Helmets are compulsory



On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 09:27:14 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>A "Drivers Dismount" sign should sort it.

I prefer, "Drivers get out and push".


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
 
On 07/03/2005 08:55:41 "Rich" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Buck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> I'm not imposing my decision on anyone, I leave that stuff to the zealots
>> like Guy and Tilly.

> And there I think you've neatly demonstrated your complete failure to
> understand the arguments: Guy is for individual choice, the zealots are
> for mandation. I'd love to hear your definition of "zealot" cos mine
> doesn't include anyone pro-choice.

Obviously a member of Guys possie.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 12:20:47 +0100 someone who may be Tilly
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>I would appreciate hearing some grunts of approval from those in this
>group who broadly agree but who may feel too intimidated to comment.

I don't see why anybody should feel intimidated. Apart from the
occasional tetchy remark the debate has been polite.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
 
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 14:24:39 +0100 someone who may be Tilly
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>And I am disinclined to take either sides statements on trust, but am
>willing to interpret raw data from either side.

The papers in cyclehelmets.org have references to the raw data. Much
of the raw data is common anyway, the disagreement is how one
interprets it.

>No. I understand what you say, but think that people rarely consider
>their helmet, consciously or sub consciously when riding, and that
>keeping safe is an overriding concern of cyclists.

Risk compensation is generally a sub-conscious activity. References
to risk compensation have already been given and I recommend another
one, "Death on the Streets: Cars and the mythology of road safety",
Robert Davis, 1992. This should be obtainable by your library.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
 
"Buck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> On 07/03/2005 08:55:41 "Rich" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Buck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> I'm not imposing my decision on anyone, I leave that stuff to the
>>> zealots
>>> like Guy and Tilly.
>
>> And there I think you've neatly demonstrated your complete failure to
>> understand the arguments: Guy is for individual choice, the zealots are
>> for mandation. I'd love to hear your definition of "zealot" cos mine
>> doesn't include anyone pro-choice.
>
> Obviously a member of Guys possie.

Not a member of anyone's possie (sic) just a fully paid up pedant pointing
out that you appear to speak a language other than English.

You remind me of the chap on the cycle planning email group: he claimed that
"I HAVE AN VERY OPEN MIND" (sic) about cycle helmets, and labelled anyone
who disagreed with him an extremist.

Like Guy, I was one of the first people to wear a cycle helmet, and was
convinced of their efficacy. Having examined the evidence, I don't waste my
time or money on one any more. If examining evidence and coming to a
conclusion based on that evidence is being a member of Guy's posse, then I
suppose I must be. And proud of it too.
>
> --
>
> Buck
>
> I would rather be out on my Catrike
>
> http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 21:01:32 GMT someone who may be Buck
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>> Yes I do, I think it is perfectly acceptable for me, as a parent, to
>>> advocate safety apparatus for an activity my kids are involved in, while
>>> ignoring activities that they are not involved in.

The question is whether you think it perfectly acceptable for a
school to make "safety" apparatus compulsory for an activity they
are involved in.

>> Your kids don't walk? *boggle*!
>
>You really are inane at times,

I note that you didn't answer the question.

>I am not ridiculing the comparison, you are making un founded accusations.
>Nothing new for a zealot of course and what I expect from you.

Excellent, a fairly good sign that Guy has the better arguments.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
 
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 15:57:43 +0100 someone who may be Tilly
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Can we agree that it is far more likely for a complete novice to
>suffer a fall?

Measured how?

For example people often think the incidence of something is related
to exposure, which might be distance cycled or hours in the saddle
in this context.

>Can we then go on to agree that it is far more likely for a complete
>novice to suffer a head injury?

I'm in two minds on this point. While I'm happy to accept that a
complete novice is probably more likely to suffer hand, arm or leg
injuries I'm not so happy about head injuries.

>Can we also agree that for the type of fall likely to be suffered by a
>complete novice helmets are most effective.

I suspect this is the case.

>Can we then go on to agree a wording to the effect of: *While cycling
>is a safe and healthy activity, it makes good sense for complete
>novices to wear helmets when learning to ride a bicycle in a school
>playground.*

I wouldn't disagree too much with this sentence. However, it is
*not* what the school is doing.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
 
On 07/03/2005 11:10:51 "Rich" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Buck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...


>> Obviously a member of Guys possie.

> Not a member of anyone's possie (sic) just a fully paid up pedant pointing
> out that you appear to speak a language other than English.

> You remind me of the chap on the cycle planning email group: he claimed
> that "I HAVE AN VERY OPEN MIND" (sic) about cycle helmets, and labelled
> anyone who disagreed with him an extremist.

I have never made any secret of the fact that I consider Guy to be
Zealot, he knows that as well as anyone, and I think he is zealous
about whatever he currently believes, I don't disagree with a lot of
what he says and indeed my own views have been moulded to some degree
by his postings, but I do often disagree with how he puts his viewpoint
across.

If you want to accuse me of having a closed mind or of being a
hypocrit, then it is a public newsgroup and you have the right to do
so, although it makes you as guilty as me, when I accuse you of
mindlessly following a zealot.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
On 07/03/2005 11:14:16 David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 21:01:32 GMT someone who may be Buck
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>>> Yes I do, I think it is perfectly acceptable for me, as a parent, to
>>>> advocate safety apparatus for an activity my kids are involved in,
>>>> while ignoring activities that they are not involved in.

> The question is whether you think it perfectly acceptable for a school to
> make "safety" apparatus compulsory for an activity they are involved in.

>>> Your kids don't walk? *boggle*!

>> You really are inane at times,

> I note that you didn't answer the question.

Ok, my kids actually walk, wow, did you not realise?

>> I am not ridiculing the comparison, you are making un founded
>> accusations. Nothing new for a zealot of course and what I expect from
>> you.

> Excellent, a fairly good sign that Guy has the better arguments.

Nope, but read into it what you will, it is your right.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 23:24:34 GMT someone who may be Buck
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>At our school, the PT teacher got a javelin through the head, missing
>his brain by only 3 feet!

Long ago, in the late 1950s, my late mother was a PE teacher in
North London. In the next door school a pupil was hit by a javelin.
Despite doctors and nurses at the hospital next door, who saw this
happen, jumping over the wall and aiding the pupil, he died.
Javelins are still thrown in schools, without the pupils wearing
chain mail and proper helmets. It is a matter of properly assessing
risk and doing what is reasonable and practical to minimise it.

The most dangerous game was lacrosse, the only game when my late
mother saw pupils with their heads cut open over large parts of
their head. I see there are lacrosse helmets now, but didn't check
whether they are compulsory. However, lacrosse is a sport that has
some dangers. Riding a bike to get to school and the shops is not a
sport.

Similarly, if one is driving a car to school or the shops then one
does not have to wear fireproof clothes, helmets and proper seat
belts.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
 
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 10:23:59 GMT someone who may be Buck
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Ok, my kids actually walk, wow, did you not realise?

So, do you think it perfectly acceptable for a school to
make helmets compulsory when they are engaged in this activity?

We do know that walking is at least as dangerous as cycling.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
 
On 07/03/2005 11:31:42 David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 23:24:34 GMT someone who may be Buck
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> At our school, the PT teacher got a javelin through the head, missing his
>> brain by only 3 feet!

> Long ago, in the late 1950s, my late mother was a PE teacher in North
> London. In the next door school a pupil was hit by a javelin. Despite
> doctors and nurses at the hospital next door, who saw this happen, jumping
> over the wall and aiding the pupil, he died. Javelins are still thrown in
> schools, without the pupils wearing chain mail and proper helmets. It is
> a matter of properly assessing risk and doing what is reasonable and
> practical to minimise it.

> The most dangerous game was lacrosse, the only game when my late mother
> saw pupils with their heads cut open over large parts of their head. I
> see there are lacrosse helmets now, but didn't check whether they are
> compulsory. However, lacrosse is a sport that has some dangers. Riding a
> bike to get to school and the shops is not a sport.

Convert to shinty and injury is positively encouraged.

> Similarly, if one is driving a car to school or the shops then one does
> not have to wear fireproof clothes, helmets and proper seat belts.

This a better pro choice argument than I have seen here thus far.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
On 07/03/2005 11:46:05 David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 10:23:59 GMT someone who may be Buck
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> Ok, my kids actually walk, wow, did you not realise?

> So, do you think it perfectly acceptable for a school to make helmets
> compulsory when they are engaged in this activity?

> We do know that walking is at least as dangerous as cycling.

Can you tell me where in any of my posts in this thread, I have
advocated the compulsion of helmet use?

I only argument against the walking example was that it was not valid
as I do not prescribe to the attitude of "they don't do it so why
should I", or the "they don't care about their kids so why should I".

Walking is an entirely natural activity that requires no external
apparatus, so I do not see it as a seperate activity to life in
general, cycling requires a cycle.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
David Hansen wrote:
>
> Long ago, in the late 1950s, my late mother was a PE teacher in
> North London. In the next door school a pupil was hit by a javelin.
> Despite doctors and nurses at the hospital next door, who saw this
> happen, jumping over the wall and aiding the pupil, he died.
> Javelins are still thrown in schools, without the pupils wearing
> chain mail and proper helmets. It is a matter of properly assessing
> risk and doing what is reasonable and practical to minimise it.
>

When I think about my schooldays, we used to cycle everywhere and cycle
helmets didn't exist. When I think about the injuries of friends at
school I had two friends die riding a motor scooter into a truck, one
die from leukemia, the one with a javelin through his leg, numerous
cricket and rugby injuries and many many playground trips which resulted
in me losing a front tooth and a friend losing two. I don't recall
anyone having a cycling head injury although as noted earlier I did an
Ulrich into both a car and a caravan.

Many years of cycling later I have lost the skin on my knees and elbows
many times, had bruises and cuts and scratches, done an over the
handlebars when a front wheel collapsed (no helmet) but I've only hit my
head twice. Once when a tree branch caught in a helmet ventillation
slot and oiked me backwards of the bike and once walking when I hit my
helmet on the doorframe because the helmet made me taller.


--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon
 
Buck wrote:
>
> Walking is an entirely natural activity that requires no external
> apparatus, so I do not see it as a seperate activity to life in
> general, cycling requires a cycle.
>

You are correct in that walking does not require external apparatus but
in the UK it almost always does involve external apparatus such as shoes.



--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon
 
Tilly <[email protected]> wrote:
....
| I stand by my claim that it makes absolute sense for novice cyclists
| (4-9 years) to be compelled to wear helmets by those in loco parentis.
|
| I would appreciate hearing some grunts of approval from those in this
| group who broadly agree but who may feel too intimidated to comment.

I'm afraid this is a grunt of disagreement, though not strong. My
instinct is to maximse the learning experience by taking away protection
that isn't absolutely needed. But I'm not a trainer nor a teacher,
governor or parent.

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph
 
On 07/03/2005 12:29:50 Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> Buck wrote:

>> Walking is an entirely natural activity that requires no external
>> apparatus, so I do not see it as a seperate activity to life in general,
>> cycling requires a cycle.

> You are correct in that walking does not require external apparatus but in
> the UK it almost always does involve external apparatus such as shoes.

Odd that, I'm currently walking around with no shoes on, PRAISE THE LORD!
IT'S A MIRACLE!

So can you not walk without shoes? I cannot cycle without a cycle.

--

Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk
 
Buck wrote:
>
>
>>You are correct in that walking does not require external apparatus but in
>>the UK it almost always does involve external apparatus such as shoes.
>
>
> Odd that, I'm currently walking around with no shoes on, PRAISE THE LORD!
> IT'S A MIRACLE!
>
> So can you not walk without shoes? I cannot cycle without a cycle.
>

Which parts of "does not require" and "almost always" did you not
understand?

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon
 
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 12:29:50 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>You are correct in that walking does not require external apparatus but
>in the UK it almost always does involve external apparatus such as shoes.

And other apparatus, notably roads, pavements and paths. While not
required the grass would get a bit tired if people walked on it,
even barefoot.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

chetanshetty
Helmets are compulsory?
Replies
23
Views
3K
Commuting and Road Safety
Froze
Froze
articlebot
Compulsory for all cyclists to wear protective helmets (Daily Dispatch)
Replies
0
Views
450
Cycling News Headlines
articlebot
articlebot
G
Compulsory helmets for car drivers
Replies
31
Views
2K
Australia and New Zealand
Dorre
D
G
Compulsory helmets for car drivers
Replies
31
Views
2K
Australia and New Zealand
Dorre
D
G
Compulsory helmets for car drivers
Replies
31
Views
1K
Australia and New Zealand
Dorre
D
G
Compulsory helmets for car drivers
Replies
31
Views
1K
Australia and New Zealand
Dorre
D
T
  • Locked
Compulsory trouser clips and indoor helmets
Replies
12
Views
1K
UK and Europe
David Hansen
D
R
  • Locked
Compulsory helmets again!
Replies
195
Views
8K
UK and Europe
James Hodson
J
S
  • Locked
Helmets Compulsory
Replies
0
Views
720
UK and Europe
Steve McGinty
S
Tek524
Best aerodynamic helmets for time trials
Replies
11
Views
105
Cycling Equipment
KDC1956
KDC1956
Top Bottom Back