I despair

[Zog The Undeniable]

Some silly moo at work has written to the staff magazine complaining
that they used a photo of cyclists not wearing plastic hats. She says
they should have a policy of only showing h*lmeted cyclists because this
is the only way we'll ever learn.

I'm trying to decide whether to send a reply pointing out that (a) it is
currently Not Required By Law to wear one; (b) in countries where they
have been made compulsory, cycling rates have fallen and deaths/serious
injuries per cyclist have risen [1] and (c) they aren't designed to
provide more than minimal protection, certainly not in accidents
involving motor vehicles.

But she's almost certainly a non-cyclist who thinks they must do some
good, because it's so obvious, isn't it?

[1] the injury stats for US states where motorcycle helmet laws have
been repealed are an interesting aside, if not strictly relevant; see
http://www.forbes.com/fyi/1999/0503/041.html.

 

[JLB]

Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> Some silly moo at work has written to the staff magazine complaining
> that they used a photo of cyclists not wearing plastic hats. She says
> they should have a policy of only showing h*lmeted cyclists because this
> is the only way we'll ever learn.
>
> I'm trying to decide whether to send a reply pointing out that (a) it is
> currently Not Required By Law to wear one; (b) in countries where they
> have been made compulsory, cycling rates have fallen and deaths/serious
> injuries per cyclist have risen [1] and (c) they aren't designed to
> provide more than minimal protection, certainly not in accidents
> involving motor vehicles.
>
> But she's almost certainly a non-cyclist who thinks they must do some
> good, because it's so obvious, isn't it?
>
> [1] the injury stats for US states where motorcycle helmet laws have
> been repealed are an interesting aside, if not strictly relevant; see
> http://www.forbes.com/fyi/1999/0503/041.html.

I hope you do reply and I wish luck. More luck than I had a few years
ago in similar circumstances when a Trade Union newspaper published a
similar letter. I wrote back to argue the contrary. Within a few issues
I was being accused by all and sundry of just about every social,
intellectual and moral crime you can think of and a few more besides. It
might have been more forgivable to suggest randomly strangling babies.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[Tony Raven]

Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> Some silly moo at work has written to the staff magazine complaining
> that they used a photo of cyclists not wearing plastic hats. She says
> they should have a policy of only showing h*lmeted cyclists because this
> is the only way we'll ever learn.
>
> I'm trying to decide whether to send a reply pointing out that (a) it is
> currently Not Required By Law to wear one; (b) in countries where they
> have been made compulsory, cycling rates have fallen and deaths/serious
> injuries per cyclist have risen [1] and (c) they aren't designed to
> provide more than minimal protection, certainly not in accidents
> involving motor vehicles.
>
> But she's almost certainly a non-cyclist who thinks they must do some
> good, because it's so obvious, isn't it?
>
> [1] the injury stats for US states where motorcycle helmet laws have
> been repealed are an interesting aside, if not strictly relevant; see
> http://www.forbes.com/fyi/1999/0503/041.html.

I'd be less inclined to argue the "helmets make things worse" because it
is counter-intuitive and most will dismiss it out of hand. I'd try the
cycling is no more dangerous than walking for head injuries so perhaps
staff should be wearing helmets in all company photos, not just cycling
ones. Without challenging their long held common sense it will put it
in perspective hopefully for many of them

Tony

 

[Trevor Barton]

JLB wrote:
> I was being accused by all and sundry of just about every social,
> intellectual and moral crime you can think of and a few more besides. It
> might have been more forgivable to suggest randomly strangling babies.

What's wrong with that?

--
A little voice in Trevor Barton's head said that ;=0

 

[Call me Bob]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:42:14 +0000, Zog The Undeniable
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[1] the injury stats for US states where motorcycle helmet laws have
>been repealed are an interesting aside, if not strictly relevant; see
>http://www.forbes.com/fyi/1999/0503/041.html.


Quite an interesting article, this part seemed noteworthy:

"Actually, it's true that bikers indirectly jack up the [insurance]
rates of car drivers, but not for the reason you might think. Car
drivers plow over bikers at an alarming rate. According to the Second
International Congress on Automobile Safety, the car driver is at
fault in more than 70% of all car/motorcycle collisions."

--

Call me "Bob"

"More oneness, less categories,
Open hearts, no strategies"

Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> It might have been more forgivable to suggest randomly
> strangling babies.

Go with points that you have definate statistics to point at. IMHO the
data on pre and post compulsion head injuries isn't good enough to base an
argument on as the pre and post compulsion levels of cycling aren't too
accurate (correct me if I'm wrong, Guy!).

Go with the easy to prove 'helmets designed for non-serious crashes' and
'cycling as safe as walking'. Saying anything more is a) unnecessary and
b) gives stupid people headaches. Remember, liddites arguments are based
on helmets being life savers and cycling being ridicuously dangerous.
Dispell these notions and you've won the argument without leaving them any
room to pick holes.

 

[Jack Ouzzi]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:42:14 +0000, Zog The Undeniable
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm trying to decide whether to send a reply pointing out that (a) it is
>currently Not Required By Law to wear one; (b) in countries where they
>have been made compulsory, cycling rates have fallen and deaths/serious
>injuries per cyclist have risen [1] and (c) they aren't designed to
>provide more than minimal protection, certainly not in accidents
>involving motor vehicles.
>
>But she's almost certainly a non-cyclist who thinks they must do some
>good, because it's so obvious, isn't it?

Make sure you include a small piece of clip art of a 'cow with a
helmet on' in your reply

 

[Not Responding]

Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> Some silly moo at work has written to the staff magazine complaining
> that they used a photo of cyclists not wearing plastic hats. She says
> they should have a policy of only showing h*lmeted cyclists because this
> is the only way we'll ever learn.
>
> I'm trying to decide whether to send a reply pointing out that (a) it is
> currently Not Required By Law to wear one; (b) in countries where they
> have been made compulsory, cycling rates have fallen and deaths/serious
> injuries per cyclist have risen [1] and (c) they aren't designed to
> provide more than minimal protection, certainly not in accidents
> involving motor vehicles.
>
> But she's almost certainly a non-cyclist who thinks they must do some
> good, because it's so obvious, isn't it?
>

Don't ignore it; we can't afford to let these views go unchallenged.

I'd go for the cycling safer than walking and healthier than driving
comparisons followed up by pointing out that there is no known cycling
helmet that protects against cars.

If you have space you then might want to observe that if transport H&S
were the objective of the staff mag then there's a lot more important
hazards to address before helmets. Eg safe driving, speeding, mobile
phones, bike lights etc.

 

[Richard Bates]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 23:28:38 +0000, Trevor Barton
<[email protected]> wrote:

>JLB wrote:
>> I was being accused by all and sundry of just about every social,
>> intellectual and moral crime you can think of and a few more besides. It
>> might have been more forgivable to suggest randomly strangling babies.
>
>What's wrong with that?

Causes landfill sites to become extra smelly. Local residents don't
like it.

--
Amazon: "If you are interested in 'Asimov's I-Robot',
you may also be interested in 'Garfield - The Movie'.
... erm, how do they figure that one out?

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:42:14 +0000, Zog The Undeniable
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm trying to decide whether to send a reply pointing out that (a) it is
>currently Not Required By Law to wear one; (b) in countries where they
>have been made compulsory, cycling rates have fallen and deaths/serious
>injuries per cyclist have risen [1] and (c) they aren't designed to
>provide more than minimal protection, certainly not in accidents
>involving motor vehicles.

Do it. I know it's a bore, and you end up being seen as just as much
of a monomaniac as the Liddites, but unless we get the message out the
conspiracy of ignorance masquerading as common sense will continue, to
all our detriment.

Put in something positive like "if the management really want to do
something for cyclist safety, they should fund cycle training for
staff"

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound