Helmets

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

To be honest I think that most of those involved in the
campaign against this stupid bill would far rather not
have to spend time explaining to a never-ending succession
of people that the "facts" they have just been given by a
single-issue pressure group are (a) distorted and (b) only
half the story. It is not a coincidence that every
organisation in favour of the Bill has starts off by
parroting the known false figures from the original,
superseded 1980 TR&T report.

Having said that, the level of knowledge "out there" is
somewhat greater as a result of the Martlew debate, so some
good may eventually come of it. The more people realise that
not only is TR&T bollocks, but that BeHIT know it is
bollocks and have continued to use it anyway, the better.

--
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

Gonzalez 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?

Quoted message said:

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

Because one cannot prove a negative, but as the Government
says, there is no known case where cyclist safety has
improved as a result of increased helmet use, so Rich's
characterisation of helmets as "ineffective at reducing the
risk to cyclists of head injury" is entirely defensible.

You are, I think, viewing helmet use in the context of what
happens in a crash. Here I think helmets can be useful, if
only in reducing minor but undesirable injuries. Rich is, I
think, viewing it from the wider context of what happens in
a cyclist population, i.e. is the benefit of helmets eroded
by balancing behaviours on the part of helmeted cyclists,
and possibly by other effects; to which the answer is, on
the basis of the available evidence yes, since the benefit
of helmets which logic tells us must exist, is not exhibited
at the population level.

--
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

RogerDodger <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message 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 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.

Ummm, where *is* Vivian? I think we've scared her off...

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

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Ummm, where *is* Vivian?

As Neil ;-)

--
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 Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:35:03 GMT someone who may be Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Police

Not in Scotland, they don't.

Though to be fair some, perhaps all, Scottish forces did
have them in the past. ISTR they were replaced by the
current caps by the late 60s or early 70s.

--
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.

Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

... 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.

Be careful. Remember that a small number of children
have been strangled by their helmet straps while playing
in the park.

--
Dave...

Dave Kahn said:

Be careful. Remember that a small number of children have
been strangled by their helmet straps while playing in
the park.

Good point. All should clearly be provided with a pair of
sharp shears to cut the straps in such cases. It would, of
course, be required by law to carry these at all times
except when flying, as it's well known that even a wee pair
of nail scissors is far more dangerous in the hands of a Mad
Mullah (TM) terrorist than, say, a 1 litre breakable glass
bottle of cask strength whisky that's well over 100 proof...

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 ↗

Dave Kahn said:

Be careful. Remember that a small number of children have
been strangled by their helmet straps while playing in
the park.

I think the rate may even be as high as one per year, which
would wipe out the entire life saving predicted by the
Government's figures for helmet compulsion.

--
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

RogerDodger said:

Just Zis Guy said:

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.
--

Quoted message said:

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

Hi Roger

I didn't mind Guy's response at all as what I typed wasn't
quite what I meant. In fact, it came out with the totally
opposite meaning.

My intention was to state that I can see the arguments for
compulsion although I am against it. I have read most if not
all of Guy's figures and agree with his conclusions.

Hopefully that makes more sense. James

"Vivian" <[email hidden]> writes:

I see you're a top poster, a breed not well known for their
logic. However, since a lot of research has been done on
this subject, it is fotunately not necessary to take the
risk of trusting people.

Quoted message said:

I see the helmets as a protection, really. 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!! Did the obligatory use of helmets for
motorcyclist reduce their numbers? Nope.

Quoted message said:

I think we should trust people a bit more, that's all.

Quoted message said:

Vivian
-------
"We learned more from a three minute record than we ever
learned in school". No Surrender

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm new to this group so I don't know if this has been
discussed before.

Wearing a helmet will become compulsory for under 16's
in the UK. I've read/heard many people complaining that
this will deter people from picking up cycling, as
wearing a helmet implies a dangerous activity.

I totally disagree with this.

What do you guys think?

Due to lots of talking about this, the general consensus
of the group is remarkably similar to what's on the other
end of this link:

ctc.org.ukCTC12ppleafletOpen ↗
a_w.pdf

There're a few (and I think it is only a few) who hold
substantially differing views on either side.

It should be noted that a lot of information provided by
pro-compulsion lobby groups (and then repeated by
everyone else) is incorrect -I think there's a section on
it in the link- so looking critically at the information
provided by all parties in the debate is important.

Anyway, after you've read what's on the other side of the
link you'll know why we think what we think. What I'm
curious about is why you think what you think.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
["]http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:55:00 +0100, James Hodson
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I didn't mind Guy's response at all as what I typed wasn't
quite what I meant. In fact, it came out with the totally
opposite meaning.

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.

--
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

Tony Raven 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.

I reckon The PSF might have something to say about cyclists
wearing funny b*b sh*rts though.

Peter Clinch said:

Soldiers, police, firemen and security guards only wear
lids when they're doing something considered especially
dangerous.

Like a policeman patrolling a quiet country village either
on foot or on a bicycle? Or a securicor guard transporting
pay cheques? A fireman pulling a cat out of a sewer? A
soldier on guard duty outside Buckingham Palace?

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 19:06:15 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Like a policeman patrolling a quiet country village either
on foot or on a bicycle? Or a securicor guard transporting
pay cheques? A fireman pulling a cat out of a sewer? A
soldier on guard duty outside Buckingham Palace?

Plod on in country vilages routinely patrol bareheaded, and
quite what protective merits a bearskin might have are open
to question; in any case, these are pieves of ornate
headgear with a decorative and ceremonial function as well.

Now, turning to the question of pedestrians, whose severity
ratio os slightly higher than for cyclisst, and who have a
comparable proportion of head injuries, how many of them
wear helmets routinely?

--
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 message <[email hidden]>, Just zis Guy,

you know? (') said:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:55:00 +0100, James Hodson
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I didn't mind Guy's response at all as what I typed wasn't
quite what I meant. In fact, it came out with the totally
opposite meaning.

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!

(signed: the Swamp Monster)

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

[ This .sig subject to change without notice
]

in message <[email hidden]>, Gonzalez

(') said:

Peter Clinch said:

Soldiers, police, firemen and security guards only wear
lids when they're doing something considered especially
dangerous.

Like a policeman patrolling a quiet country village either
on foot or on a bicycle?

I haven't seen a policeman wearing a helmet in about five
years. Indeed, the last time I say one was in Japan (other
than on a motorcycle - there is a motorcycle plodette in
Rekjavik who is to _die_ for).

Quoted message said:

Or a securicor guard transporting pay cheques?

Possibly. Do securicor guards still transport pay cheques?

Quoted message said:

A fireman pulling a cat out of a sewer?

Have you ever actually seen a fireman wearing a helmet
pulling a cat out of a sewer? I've seen firemen on duty
doing rescue work (of people in flood) and they were _not_
wearing helmets.

Quoted message said:

A soldier on guard duty outside Buckingham Palace?

The helmet worn outside buckingham palace is a piece of
tourist-attracting theatrical flummery, along with the
bearskin, the bright red jacket, the spats and the sword.
None of these have any practical purpose, they're there
solely for display.

Sorry, Gonzo, your examples are getting more and more far-
fetched, and less and less covincing.

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

<p>Schroedinger's cat is
<blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p

Don't really know what you mean by a top poster, but I just
want to put the record straight. My dreadful RSI is not
bothering me too much tonight, so I'll have a go.

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.

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. I do my best to convince them that they shouldn't
be put off by the traffic; that there are cycling routes,
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! Of course
that there are some instances that the helmet won't make
much of a difference if you have a head-on colission; I'm
sure that happens to motorcyclists as well.

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?

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.

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

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

Quoted message said:

"Vivian" <[email hidden]> writes:

I see you're a top poster, a breed not well known for
their logic. However, since a lot of research has been
done on this subject, it is fotunately not necessary to
take the risk of trusting people.

Quoted message said:

I see the helmets as a protection, really. When wearing
seatbelts becase compulsory, did that deter drivers from
buying and driving cars? Don't

think

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

so. All the contrary by the looks of it!! Did the
obligatory use of helmets for motorcyclist reduce their
numbers? Nope.

Quoted message said:

I think we should trust people a bit more, that's all.

Quoted message said:

Vivian
-------
"We learned more from a three minute record than we ever
learned in

school".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No Surrender

Quoted message said:

"Mark Thompson" <[email hidden]> wrote
in message news:[email protected]
92.193.157...

Quoted message said:

> I'm new to this group so I don't know if this has
> been discussed before.
>
> Wearing a helmet will become compulsory for under
> 16's in the UK. I've read/heard many people
> complaining that this will deter people from picking
> up cycling, as wearing a helmet implies a dangerous
> activity.
>
> I totally disagree with this.
>
> What do you guys think?

Due to lots of talking about this, the general
consensus of the group

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

remarkably similar to what's on the other end of this
link:

ctc.org.ukCTC12ppleaflOpen ↗
eta_w.pdf

There're a few (and I think it is only a few) who hold
substantially differing views on either side.

It should be noted that a lot of information provided
by pro-compulsion lobby groups (and then repeated by
everyone else) is incorrect -I think there's a section
on it in the link- so looking critically at the
information provided by all parties in the debate is
important.

Anyway, after you've read what's on the other side of
the link you'll know why we think what we think. What
I'm curious about is why you

think

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

what you think.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445
DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings,
Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
["]http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Vivian [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Don't really know what you mean by a top poster,

Some who writes their comments at the top of a response,
rather than interweaving them with quotes from the
previous post, or putting them after. It's a style thing.
Makes it easier to follow the discussion when you still
have the context.

Jon

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Soldiers, police, firemen and security guards only wear
lids when they're doing something considered especially
dangerous.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A fireman pulling a cat out of a sewer?

Have you ever actually seen a fireman wearing a helmet
pulling a cat out of a sewer? I've seen firemen on duty
doing rescue work (of people in flood) and they were _not_
wearing helmets.

Which reminds me of the firemen who came to our house when
we were flooded to see if they could pump out a bit of it.
They all came into the kitchen, removed their helmets and
one by one walked into the living room and went ouch as they
banged their heads on the door frame... (We never did get
pumped out!)

cheers, clive

"Vivian" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

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!

Wearing a helmet *might* make a difference BUT
1) Cycle helmets do not cover much of the head
2) They are only designed to give protection at VERY
low speeds.
3) They can only protect if they fit really well; a helmet
that falls away on impact or strangles its wearer
defeats the object. This often means they are
uncomfortably tight.

Quoted message said:

Of course that there are some instances that the helmet
won't make much of a difference if you have a head-on
colission; I'm sure that happens to motorcyclists as well.

Motorcycle helmets cover much more of the head and are
much sturdier. They would be far too hot for cyclists
to tolerate.

Quoted message said:

I wear a helmet, it doesn't bother me.

Try cycling uphill for a couple of miles in the heat of
summer and see how bothered you are.

Quoted message said:

I honestly don't care if they are make it compulsory or
not, it won't change my life at all.

Until your helmet gets stolen or you have a long ride
somewhere hot.

Quoted message said:

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?

Some helmets aren't 'cool'. Some schools don't have places
to keep helmets. Helmets can be a hassle. Your postings
suggest a little naivete, certainly.

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