Imagine my surprise...

[Tilly]

I have been fighting a battle with my school's governing body to allow
parental choice over helmets when children are taking part in on road
cycle training.

This morning I had an email from the chair of governors, copied to all
other governors saying that as a child he suffered a severe cheek
injury and was not wearing a helmet, therefore he votes for helmets.

I nearly fell off my chair.

I replied that the vote was not about the wearing of helmets or
otherwise, but if we as governors wanted to take away parental choice
over helmets.

I stated that while parents were given a choice there would likely be
some family discussion over the issue. If the choice was taken away
it would be likely that there would be no discussion. I went on to
say that it is far better that a child wears a helmet as the result of
an informed discussion than because they are told they must.

I could not help but point out that helmets are a last line of defense
against certain types of head injuries, and do little to protect the
face, jaw or even cheek. The first line of defense is a safe cycling
technique, confidence, road awareness and being visible.

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:39:45 +0100 someone who may be Tilly
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>This morning I had an email from the chair of governors, copied to all
>other governors saying that as a child he suffered a severe cheek
>injury and was not wearing a helmet, therefore he votes for helmets.

He thinks that helmets prevent cheek injuries? Perhaps it is time to
replace him with someone who has something more than empty space
between their ears.

>I could not help but point out that helmets are a last line of defense

Is the school in the UK? If so then I hope the children are taught
how to spell defence


--
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.

 

[Tilly]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:08:27 +0100, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Is the school in the UK? If so then I hope the children are taught
>how to spell defence

Fortunately, my school email doesn't have a spell check facility.
Defence was spelled correctly in the email to the Chair of Governors.

I've never been able to change Agent's spell check to standard
English, even though I've downloaded the dictionary.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, David Hansen
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:39:45 +0100 someone who may be Tilly
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>This morning I had an email from the chair of governors, copied to all
>>other governors saying that as a child he suffered a severe cheek
>>injury and was not wearing a helmet, therefore he votes for helmets.
>
> He thinks that helmets prevent cheek injuries?

Mine is likely to ameliorate minor cheek injuries, I don't know how it
would fare in a major one - the plastic of the chin guard looks as if
it might be brittle in a major impact. But then I didn't buy it to
guard against major impacts.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; my other religion is Emacs

 

[Tony Raven]

David Hansen wrote:
>
> He thinks that helmets prevent cheek injuries? Perhaps it is time to
> replace him with someone who has something more than empty space
> between their ears.
>

Well if they can prevent leg injuries (TRT) and injuries to another
person (Crook & Feikh) why not cheek injuries?

Tony

 

[bugbear]

Tilly wrote:
> I have been fighting a battle with my school's governing body to allow
> parental choice over helmets when children are taking part in on road
> cycle training.
>
> This morning I had an email from the chair of governors, copied to all
> other governors saying that as a child he suffered a severe cheek
> injury and was not wearing a helmet, therefore he votes for helmets.
>

Ooh - sample size of 1! Good basis for decisions.

BugBear (warning; post may contain traces of sarcasm)

 

[Tim Hall]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:47:08 +0100, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

>Tilly wrote:
>> I have been fighting a battle with my school's governing body to allow
>> parental choice over helmets when children are taking part in on road
>> cycle training.
>>
>> This morning I had an email from the chair of governors, copied to all
>> other governors saying that as a child he suffered a severe cheek
>> injury and was not wearing a helmet, therefore he votes for helmets.
>>
>
>Ooh - sample size of 1! Good basis for decisions.


I think you'll find that 100% of those sampled suffered a severe cheek
injury.....



>
> BugBear (warning; post may contain traces of sarcasm)

Ditto.



Tim

 

[dkahn400]

Tim Hall wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:47:08 +0100, bugbear
> <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

> >Ooh - sample size of 1! Good basis for decisions.
>
> I think you'll find that 100% of those sampled suffered a severe
> cheek injury.....

100% of those severely injured also survived to tell the tale.

--
Dave...

 

[Tilly]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:47:08 +0100, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

>Tilly wrote:
>> I have been fighting a battle with my school's governing body to allow
>> parental choice over helmets when children are taking part in on road
>> cycle training.
>>
>> This morning I had an email from the chair of governors, copied to all
>> other governors saying that as a child he suffered a severe cheek
>> injury and was not wearing a helmet, therefore he votes for helmets.
>>
>
>Ooh - sample size of 1! Good basis for decisions.

I have to admit, he had studied the matter in some detail.

He quoted the following from a DoT report on helmet use, which in turn
quoted the UN convention on the rights of a child.

"The UN convention on the rights of a child asserts that the child has
a right to a safe environment."

This implies that government and official organisations have a
responsibility towards children where safety is concerned that
overrides parental choice.

I've put my case and am being heard, I'll accept any final decision as
being the right one.

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:17:25 +0100 someone who may be Tilly
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>He quoted the following from a DoT report on helmet use,

Was this by any chance, Department for Transport Road Safety
Research Report No 30, 2002, "Bicycle Helmets – A review of their
effectiveness"?

If so then it is bogus, as one would expect. This is demonstrated
comprehensively in http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2002.pdf.


--
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.

 

[Tilly]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:27:05 +0100, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:17:25 +0100 someone who may be Tilly
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>He quoted the following from a DoT report on helmet use,
>
>Was this by any chance, Department for Transport Road Safety
>Research Report No 30, 2002, "Bicycle Helmets – A review of their
>effectiveness"?

Yes.

>If so then it is bogus, as one would expect. This is demonstrated
>comprehensively in http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2002.pdf.

I would be very surprised if the piece quoted was bogus. I am not
keen to become involved in a debate on the effectiveness or otherwise
of helmets, only the question of should the governors take away
parental choice for helmet use.

 

[Dave Kahn]

Tilly wrote:
> I am not keen to become involved in a debate on the effectiveness
> or otherwise of helmets, only the question of should the governors
> take away parental choice for helmet use.

Wise man.

--
Dave...

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the
future of the human race. - H. G. Wells

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:54:47 +0100 someone who may be Tilly
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>If so then it is bogus, as one would expect. This is demonstrated
>>comprehensively in http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2002.pdf.
>
>I would be very surprised if the piece quoted was bogus.

Read the paper I have indicated and decide for yourself. As an
introduction to the paper I recommend reading
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Letter_to_DfT_re_RR30?OpenDocument

I also suggest that you refer "the chair of governors" to both
papers. If he refuses to read them then you know that my comments
about what is between his ears are correct. If he does read them and
come up with reasoned arguments about why he disagrees with them
that is a different matter.



--
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.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Tilly wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:47:08 +0100, bugbear
><bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>>Tilly wrote:
>>> I have been fighting a battle with my school's governing body to allow
>>> parental choice over helmets when children are taking part in on road
>>> cycle training.
>>>
>>> This morning I had an email from the chair of governors, copied to all
>>> other governors saying that as a child he suffered a severe cheek
>>> injury and was not wearing a helmet, therefore he votes for helmets.
>>
>>Ooh - sample size of 1! Good basis for decisions.
>
>I have to admit, he had studied the matter in some detail.
>
>He quoted the following from a DoT report on helmet use, which in turn
>quoted the UN convention on the rights of a child.
>
>"The UN convention on the rights of a child asserts that the child has
>a right to a safe environment."
>
>This implies that government and official organisations have a
>responsibility towards children where safety is concerned that
>overrides parental choice.

So the school could ban parents from bringing children by car,
in order to provide a safer environment for cyclist and pedestrian
children?

 

[Chris Malcolm]

[email protected] (Alan Braggins) writes:

>In article <[email protected]>, Tilly wrote:
>>On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:47:08 +0100, bugbear
>><bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>
>>>Tilly wrote:
>>>> I have been fighting a battle with my school's governing body to allow
>>>> parental choice over helmets when children are taking part in on road
>>>> cycle training.
>>>>
>>>> This morning I had an email from the chair of governors, copied to all
>>>> other governors saying that as a child he suffered a severe cheek
>>>> injury and was not wearing a helmet, therefore he votes for helmets.
>>>
>>>Ooh - sample size of 1! Good basis for decisions.
>>
>>I have to admit, he had studied the matter in some detail.
>>
>>He quoted the following from a DoT report on helmet use, which in turn
>>quoted the UN convention on the rights of a child.
>>
>>"The UN convention on the rights of a child asserts that the child has
>>a right to a safe environment."
>>
>>This implies that government and official organisations have a
>>responsibility towards children where safety is concerned that
>>overrides parental choice.

>So the school could ban parents from bringing children by car,
>in order to provide a safer environment for cyclist and pedestrian
>children?

A friend of mine tried very hard to sue the university for permitting
staff members to travel around on university business in motor cars,
when public transport was so much safer. His arguments and evidence
were sound and well researched. AFIAK the strongest counter-argument
they could come up with was "we're fed up with you, go away and stop
bothering us."
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +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/]

 

[Tony Raven]

Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
> A friend of mine tried very hard to sue the university for permitting
> staff members to travel around on university business in motor cars,
> when public transport was so much safer. His arguments and evidence
> were sound and well researched. AFIAK the strongest counter-argument
> they could come up with was "we're fed up with you, go away and stop
> bothering us."
>

Presumably his argument was that everyone should fly everywhere and no
one should walk or cycle if he was being consistent [1] Presumably they
should also drive rather than walk or cycle if there was no immediately
available public transport as the difference between a 10 mile journey
by bus instead of car would be totally negated if they had to walk more
than half a mile total in using the bus. Tricky stuff this statistics
johnny.

Tony

[1]
2001 Fatalities per billion passenger kilometres

Motor cycle/moped 112
Foot 48
Pedal cycle 33
Car 3
Van 0.9
Rail 0.1
Water 0.4
Bus or coach 0.2
Air >0.01

Source: Road Casualties Great Britain 2002: DfT (2003).

 

[Trevor Barton]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:48:05 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm wrote:
> A friend of mine tried very hard to sue the university for permitting
> staff members to travel around on university business in motor cars,
> when public transport was so much safer. His arguments and evidence
> were sound and well researched. AFIAK the strongest counter-argument
> they could come up with was "we're fed up with you, go away and stop
> bothering us."

And quite rightly so, too. Unless the university was dictating to
people that they *must* or *should* use their cars, I can't see
how they should be sued for *permitting* it. Redicklious.

--
Trevor Barton

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:53:53 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>2001 Fatalities per billion passenger kilometres
>
>Motor cycle/moped 112
>Foot 48
>Pedal cycle 33
>Car 3
>Van 0.9
>Rail 0.1
>Water 0.4
>Bus or coach 0.2
>Air >0.01

All, very good, but an example of comparing apples with oranges.

People tend not to pop out for a bottle of milk by aeroplane. Also
aeroplane travel consists of two dangerous bits, with a relatively
safe bit in the middle. What are the figures by trip?


--
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.

 

[Tony Raven]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:53:53 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>2001 Fatalities per billion passenger kilometres
>>
>>Motor cycle/moped 112
>>Foot 48
>>Pedal cycle 33
>>Car 3
>>Van 0.9
>>Rail 0.1
>>Water 0.4
>>Bus or coach 0.2
>>Air >0.01
>
>
> All, very good, but an example of comparing apples with oranges.
>
> People tend not to pop out for a bottle of milk by aeroplane. Also
> aeroplane travel consists of two dangerous bits, with a relatively
> safe bit in the middle. What are the figures by trip?
>
>

This is probably the one case where per mile is the unimpeachable
measure because he was talking about whether a particular journey was
made by car or public transport. The standard measure is therefore the
actual miles of the journey, not the median journey miles for that mode
of transport.

While the aeroplane was tongue in cheek David, if you want to run the
risk argument you would take the car to get a bottle of milk - assuming
there was no convenient bus, train or plane, as going to the same shop
on foot or bicycle is 10-15 times more dangerous than driving.

Personally I think the University's response was the correct, if
unnecessarily restrained, one to what was an interference in personal
freedoms based on lousy research.

Tony

PS The only unsafe bit on an aeroplane is the bit at the end, whether at
the expected time or more normally at an earlier than expected time and
place.

 

[Colin McKenzie]

Tilly wrote:
> I have to admit, he had studied the matter in some detail.
>
> He quoted the following from a DoT report on helmet use, which in turn
> quoted the UN convention on the rights of a child.
>
> "The UN convention on the rights of a child asserts that the child has
> a right to a safe environment."
>
> This implies that government and official organisations have a
> responsibility towards children where safety is concerned that
> overrides parental choice.
>
Totally bogus unless
1. He can prove helmets are effective (but you don't want to discuss this)
And
2. He wants to force children to wear walking helmets (since head
injury rates are provably similar)

If you want to promote cycling, it's not acceptable to lie down and
let others proclaim it to be an abnormally dangerous activity.

Colin McKenzie