Helmets

Ian Smith said:

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.

My experience is that the best thing to do with trolls is
humour them and laugh with them. Besides, they have a habit
of starting good hearty debate.

you know? said:

Correct. Good ways to promote cycling as safe and healthy
include: not telling people it is so dangerous that you
need this special protective equipment...

A helmet ain't that special. Horse riders have been wearing
'em for years.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:41:37 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Correct. Good ways to promote cycling as safe and healthy
include: not telling people it is so dangerous that you
need this special protective equipment...

Quoted message said:

A helmet ain't that special. Horse riders have been wearing
'em for years.

Points made elsewhere:

- horses rarely used for transport; special clothing etc.
not an issue
- horses much higher up
- rider does not need to power the horse, so ventilation
not an issue

So, do you have any evidence that cycling is uniquely
dangerous or that increased helmet wearing rates heve ever
led to improvements in cyclist safety? If so you had better
let the Government know - they come back with a "no" on
both counts.

--
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

you know? said:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:41:37 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Correct. Good ways to promote cycling as safe and healthy
include: not telling people it is so dangerous that you
need this special protective equipment...

Quoted message said:

A helmet ain't that special. Horse riders have been
wearing 'em for years.

Points made elsewhere:

- horses rarely used for transport; special clothing etc.
not an issue
- horses much higher up
- rider does not need to power the horse, so ventilation
not an issue

So, do you have any evidence that cycling is uniquely
dangerous or that increased helmet wearing rates heve ever
led to improvements in cyclist safety? If so you had better
let the Government know - they come back with a "no" on
both counts.

Do I take your response to mean that you agree that *a
helmet ain't that special*?

Let's consider those groups of people who often wear helmets
as part of their everyday life to see how *special* helmet
wearing is.

Soldiers Police Construction workers Climbers Firemen Horse
riders Cyclists Racing car drivers Motorcyclists Miners
Security guards

I say again, a helmet ain't that special.

And once again, Guy, you come at me as if I am arguing in
favour of compulsion. I'm not. I'm arguing in favour of
reasoned argument, not a distortion of the facts. Cycle
helmet wearing is something to be encouraged and not either
discouraged or forced.

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

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:02:37 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you

know? said:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:41:37 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Do I take your response to mean that you agree that *a
helmet ain't that special*?

Let's consider those groups of people who often wear
helmets as part of their everyday life to see how
*special* helmet wearing is.

Soldiers Police Construction workers Climbers Firemen
Horse riders Cyclists Racing car drivers Motorcyclists
Miners Security guards

I say again, a helmet ain't that special.

except of course, that all the above wear helmets as part
of their job, apart from those who have to, just so that
they can participate in their sport, and they don't, as you
claim, wear them as part of their everyday life. Whilst I
quite appreciate that you may think that you're doing a
good job as devil's advocate, think again, you're just
becomming a PITA.

Quoted message said:

And once again, Guy, you come at me as if I am arguing in
favour of compulsion. I'm not. I'm arguing in favour of
reasoned argument, not a distortion of the facts. Cycle
helmet wearing is something to be encouraged and not
either discouraged or forced.

why should something which has proven to be totally
ineffective at reducing the risk to cyclists of head injury,
be encouraged?

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:37:01 +0100 someone who may be Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Cycle helmet wearing is something to be encouraged

Why?

Quoted message said:

and not either discouraged or forced.

You ignore another option.

--
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 message <[email hidden]>,
Gonzalez <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:02:37 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you

know? said:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:41:37 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

>Correct. Good ways to promote cycling as safe and
>healthy include: not telling people it is so dangerous
>that you need this special protective equipment...

Quoted message said:

A helmet ain't that special. Horse riders have been
wearing 'em for years.

Points made elsewhere:

- horses rarely used for transport; special clothing etc.
not an issue
- horses much higher up
- rider does not need to power the horse, so ventilation
not an issue

So, do you have any evidence that cycling is uniquely
dangerous or that increased helmet wearing rates heve ever
led to improvements in cyclist safety? If so you had
better let the Government know - they come back with a
"no" on both counts.

Do I take your response to mean that you agree that *a
helmet ain't that special*?

Let's consider those groups of people who often wear
helmets as part of their everyday life to see how *special*
helmet wearing is.

<snip>

Depends on your interpretation of special. you could equally
argue that you list indicates that helmet wearing is special
- in that people wear them on specific occasions and in
specific contexts.

In the context of cycling then it is something 'special'
that I would need for cycling (in the same way as my shorts
are special, my gloves are special etc. - and yes my
helmet.). now, while I do have plenty of cycling specific
items, I don't want to arsed with them when I hope on the
bike to pick up my daughter from nursery, to go to the
library etc.

--
Chris French, Leeds

David Nutter <[email hidden]> wrote:

| Just zis Guy, you know? <[email hidden]> said:
| > Vivian wrote:
| >
| >> 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!!
| >
| > 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 ;-)
|
| Are your parents fans of Catch-22, Mr Bloke Bloke
| Blokebloke? 🙂

Zackly what I was thinking <g>

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

Quoted post said:

posted by Pk

BPeter Clinch said:

The most salient *facts* are helmet compulsion has reduced
cycling numbers everywhere it's been introduced and
overall safety increases with increased numbers cycling.

Stick to those and the argument is sound and indisputable -
go onto the risk compensation ground or the no better than
blancmange ground and, ipso facto, the argument is weakened
by being disputable.

pk [/B]

I'm beginning to suspect that pk is but a parrot for that dastardly threesome - Thompson, Thompson and Rivara - in their Ostrich- like obstinate denial of risk compensation.

Another undercover compulsionist?

Roger

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Just Zis Guy

BJames 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
===
[/B]

Phew - that outburst is so uncharacteristic of you Guy - but I have to admit that agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly!

At the very beginning of this thread various people mentioned how tiresome it was having to deal with the way pro-helmet parrots tediously trotted out their uncritical and asinine arguments for helmets (and Vivian's original post looks to have the intellectual level you'd expect from a seven year old) - but it's a chore that has to be done because Helmetitus is an infectious disease (a virus of the mind) and if we don't administer an innoculation then these deluded dolts will force their delusion on the rest of us.

The patience and general politeness shown, on this NG, to the posters of the pro-helmet claptrap is commendable, but I wonder if their sometimes self assured smug arrogance warrants a less than polite rebuke and ridicule.

Roger

burt said:

you're just becomming a PITA.

Is that because I question sensationalist claims.

Quoted message said:

why should something which has proven to be totally
ineffective at reducing the risk to cyclists of head
injury, be encouraged?

I question the sensationalist claim contained within this
question. No such proof exists.

David Hansen said:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:37:01 +0100 someone who may be
Gonzalez <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Cycle helmet wearing is something to be encouraged

Why?

Quoted message said:

and not either discouraged or forced.

You ignore another option.

While the argument continues, doing nothing or ignoring the
issue simply ain't an option.

Gonzalez said:

A helmet ain't that special. Horse riders have been
wearing 'em for years.

They've also been wearing those funny jodhpurs and boots but
that doesn't mean the rest of us want to wear them.

Tony

RogerDodger said:

At the very beginning of this thread various people
mentioned how tiresome it was having to deal with the way
pro-helmet parrots tediously trotted out their uncritical
and asinine arguments for helmets (and

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good
men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Tony

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 07:03:35 +0100 someone who may be Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cycle helmet wearing is something to be encouraged

Why?

Quoted message said:

and not either discouraged or forced.

You ignore another option.

While the argument continues, doing nothing or ignoring the
issue simply ain't an option.

The other option is that cycle helmet wearing is something
not to be encouraged, but if people want to wear them then
that is their lookout.

--
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.

Gonzalez said:

Let's consider those groups of people who often wear
helmets as part of their everyday life to see how
*special* helmet wearing is.

Soldiers Police Construction workers Climbers Firemen
Horse riders Cyclists Racing car drivers Motorcyclists
Miners Security guards

Soldiers, police, firemen and security guards only wear lids
when they're doing something considered especially
dangerous. Even patrolling Basra you'll see soldiers in
berets rather than battle helmets when the tension is down.
Call into your local cop shop and see if the duty sergeant
is wearing a lid... In the case of climbers, firemen and
construction workers there is considerable risk of objects
falling from above which you don't typically find in most
lines of work or play (though note that the hardest sport
climbing on overhangs they don't use them as falling rocks
will fall behind the climber and if they fall it's into
space). Motorcyclists may only be wearing them as they are
compelled, in US states where compulsion has gone, head
injury rates haven't gone up, and in these places they may
well not be everyday wear. That leaves us with horse riders
and cyclists. With horse riders it's a recreational activity
with someone else doing the physical labour where you're
quite a way up on an animal you don't fully control:
something of an exceptional case. With cyclists... well, try
wandering round Amsterdam, "city of bikes" and see how many
you see in helmets. The only people I saw wearing them over
a whole weekend, in a city where I saw more bikes and
cyclists than I have ever seen anywhere else, were dedicated
roadies, a couple of folk with full touring bags rather
suggesting out of towners and 1 guy also in full lycra etc.
on an MTB, total 10 out of /thousands/, making them very
unusual rather than "everyday".

So the only "everyday" uses you've highlighted are sports
uses where people are highlighting their performance
aspirations at some cost to safety, or relatively dangerous
occupations, and then only the particularly dangerous bits,
certainly not all the time.

What this in turn highlights is that helmets are only
routinely used for dangerous things. Utility cycling is not
dangerous, and we've got the numbers to prove it. Since
helmets are typically only used for dangerous things it's
hardly surprising that an excess of people wearing them
leads to the perception that they must be taking part in a
dangerous activity. Helmets are something special, they're
for areas of significantly greater risk than typically
encountered by people in most everyday activities.

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 ↗

In message <[email hidden]>,
Tony Raven <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Gonzalez said:

A helmet ain't that special. Horse riders have been
wearing 'em for years.

They've also been wearing those funny jodhpurs and boots
but that doesn't mean the rest of us want to wear them.

Oooo.... I don't know.... :-)
--
Chris French, Leeds

in message <[email hidden]>, Gonzalez

(') said:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:02:37 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you
know?" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, do you have any evidence that cycling is uniquely
dangerous or that increased helmet wearing rates heve ever
led to improvements in cyclist safety? If so you had
better let the Government know - they come back with a
"no" on both counts.

Do I take your response to mean that you agree that *a
helmet ain't that special*?

Let's consider those groups of people who often wear
helmets as part of their everyday life to see how
*special* helmet wearing is.

Soldiers

Only when on combat duty. Liable to be struck by bullets.

Quoted message said:

Police

Not in Scotland, they don't. In England, they do for
traditional reasons dating back to days when they were
likely to be struck by cudgels.

Quoted message said:

Construction workers

Liable to be struck by falling masonry or scaffolding.

Quoted message said:

Climbers

Liable to fall hundreds of feet.

Quoted message said:

Firemen

Only when on firefighting duty. Liable to be struck by red-
hot falling masonry.

Quoted message said:

Horse riders

Liable to be thrown forcefully from a strting position six
feet above the ground.

Quoted message said:

Cyclists

??

Quoted message said:

Racing car drivers

Liable to be involved in collisions with closing speeds
over 200mph.

Quoted message said:

Motorcyclists

Liable to be involved in collisions with closing speeds
of 140mph.

Quoted message said:

Miners

Liable to be strike their heads against low, uneven
tunnel roofs.

Quoted message said:

Security guards

Most don't. Liable to be struck over the head with cudgels.

Quoted message said:

I say again, a helmet ain't that special.

They surely aren't, if you're at risk from violent assault,
or from blazing masonry falling on you from four stories up.
In what way is cycling like going into the front line of a
firefight, or rescuing peple from burning buildings?

Helmets aren't special for people who do very, very
dangerous things. Name one other category on the list you
gave that you think is about as safe as, or safer than,
cycling. Just one.

Quoted message said:

And once again, Guy, you come at me as if I am arguing in
favour of compulsion. I'm not. I'm arguing in favour of
reasoned argument, not a distortion of the facts. Cycle
helmet wearing is something to be encouraged and not
either discouraged or forced.

And I say again: the available statistical evidence is that
people who wear helmets are *more*, not less, likely to be
killed or injured than those who don't. Until we know why
this is it is *grossly* irresponsible to promote helmet use.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; Want to know what SCO stands for? ;;
ars.userfriendly.orgcartoonsOpen ↗

Gonzalez said:

Do I take your response to mean that you agree that *a
helmet ain't that special*?

Evidence suggests that when it comes to levels of
protections they're not at all special; it is the concept
that cycling is somehow so dangerous that it must not be
undertaken without this special (in the sense of not
required for other everyday activities) protective equipment
with whihc I take issue.

Quoted message said:

Let's consider those groups of people who often wear
helmets as part of their everyday life to see how
*special* helmet wearing is.

No, let's not, because none of these have any relevance to
ordinary people popping out to the shops on a bike.

Quoted message said:

And once again, Guy, you come at me as if I am arguing in
favour of compulsion.

Not really.

Quoted message said:

Cycle helmet wearing is something to be encouraged and not
either discouraged or forced.

As long as the encouragement is not done using scare tactics
and downright lies, wihch is how it's been done thus far.
And preferably as long as it extends to other activities
with comparable levels of risk, such as walking along the
pavement...

--
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

Reply to Gonzalez

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

why should something which has proven to be totally
ineffective at reducing the risk to cyclists of head
injury, be encouraged?

I question the sensationalist claim contained within this
question. No such proof exists.

The onus is on the helmet-pushers to show us that helmets
work, not on us to show that they don't. Statistical proof
is by definition not absolute proof; but in a case like
cycle helmets, where helmets have been tried on a very large
scale, if no evidence that cycle helmets are effective has
been observed by now, it is reasonable to suspect that no
evidence will appear in future. If you have any evidence
that cycle helmets are effective, now's the time to produce!

As far as I can tell, at the moment the only reason people
think that cycle helmets are any use at all is that helmet
manufacturers say they are, and people who can't be bothered
to look at the statistics (many of whom ought to know
better) believe them; that, and the ever- unreliable common
sense. In such an emotive field, and particularly concerning
something that's touted as a safety item, that's nowhere
near enough.

--
Mark, UK. We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him
squeak, We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.