at the end of the day you'll
know why...

I wear a helmet to work daily.

Okay, continue to wear it after you have arrived, for the
duration of your working day...</pedant>

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 ↗