Local school kids helmet "bribe".



Status
Not open for further replies.
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.)
 
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
~~~~~~~~~~
 
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. :)
 
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.)
 
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?
 
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.
 
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...
 
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,
 
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.
 
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
 
>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
~~~~~~~~~~
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
>>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
 
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
 
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.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads