Helmets

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.

So you would rather happily continue in your belief the
world is flat than bother to read the research that shows it
clearly is not

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.

That's exactly the problem. People see cycling as a
dangerous activity needing protective equipment. Its not. I
cycle in London. I'm at no more risk than I would be as a
pedestrian in London. If you come from the sticks, sure it
appears a lot more dangerous than cycling at home, but then
crossing the road in London will also seem a lot more
dangerous. Cycling is not dangerous.

Quoted message said:

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.

Helmets are not designed to protect in that sort of
collision and there is good evidence that, because the
helmet makes your head bigger, you are more likely to catch
the edge of the helmet on something as you fly through the
air and create a really serious rotational brain or neck
injury. Plenty of evidence shows that a head on impact
without rotation does relatively little damage and the bare
head is well designed and shaped to avoid causing
rotational injuries.

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?

Do you have kids? Perhaps you should watch the interviews
they've just had with children on News 24. Would you let
your kid out on a bike if you knew it could cost you a £200
fine if he was later found riding it without a helmet? I
respect your choice, I don't respect anyone that wants

Tony

Tony Raven said:

I respect your choice, I don't respect anyone that wants

(whoops) ...to force their choices on me.

Tony

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 01:29:45 +0100, "Vivian" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

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

It will. The experience in every country where it's been
tried is a substantial drop in numbers cycling. It is well
understood that the cyclist safety is strongly correlated
with numbers cycling. A law would in and of itself reduce
/your/ day-to-day safety.

It's all very well not "doing" statistics (except,
presumably, those advanced by the pro-helmet lobby, else you
would not wear one), but the fact is that statistics are all
we have, pro or anti. The pro statistics all come form very
small scale studies, generally with severe methodological
shortcomings. Anti compulsion statistics come from whole
population data, which are statistically much more robust.

So either discount statistics altogether, in which case
there is no case for or against compulsion, or believe the
statistics, in which case the case against compulsion is far
more compelling.

After all, as you have acknowledged, there is nothing
uniquely dangerous about cycling.

--
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 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?

The issue is about a helmet is being something *special* or
otherwise. Given the fact that so many people wear helmets
as part of their everyday life I do not consider it special.

Do I take it form your diversion tactics that you agree that
a helmet is nothing special?

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:05:02 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

How about a construction worker having a mug of tea while
sitting on a concrete block 50 feet from any building?

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:36:13 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

The issue is about a helmet is being something *special*
or otherwise. Given the fact that so many people wear
helmets as part of their everyday life I do not consider
it special.

And given that it is not considered appropriate for walking,
which is a comparable activity with comparable levels of
risk, then in the context of cycling it qualifies as
special. Most activities which most poeple do most of the
time on most days have no requirement for protective
headgear. Otherwise being bareheaded would be special.

--
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:

The issue is about a helmet is being something *special*
or otherwise. Given the fact that so many people wear
helmets as part of their everyday life I do not consider
it special.

Do I take it form your diversion tactics that you agree
that a helmet is nothing special?

A helmet *is* something special. In all the cases you
mentioned, there is either a traditional decorative
function, or a provable safety element. Since the evidence
appears to suggest that a cycle helmet may exacerbate some
types of injury, and is unlikely to protect against anything
other than a low-speed fall onto the crown (Not very common
IME), it would seem unnecessary, and would mark cyclists out
as *special*.

Jon

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

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

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

How about a construction worker having a mug of tea while
sitting on a concrete block 50 feet from any building?

How about it? He doesn't *need* the helmet but if he is on a
building site, or soon returning to one, he may continue to
wear it. It is simpler for a building site to enforce a
blanket ruling, "all persons on site must wear a helmet",
than to suggest that individuals should only wear them when
they are in direct danger of encountering falling objects.
Would you wear a construction worker's helmet while cycling?
It would undoubtedly provide more impact protection than
many of the current range of cycling helmets. If not, why
not? If so, why aren't you?

Jon

Gonzalez said:

The issue is about a helmet is being something *special*
or otherwise. Given the fact that so many people wear
helmets as part of their everyday life I do not consider
it special.

Do I take it form your diversion tactics that you agree
that a helmet is nothing special?

Do you wear a helmet in your classroom Gonzalez? If not, why
not. After all its nothing special so no reason not to.
Plenty of reason to do so though. As we know assault head
injuries are more common than cycling head injuries and
assaults on teachers in the classroom are increasing. So
wear a helmet in the classroom. You know it makes sense.

Tony

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

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

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

How about a construction worker having a mug of tea while
sitting on a concrete block 50 feet from any building?

Your getting increasingly desperate. Have you done a reality
check recently? This is possibly the most stupidly crass
example to date.

Tony Raven said:

Gonzalez said:

The issue is about a helmet is being something *special*
or otherwise. Given the fact that so many people wear
helmets as part of their everyday life I do not consider
it special.

Do I take it form your diversion tactics that you agree
that a helmet is nothing special?

Do you wear a helmet in your classroom Gonzalez? If not,
why not. After all its nothing special so no reason not to.
Plenty of reason to do so though. As we know assault head
injuries are more common than cycling head injuries and
assaults on teachers in the classroom are increasing. So
wear a helmet in the classroom. You know it makes sense.

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

Your argument fails.

Gonzalez said:

How about a construction worker having a mug of tea while
sitting on a concrete block 50 feet from any building?

I would suggest he needs waterproof insulated clothing in
case he spills that hot cup of tea down himself and gets
burnt. Nothing special really.

Tony

Gonzalez said:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:50:15 +0100, "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-

family.com said:

Gonzalez said:

The issue is about a helmet is being something *special*
or otherwise. Given the fact that so many people wear
helmets as part of their everyday life I do not consider
it special.

Do I take it form your diversion tactics that you agree
that a helmet is nothing special?

Do you wear a helmet in your classroom Gonzalez? If not,
why not. After all its nothing special so no reason not
to. Plenty of reason to do so though. As we know assault
head injuries are more common than cycling head injuries
and assaults on teachers in the classroom are
increasing. So wear a helmet in the classroom. You know
it makes sense.

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

Your argument fails.

No, yours does as you've just illustrated but no doubt
you'll not understand why.

Tony

Tony Raven said:

ROFL

I'm pleased to have amused you. Perhaps you could agree or
disagree that a cyclist/rider comparison is fairer than an
cyclist/pedestrian comparison, stating your reasoning.

you know? said:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:36:13 +0100, Gonzalez
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

The issue is about a helmet is being something *special*
or otherwise. Given the fact that so many people wear
helmets as part of their everyday life I do not consider
it special.

And given that it is not considered appropriate for
walking, which is a comparable activity with comparable
levels of risk, then in the context of cycling it qualifies
as special. Most activities which most poeple do most of
the time on most days have no requirement for protective
headgear. Otherwise being bareheaded would be special.

Horse riding is more comparable in a number of ways, a few
examples follow:

When riding you sit on a saddle or stand on stirrups. When
cycling you sit on a saddle or stand on pedals.

When riding you direct your beast with your hands. When
cycling you direct your machine with your hands.

When riding it is considered best to use the road not the
pavement. When cycling it is considered best to use the road
not the pavement.

Riders are not supposed to ride on public footpaths.
Cyclists are not supposed to ride on public footpaths.

Riders are permitted to use bridleways. Cyclists are
permitted to use bridleways.

Riders race at racecourses. Cyclists race at velodromes.

The top speed of an average rider is about 35mph. The top
speed of an average cyclist is about 35mph.

Riders are recommended by the medical profession to wear
helmets. Cyclists are recommended by the medical profession
to wear helmets.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:44:19 +0100, Jon Senior

jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove said:

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

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

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

How about a construction worker having a mug of tea while
sitting on a concrete block 50 feet from any building?

How about it? He doesn't *need* the helmet but if he is on
a building site, or soon returning to one, he may continue
to wear it. It is simpler for a building site to enforce a
blanket ruling, "all persons on site must wear a helmet",
than to suggest that individuals should only wear them when
they are in direct danger of encountering falling objects.
Would you wear a construction worker's helmet while
cycling? It would undoubtedly provide more impact
protection than many of the current range of cycling
helmets. If not, why not? If so, why aren't you?

I have two helmets, a cycling helmet which I wear for
cycling and a climbers helmet which I wear for climbing.
They have different uses and I don't consider either to
be special.

burt said:

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

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

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

How about a construction worker having a mug of tea while
sitting on a concrete block 50 feet from any building?

Your getting increasingly desperate. Have you done a
reality check recently? This is possibly the most stupidly
crass example to date.

Perhaps, but no more stupid than suggesting that helmets are
anything special.

For hill walking I wear walking boots, for cycling I wear a
cycle helmet. There's nothing special with either.

Gonzalez said:

Horse riding is more comparable in a number of ways, a few
examples follow:

When riding you sit on a saddle or stand on stirrups. When
cycling you sit on a saddle or stand on pedals.

When riding you direct your beast with your hands. When
cycling you direct your machine with your hands.

When riding it is considered best to use the road not the
pavement. When cycling it is considered best to use the
road not the pavement.

Riders are not supposed to ride on public footpaths.
Cyclists are not supposed to ride on public footpaths.

Riders are permitted to use bridleways. Cyclists are
permitted to use bridleways.

Riders race at racecourses. Cyclists race at velodromes.

The top speed of an average rider is about 35mph. The top
speed of an average cyclist is about 35mph.

Riders are recommended by the medical profession to wear
helmets. Cyclists are recommended by the medical
profession to wear helmets.

ROFL

Tony

Gonzalez said:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:48:46 +0100, "Tony Raven" <junk@raven-

family.com said:

ROFL

I'm pleased to have amused you. Perhaps you could agree or
disagree that a cyclist/rider comparison is fairer than an
cyclist/pedestrian comparison, stating your reasoning.

Your rider:cyclist comparison is utterly barmy.

There is a fundamental that you seem to have missed in all
your posts; cycling is a means of local transport not a
sport or high-risk job.

That is why it is fair to compare with other forms of local
transport; ie walking. And why it is bonkers when you have
made comparisons with sports such as horse riding, racing
driving and mountaineering or occupations such as
soldiering, firefighting and mining.
--

Transport & Urban Planning Blog

now at notonmywatch.blogs.comnotonmywatch.blogs.comOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

Horse riding is more comparable in a number of ways, a few
examples follow:

When riding you sit on a saddle or stand on stirrups. When
cycling you sit on a saddle or stand on pedals.

When riding you direct your beast with your hands. When
cycling you direct your machine with your hands.

When riding it is considered best to use the road not the
pavement. When cycling it is considered best to use the
road not the pavement.

Riders are not supposed to ride on public footpaths.
Cyclists are not supposed to ride on public footpaths.

Riders are permitted to use bridleways. Cyclists are
permitted to use bridleways.

Riders race at racecourses. Cyclists race at velodromes.

The top speed of an average rider is about 35mph. The top
speed of an average cyclist is about 35mph.

Riders are recommended by the medical profession to wear
helmets. Cyclists are recommended by the medical
profession to wear helmets.

[cont.]

Riders are around 1.5m above the ground. Cyclists are around
15cm above the ground.

If a horse is scared it may throw the rider. Bikes don't
get scared.

If a rider is thrown, the horse (300kg) may land on them or
trample them. If a cyclist falls off, the bike (~12kg) may
land on them.

A riding helmet will withstand a considerable force and will
protect the head in the likeliest cases of direct impact
with the floor. A cycling helmet will withstand a minimum of
force and will protect the head in the unlikely event of a
direct impact with the floor.

Jon