Local school kids helmet "bribe".

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Simon Mason, May 1, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

    Tags:


  2. Daniel Auger

    Daniel Auger Guest

    On Thu, 1 May 2003, Simon Mason wrote:

    > http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zhelmet.htm

    I hope that they test the winner's knowledge of the highway code first. Perhaps issuing more (and
    cheaper) freebies to pupils completing a cycling proficiency course would be a better way to reduce
    the number of accidents.

    Could they not have found a fashionable bike better suited to on-road cycling. ;-)

    --
    Daniel Auger - [email protected] (Please remove Granta to get a valid address.)
     
  3. Nathan would ask if he could trade in the bike for carbon wheels ;-)

    Cheers, helen s

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

    Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
    ~~~~~~~~~~
     
  4. Paul Allen

    Paul Allen Guest

    On Thu, 1 May 2003 16:23:35 +0100, Daniel Auger <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Thu, 1 May 2003, Simon Mason wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zhelmet.htm
    >
    >I hope that they test the winner's knowledge of the highway code first. Perhaps issuing more (and
    >cheaper) freebies to pupils completing a cycling proficiency course would be a better way to reduce
    >the number of accidents.

    Maybe, but don't knock this as it's dead good. :)
     
  5. Toby Barrett

    Toby Barrett Guest

  6. Daniel Auger

    Daniel Auger Guest

    On Thu, 1 May 2003, Paul Allen wrote:

    > On Thu, 1 May 2003 16:23:35 +0100, Daniel Auger <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >On Thu, 1 May 2003, Simon Mason wrote:
    > >
    > >> http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zhelmet.htm
    > >
    > >I hope that they test the winner's knowledge of the highway code first. Perhaps issuing more (and
    > >cheaper) freebies to pupils completing a cycling proficiency course would be a better way to
    > >reduce the number of accidents.
    >
    >
    > Maybe, but don't knock this as it's dead good. :)

    I'm not so sure. It won't reduce the number of accidents and rewarding a dangerous but
    helmet-wearing cyclist with a new bike would not do much to improve safety. It also reinforces the
    perceptions that cycling is dangerous and that unhelmeted cyclists are in very great danger, neither
    of which are the case.

    --
    Daniel Auger - [email protected] (Please remove Granta to get a valid address.)
     
  7. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

  8. Paul Allen

    Paul Allen Guest

    On Fri, 2 May 2003 09:57:18 +0100, Daniel Auger <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> Maybe, but don't knock this as it's dead good. :)

    >I'm not so sure. It won't reduce the number of accidents

    It may not reduce the number of accidents, but if it rewards kids for wearing helmets, how can it be
    in any way bad?
     
  9. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Fri, 02 May 2003 19:37:18 +0100 someone who may be Paul Allen <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >if it rewards kids for wearing helmets, how can it be in any way bad?

    It reinforces a view that cycling is a highly dangerous activity, when the reality is that
    it is not.

    If they want to bribe children to wear helmets they should start off with children as pedestrians,
    car occupants and playground users. Only after these more dangerous activities have "benefitted"
    from children wearing helmets should they look at less dangerous activities like cycling.

    --
    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.
     
  10. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    Paul Allen <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > It may not reduce the number of accidents, but if it rewards kids for wearing helmets, how can it
    > be in any way bad?

    See Daniel's earlier reply.

    --
    Dave...
     
  11. Paul Allen

    Paul Allen Guest

    On Sat, 03 May 2003 10:26:26 +0100, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Fri, 02 May 2003 19:37:18 +0100 someone who may be Paul Allen <[email protected]> wrote this:-
    >
    >>if it rewards kids for wearing helmets, how can it be in any way bad?
    >
    >It reinforces a view that cycling is a highly dangerous activity, when the reality is that
    >it is not.

    There is danger attached certainly, but not a great deal - a helmet reduces the small
    danger further,
     
  12. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Sun, 04 May 2003 15:38:56 +0100 someone who may be Paul Allen <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >a helmet reduces the small danger further,

    A cycle helmet reduces the chances of getting cuts and grazes on some parts of the head. That's all,
    despite the emotive language of the helmet lobby which implies that they prevent life threatening
    head injuries. The helmet lobby is very careful to give the impression that the head injuries they
    talk about in their reports are life threatening ones, when they are actually almost all minor ones.
    See the standard exposes on helmet lobby reports to study this issue more.

    In the case of the relatively few major head injuries there is the tendency of the medical bunch to
    claim that a cyclist died from head injuries when, even if they were wearing a perfect helmet that
    protected the whole head from anything, the cyclist would have died from other injuries. The medical
    bunch should stick to what they are trained in, repairing damage, not expressing their opinions on
    the causes of damage, about which they tend to be ill informed.

    Helmets would prevent far more cuts and grazes if worn in cars, while walking and in playgrounds.
    Then it would be time to look at cycling.

    --
    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.
     
  13. In message <[email protected]>, Paul Allen <[email protected]> writes
    >There is danger attached certainly, but not a great deal - a helmet reduces the small
    >danger further,

    Enough to warrant the cost of the helmet? Enough to warrant the existence of a helmet industry?
    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
  14. >Enough to warrant the cost of the helmet?

    £6.99 Lidl or Aldi specials :) Or my Met was a cheapo too. But as with *anything* in life, there are
    some who think the more they spend the better it must be - you get "designer" helmets just as you
    get same in clothes, cars, computers, bikes ... :)

    Cheers, helen s

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    Clean up the waste & get rid of the trapped wind to send a reply

    Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
    ~~~~~~~~~~
     
  15. Paul Allen

    Paul Allen Guest

    On 2 May 2003 08:31:53 GMT, Toby Barrett <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Aaaargh! Wearing a helmet has little to do with road safety.

    How can you believe something like that is even remotely true?
     
  16. Paul Allen

    Paul Allen Guest

    On 3 May 2003 03:04:13 -0700, [email protected] (Dave Kahn) wrote:

    >Paul Allen <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    >> It may not reduce the number of accidents, but if it rewards kids for wearing helmets, how can it
    >> be in any way bad?
    >
    >See Daniel's earlier reply.

    Already discounted, thanks.
     
  17. Paul Allen

    Paul Allen Guest

    On Sun, 04 May 2003 21:02:28 +0100, David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>Me - "a helmet reduces the small danger further"

    >Yer man - "A cycle helmet reduces the chances of getting cuts and grazes on some parts of
    >the head."

    Hence I said "a helmet reduces the small danger further". You're agreeing with me, and don't
    even know it.
     
  18. Paul Allen

    Paul Allen Guest

    >>Me - "There is danger attached certainly, but not a great deal - a helmet reduces the small danger
    >>further"

    >Yer man - "Enough to warrant the cost of the helmet?"

    Even a £10 helmet is better than none. Yes
     
  19. Danny Colyer

    Danny Colyer Guest

    Paul Allen wrote:
    > Even a £10 helmet is better than none.

    I would think that a GBP10 helmet is likely to be poorly fitting, poorly ventilated and not to come
    close to the safety standards that I insist on a helmet meeting.

    A poorly fitting helmet is likely to come loose in the event of a spill, and may very well slide
    away from the parts of the head that it is designed to protect.

    A poor fit and a lack of ventilation will both contribute significantly to discomfort, adversely
    affecting concentration and making a tumble more likely in the first place.

    A poorly fitting helmet may also slip over the eyes, again making a tumble more likely. How many
    times have you seen someone push their poorly fitting helmet away from their eyes? It's not a
    particularly uncommon site in the summer IME.

    So we have a helmet which may increase the likelihood of a crash, which may cause more harm than
    good in the event of a crash, and which hasn't been tested to the same standards as a better
    designed (and more expensive helmet).

    Sorry, how is a GBP10 helmet better than no helmet?

    --
    Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
    http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
    Thomas Paine
     
  20. Daniel Auger

    Daniel Auger Guest

    On Mon, 5 May 2003, Paul Allen wrote:

    > On 3 May 2003 03:04:13 -0700, [email protected] (Dave Kahn) wrote:
    >
    > >Paul Allen <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > >
    > >> It may not reduce the number of accidents, but if it rewards kids for wearing helmets, how can
    > >> it be in any way bad?
    > >
    > >See Daniel's earlier reply.
    >
    > Already discounted, thanks.

    Why. Exactly what is wrong with what I said? :)

    Note that I didn't say that children wearing helmets was not a very good idea. I said that implying
    safe cycling and helmet wearing are equal is misleading.

    --
    Daniel Auger - [email protected] (Please remove Granta to get a valid address.)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...