Helmets

"Vivian" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

I know two cases in which the absence of a helmet costed 2
lives; one is 6 feet under and the other is a vegetable
plugged to a respirator. The latter is 17 years old, left
like that by a hit and run - with a stolen car, but that's
not the issue now. I use a helmet myself, doesn't bother
me. But I'm an adult. The law will be targeting under
16's, i.e. kids. And I still think it's just for
protection, really.

You *don't* know that a helmet would have protected these
two unfortunate people! Cycle helmets are weak, flimsy
lids that only cover a small part of the head and are
frequently poorly secured, impairing the limited
protection they afford.

Being hit by a fast-moving car *way* exceeds the design
parameters of a cycle helmet.

Quoted message said:

I got to admit that I'm quite surprise by the controversy
surrounding this!

I'm afraid that is the fate of the newbie who does not
lurk a while.

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

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

Quoted message said:

Vivian wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Somebody made a mistake in the registry, apparently. Or
at least that's what my parents told me when I
complained about my name being a male one!!

Quoted message said:

No such problems with my name. Guy André Chapman. Guy as
in bloke, André from the greek andros or bloke, chap as in
bloke and man as in bloke. No danger of gender confusion
here ;-)

I *hope* you don't suffer gender dysphoria...

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

RogerDodger said:

when Gonzalez spouts off the statement above I am inclined
to suspect that he is but a LTSA parrot.

Not really. He is more strongly pro-helmet than most on the
group, was originally in favour of compulsion though has, to
his credit, changed that view, and is somewhat more critical
of research showing no benefit, and less critical of
research showing benefit, than many of us. This has led him
to be on the receiving end of some lengthy and argumentative
posts, not least from me.

Quoted message said:

His repitition of Vivian's statement "Compulsory seat
belt wearing didn't seem to deter motorists." is a straw
man analogy

Correct. It did, on the other hand, lead to the largets
recorded rise in pedestrian, cyclist and rear-seat passenger
fatalities, thus netly supporting the idea of risk
compensation. Interestingly, our seat belt law was founded
on the optimistic reports from Australia, which got there
first as ever, but the Aussies now apparently point to our
seat belt law as being the only one in the world which has
yielded a saving in lives. Provided you accept that belts
only work between 10pm and 4am, and that belts are
responsible for the significant reductions in drink-related
crashes that year; it could hardly have been the coincident
introduction of evidential intoximeters, after all - that
would be ridiculous.

Quoted message said:

Suggesting that a helmet law won't deter some from cycling
because the seat belt law didn't deter motorists is
utterly stupid.

Indeed. Unlike Gonzalez to fall into such an elementary
trap, I think; he is not, after all, stupid.

Quoted message said:

Despite Gonzalez's protestations that he is anti-
compulsion - I suspect that he is a closet compulsionist -
an imposter.

Well, certainly a good deal more pro-helmet than the
balance of opinion hereabouts. But that just keeps us on
our toes ;-)

--
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 Thu, 22 Apr 2004 00:21:22 +0100 someone who may be "Vivian"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I know two cases in which the absence of a helmet costed 2
lives; one is 6 feet under and the other is a vegetable
plugged to a respirator. The latter is 17 years old, left
like that by a hit and run - with a stolen car,

Just to add to what others have said.
news.bbc.co.uk41590.stmOpen ↗ outlines the death
of three cyclists. They were all wearing helmets. The helmet
lobby are not keen for people to know about such events.

--
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.

Vivian said:

I know two cases in which the absence of a helmet
costed 2 lives

From a friend in New Zealand; note his comment at the end:

--
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

Injured cyclist is identified
11:14 AM CDT on Tuesday, April 20, 2004

From Staff Reports

/* A bicyclist who was seriously injured in an accident
Monday morning has now been identified, according to the
Dallas County Sheriff's Department.

Officials say Mesquite resident Stephen Michael Parten, 55,
was riding near the intersection of Barnes Bridge and Belt
Line roads in Sunnyvale around 9
a.m. Monday when the handlebars broke and he tumbled
from the bike.

Parten was found unconscious in the road near the Mesquite-
Garland border.

Although he was wearing a helmet, Parten suffered closed
head injuries. He was in a medically induced coma at
Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas on Tuesday morning.

The Sheriff's office had issued an appeal for information
about the accident victim on Monday after failing to learn
his identity */

Seems like the helmet was no use whatever here, in fact
possibly harmful. "Closed head injuries" are exectly the
kind of injuries caused by rotational shearing shoocks on
the skull which helmets can make worse.

Peter Clinch said:

Vivian said:

I know two cases in which the absence of a helmet costed
2 lives; one is 6 feet under and the other is a vegetable
plugged to a respirator. The latter is 17 years old, left
like that by a hit and run - with a stolen car, but
that's not the issue now.

This assumes (and it's a common assumption) that a cycle
helmet *would* have made a substantial difference.

Indeed. If you look at the study which found that 16 out of
19 cyclists who "died from head injuries" had other fatal
non-head injuries, one of the three that died from head
injuries alone was the only one of the nineteen to be
wearing a helmet.

Tony

RogerDodger said:

Vivian's use of analogous 'reasoning' seems silly and is
hardly relevant: "When wearing seatbelts becase compulsory,
did that deter drivers from buying and driving cars? Don't
think so. All the contrary by the looks of it!! "

I've seen this type of use of analogy in many guises before
-where you can get the sense that the person who has need
to resort to coming up with some patently silly and
sneering, and irrelevant analogy - is bereft of a good
argument and the ability to reason it through. What's more
laughable about this is that Vivian is effectively sneering
- and (s)he can't see that what he's sneering at his own
pathetically silly analogy.

There seems to be a very strong whiff of self assured
smugness and condescension in what Vivian writes - as if to
say that we're stupid and that he knows better.

Hi Roger

Vivian is quite new to ths NG so most probably has not read
the many helmet threads that have appeared during the last
few days, months or

arguments on both sides sides of the helmet debate.

To the layman or woman it seem obvious that the wearing of a
lid gives the cyclist at least some protection and any law
making their wearing compulsory is a good idea so therefore
should be supported.

It is only when one looks into the data (Guy being the one
who does most of the looking) that one can come up with a
pefectly sensible and contrary position.

Personally, I have no problem with the making of helmet
wearing for 16s and under compulsory as I understand that
the skulls of minors are somewhat more fragile than those of
us with older and thicker heads.

James

On 22/4/04 2:23 pm, in article [email hidden],

James Hodson said:

Personally, I have no problem with the making of helmet
wearing for 16s and under compulsory as I understand that
the skulls of minors are somewhat more fragile than those
of us with older and thicker heads.

So you are in favour of banning under 16's from cycling
unless they are wearing a helmet? When did cycling suddenly
become so dangerous?

I think helmets are a great idea for the sort of cycling my
kids do and can prevent minor bumps and bruises. Would I let
them ride without a helmet? Absolutely! Would I let them
ride a bike that is not mechanically sound, even with a
helmet? Absolutely not!

..d

James Hodson said:

Personally, I have no problem with the making of helmet
wearing for 16s and under compulsory as I understand that
the skulls of minors are somewhat more fragile than those
of us with older and thicker heads.

So there should be supporting data showing the carnage
amongst young cyclists, but AFAICT there isn't. And also the
case that you'd do far more useful things introducing
compulsory helmets for, say, playing in the park or being a
car passenger, as more kids end up in hospital with head
injuries doing those than they do cycling.

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 ↗

Tony Raven said:

Indeed. If you look at the study which found that 16 out
of 19 cyclists who "died from head injuries" had other
fatal non-head injuries, one of the three that died from
head injuries alone was the only one of the nineteen to be
wearing a helmet.

Do you have a citation for that study, Tony? I've lost my
note of it.

Guy

Just zis Guy said:

Tony Raven said:

Indeed. If you look at the study which found that 16 out
of 19 cyclists who "died from head injuries" had other
fatal non-head injuries, one of the three that died from
head injuries alone was the only one of the nineteen to
be wearing a helmet.

Do you have a citation for that study, Tony? I've lost my
note of it.

Guy

Damn you Guy. When I wrote it I knew someone would ask for
the reference and that I did not have it to hand. Give me a
day or two and I'll dig it out.

Tony

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

Quoted message said:

So there should be supporting data showing the carnage
amongst young cyclists, but AFAICT there isn't. And also
the case that you'd do far more useful things introducing
compulsory helmets for, say, playing in the park or being
a car passenger, as more kids end up in hospital with head
injuries doing those than they do cycling.

The only two times in my life that I've suffered head
injuries were as follows:

School playground - stopped a conker that had been thrown by
one of my mates. School corridor - queueing for a P.E.
lesson when someone barged through the crowd and a I banged
my head on a fire extinguisher.

The former gave me a mild headache, and the latter gave me a
migraine and put me in hospital overnight so that they could
check I wasn't concussed. Definate argument here for making
children wear protective headgear in schools.

Jon

James Hodson said:

Personally, I have no problem with the making of helmet
wearing for 16s and under compulsory as I understand that
the skulls of minors are somewhat more fragile than those
of us with older and thicker heads.

Figures:

22 children die in cycling crahses per year 10 children
die of head injuries alone in cycling crashes 10% of
serious injuries /may/ be prevented by helmets, according
to UK research

So, the Bill, if it brings full compliance, will save one
child's life per year. Five million children have bikes Of
these under 400 will suffer a significant head injury in a
given year Of these half will have been hit by cars,
although 90% of cycling is off road Five times as many
children die as pedestrians than as cyclists. The head
injury rates for pedestrians and road cyclists are
comparable Motor vehicle impacts account for 10% of child
trauma admissions, but half of all trauma deaths

So, what is the source of danger? Cycling or motor
vehicles? How do you justify compulsory helmets for
cyclists and not for pedestrians? How do you justify
compulsion for offroad riding, as per Martlew, when more
children are head injured as motor vehicle passengers than
as offroad cyclists? How do you decide that cycling is
uniquely dangerous when more children suffer head injuries
due to assault than due to cycling?

And there's always the public health argument.

46,000 people die in the UK every year of coronary heart
disease brought on by lack of exercise. Cycling for
transport is recognised as one of the most beneficial things
you can do for your health In Australia following
compulsion, cycling dropped by around 40% Teenaged girls in
Sydney? The drop was over 90% Ten years later cyclist
numbers are almost back to pre-law levels, but the Aus
population has increased. Most of the recovery has been
adult leisure cycling, not children or utility cycling.
Teenage cycling in particular iss till well below pre-law
levels in Aus Head injury rates per mile declined more for
pedestrians than for cyclists when the law was introduced in
Aus, NZ, US states, Canada (actually they increased for
cyclists in several cases)

And that's before we've even thought about enforcement...

--
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

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,
James Hodson ([email hidden]'😉

Quoted message said:

Personally, I have no problem with the making of helmet
wearing for 16s and under compulsory as I understand
that the skulls of minors are somewhat more fragile than
those of us with older and thicker heads.

Remember, all the evidence is that people wearing helmets
are *more* (not less) likely to be killed and injured than
people without. Now, OK, we don't know why this is so. But
it is so. And given that it is so, the probability has to
be that if you force people to wear helmets more of them
will be killed and injured. Is this what you want?

It is a reason why I have moved towards the anti-helmet camp
and have no worries about letting my children ride without
helmets, which raises eyebrows amongst some of my non-
cycling colleagues. It irks a little when i have to tell
children I take for cycle training under the LA scheme that
they must wear helmets, yet under the new national standards
it is not an issue.

John B

David Martin said:

On 22/4/04 2:23 pm, in article
[email hidden], "James Hodson"

Quoted message said:

Personally, I have no problem with the making of helmet
wearing for 16s and under compulsory as I understand that
the skulls of minors are somewhat more fragile than those
of us with older and thicker heads.

So you are in favour of banning under 16's from cycling
unless they are wearing a helmet? When did cycling suddenly
become so dangerous?

Hi David

No, I'm not for banning non-lidded under 16s from riding but
I have the feeling that the Martlew bill will be passed and
made law. I'd rather that children were compelled to wear
hats and adults were allowed to make up their own minds
cycle than make helmets compulsory for all whatever the age.

Cycling is not dangerous, IMO.

James

James Hodson said:

I'd rather that children were compelled to wear hats and
adults were allowed to make up their own minds cycle than
make helmets compulsory for all whatever the age.

I'd rather the legions of the clueless f**ked off and left
cycling alone rather than imposing failed "solutions" to
grossly exaggerated problems.

--
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:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 05:21:42 GMT, RogerDodger <usenet-
[email hidden]> wrote:

Personally, I have no problem with the making of helmet
wearing for 16s and under compulsory as I understand that
the skulls of minors are somewhat more fragile than those
of us with older and thicker heads.

So how come when they introduced a very similar law in
Alberta, 16s and under had to wear a lid, deaths and
injuries to that group doubled?

If you use real world evidence, children would be banned
from wearing helmets whilst cycling, but as everyone on this
ng now knows, evidence is the last thing that BsHIT and
their accolytes are interested in.

Quoted message said:

James

Vivian said:

But I only joined 3 days ago...!

'Joined' what? Most trolls troll with their very first
posting to a group, stranegly enough, exactly like you did.

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

Vivian said:

"Mark Thompson" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message news:Xns94D2886B52640pleasegivegenerously@195-
.92.193.157...

Quoted message said:

Not to mention the complete lack of explanation for your
views, especially as they're controversial.

Got RSI and sometimes typing is not easy. But I'll
explain now (typing with 2 fingers!).

I know two cases in which the absence of a helmet costed
2 lives;

Possibly, assuming that these two accidents were sustained
at less than 6mph, a helmet would have made a difference to
teh outcomes. They WERE at 6mph, weren't they, since above
that speed no-one credible makes any claims for helmets
doing anything at all.

Even then, a helmet only MAY have made a difference. You
don't KNOW what you claim to know.

Incidently, how many people do you know who have died or
had their enjoyment of life reduced by disease related
to lack of exercise? Personally, I know of a whole lot
more than two.

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

RogerDodger said:

Despite Gonzalez's protestations that he is anti-compulsion
- I suspect that he is a closet compulsionist - an
imposter.

I am anti compulsion because I feel that it is unworkable
and unenforceable.