UK and Europe · Public discussion

More Info on helmets

Started by Tilly · · Last activity · 24 posts · 1,174 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
17 January 2005
Last activity
19 January 2005
Original author
Tilly
Posts
24
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,174
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 24
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Taken from Cycle Training Instructor's Manual

    * Helmets are know to reduce the severity of head injuries resulting
    from a direct low speed blow to areas of the head, such as might
    result from a fall or glancing collision.
    * The actual protection offered is much lower than is commonly
    thought. Helmets provide no protection to significant regions of the
    head nor to any other parts of the body, and do nothing to prevent
    torsional forces which usually cause more severe brain damage than do
    concussive forces. Helmets increase the diameter of the head making
    it more likely to be contacted and sent into a spin during a fall or
    collision, leading to possible torsional brain damage and damage to
    the neck and spinal cord.
    * Helmets can cause the wearer's head to overheat, especially in hot
    weather, leading to a reduction in concentration.
    * Wearing a helmet can give the wearer undue confidence and affect
    their risk-taking behaviour so as to make a fall or collision more
    likely. It is thought that drivers may also increase the risks they
    take with cyclists they perceive as protected because of helmet use.
    Following the introduction of a mandatory helmet law in the Australian
    state of New South Wales the rate of cycling related head injuries
    reduced only slightly and the overall rate of cycling injuries
    increased.
    * Wearing a helmet is recommended in the Highway Code and not doing so
    may leave a cyclist vulnerable to claims of contributory negligence if
    they are injured, although such claims failed in a recent notable
    case.
    * The countries with the highest level of cycle use and the lowest
    risks per kilometre have chosen to create safer road conditions rather
    than promote the wearing of helmets. Any emphasis placed on the use
    of protective equipment for vulnerable road users necessarily detracts
    from emphasis placed on all road users to take responsibility for
    their actions in preventing harm to vulnerable road users, as
    evidenced by claims of contributory negligence such as mentioned
    above.

  2. "Tilly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Taken from Cycle Training Instructor's Manual


    published by whom? and where can I find a copy?

  3. Rich said:

    published by whom? and where can I find a copy?

    It's copyright Cycle Training UK Limited. I don't believe it's for
    sale, but their website is http://www.cycletraining.co.uk/ so you
    could try contacting them.

  4. Response to Tilly:

    That's the stuff to give the troops!

    I have to say, it reads so similarly to what has been said again and
    again on this newsgroup that I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that
    a urc'er or two had had a hand in it.

    --
    Mark, UK.
    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

  5. "Tilly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Taken from Cycle Training Instructor's Manual

    * Helmets are know to reduce the severity of head injuries resulting
    from a direct low speed blow to areas of the head, such as might
    result from a fall or glancing collision.

    I disproportionate amount of time on this news group and in the cycling
    press is spent discussing helmets and I do not want to add to this but I
    think everyone who is doubt about their effectiveness should read the
    attached
    http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf
    make their own mind up then shut up and stop boring everyone.

  6. "Cliff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    I disproportionate amount of time on this news group and in the cycling
    press is spent discussing helmets and I do not want to add to this but I
    think everyone who is doubt about their effectiveness should read the
    attached
    http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf
    make their own mind up then shut up and stop boring everyone.

    How about if we read it, and then point out all the flaws? (you'll be
    wanting to ignore this thread...)

    clive

  7. Response to Cliff:

    Quoted message said:

    I do not want to add to this but I
    think everyone who is doubt about their effectiveness should read the
    attached
    http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf
    make their own mind up then shut up and stop boring everyone.

    What, read only one meta-report and then make up your mind?

    (And what do the people who are *not* in doubt about their effectiveness
    read? Or do they not need to read anything?)

    --
    Mark, UK.
    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

  8. On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:40:05 -0000 someone who may be "Cliff"
    <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:

    http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf

    A well known part of the road "safety" lobby. Their record of
    failure speaks for itself.

    --
    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.

  9. Tilly said:
    Rich said:

    published by whom? and where can I find a copy?

    It's copyright Cycle Training UK Limited. I don't believe it's for
    sale, but their website is http://www.cycletraining.co.uk/ so you
    could try contacting them.

  10. Quoted message said:

    I disproportionate amount of time on this news group and in the cycling
    press is spent discussing helmets and I do not want to add to this but I
    think everyone who is doubt about their effectiveness should read the
    attached
    http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf
    make their own mind up then shut up and stop boring everyone.

    Pick a contentious topic, whinge about the amount of posts on it, make some
    provocative comments and finish up by instructing others not to comment.

    Cliff, your post added nothing to the debate and served only to start yet
    another thread on cycle helmets. Why did you post it?

  11. Mark McNeill said:

    Response to Tilly:

    That's the stuff to give the troops!

    I have to say, it reads so similarly to what has been said again and
    again on this newsgroup that I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that
    a urc'er or two had had a hand in it.

    That was my first thought.

    The Manual was written by Simeon Bamford and Vicky Carnegy.

  12. Cliff said:


    I disproportionate amount of time on this news group and in the


    cycling

    Quoted message said:

    press is spent discussing helmets and I do not want to add to this


    but I

    Quoted message said:

    think everyone who is doubt about their effectiveness should read the

    Quoted message said:

    attached
    http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf
    make their own mind up then shut up and stop boring everyone.


    What about those of us who have no doubt about their ineffectiveness?

  13. Cliff said:

    "Tilly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Taken from Cycle Training Instructor's Manual

    * Helmets are know to reduce the severity of head injuries resulting
    from a direct low speed blow to areas of the head, such as might
    result from a fall or glancing collision.

    I disproportionate amount of time on this news group and in the cycling
    press is spent discussing helmets and I do not want to add to this but I
    think everyone who is doubt about their effectiveness should read the
    attached
    http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf
    make their own mind up then shut up and stop boring everyone.

    Plonk

  14. in message <[email hidden]>, Cliff

    (') said:


    "Tilly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Taken from Cycle Training Instructor's Manual

    * Helmets are know to reduce the severity of head injuries resulting
    from a direct low speed blow to areas of the head, such as might
    result from a fall or glancing collision.

    I disproportionate amount of time on this news group and in the
    cycling press is spent discussing helmets and I do not want to add to
    this but I think everyone who is doubt about their effectiveness
    should read the attached
    http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/info/cycle_helmets.pdf
    make their own mind up then shut up and stop boring everyone.

    If the RoSPA are right, how do you account for the fact that across the
    world there is a strong positive correlation between helmet wearing
    rates and cyclist injury rates. That's a _fact_, and no amount of
    special pleading by 'safety' campaigners can alter it.

    In this case, RoSPA are simply talking out of their arses - they haven't
    done the research and don't know what they're talking about. In the
    real world, helmets really do kill more people than they save. No, I
    don't know why.

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

    ;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor.

  15. Quoted message said:

    In this case, RoSPA are simply talking out of their arses - they haven't
    done the research and don't know what they're talking about.

    It's true, they don't. All they've done is uncritically summarised the
    abstract.

    Quoted message said:

    In the
    real world, helmets really do kill more people than they save. No, I
    don't know why.

    Which is a very contentious view. The middle of the road opinion is
    something like "laws on compulsory cycle helmets appear to have no impact
    on KSI rates once declines in cycling are taken into account".

    Because of government silliness, there isn't usually any adequate measuring
    of pre and post legislation cycling levels, making it hard to work out what
    the true impact of legislation is. The one adantage of a UK law would be
    to demonstrate the effect on cycling levels of a law, and to find out once
    and for all if there are any beneficial effects.

    Of course, once a helmet law is introduced then cycling, even without a
    helmet, is a vote for keeping the law ;-)

  16. On 18 Jan 2005 11:47:08 GMT someone who may be Mark Thompson
    <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:

    Because of government silliness, there isn't usually any adequate measuring
    of pre and post legislation cycling levels, making it hard to work out what
    the true impact of legislation is.

    That is not accidental. It allows the road "safety" lobby to make
    their claims unencumbered by minor details like facts.

    The most cynical example was changing the breath testing
    requirements at the same time as making seat belts compulsory. This
    made it very difficult to disentangle the real benefits of seat
    belts, if any, from other factors. This was undoubtedly not
    accidental.

    --
    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.

  17. Quoted message said:

    The most cynical example was changing the breath testing
    requirements at the same time as making seat belts compulsory. This
    made it very difficult to disentangle the real benefits of seat
    belts, if any, from other factors. This was undoubtedly not
    accidental.

    Who benefits from seatbelt legislation not being disproved? Can't be the
    evil multinational seatbelt conglomerates, surely? Maybe there was worries
    over the drink drive testing - they thought that perhaps it wouldn't have
    that big an impact and thought the seatbelt legislation would bump the
    figures up a bit. Or, perhaps they were designed to be mutually self
    supporting - they could point to the drink drive legislation and point to a
    significant fall in KSIs, and point to the seatbelt legislation and point
    to an (strangely enough) equally high fall in KSIs. Or were they just
    introduced in the same bill or whatever its called, and that's the only
    reason they were lumped together?

    Mark

    --
    Sig seeks fun-loving reguler. NS*, Spellchecker and proof reading a must.
    No trolls.

    *no spammers

  18. Simon Brooke said:

    If the RoSPA are right, how do you account for the fact that across the
    world there is a strong positive correlation between helmet wearing
    rates and cyclist injury rates.

    A correlation, as you rightly say...

    Quoted message said:

    In the
    real world, helmets really do kill more people than they save.

    ....that you are taking to imply causality.

    Now, there's a 95% correlation between the divorce rate and the price
    of butter.

    Does this correlation also imply causality? And if so, which causes
    which?

  19. "Tilly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Taken from Cycle Training Instructor's Manual

    * Helmets are know to reduce the severity of head injuries resulting
    from a direct low speed blow to areas of the head, such as might
    result from a fall or glancing collision.

    Quoted message said:

    they are injured, although such claims failed in a recent notable


    case.
    * The countries with the highest level of cycle use and the lowest
    risks per kilometre have chosen to create safer road conditions rather
    than promote the wearing of helmets. Any emphasis placed on the use
    of protective equipment for vulnerable road users necessarily detracts
    from emphasis placed on all road users to take responsibility for
    their actions in preventing harm to vulnerable road users, as
    evidenced by claims of contributory negligence such as mentioned
    above.

    Snip>>>>>>>

    Well if you think that helmets don't reduce head injuries, then I suppose it
    is best that you keep burying them in the sand.

    Cliff

  20. Al C-F said:


    Now, there's a 95% correlation between the divorce rate and the price
    of butter.

    Does this correlation also imply causality? And if so, which causes
    which?

    Not seen Last Tango in Paris then?

    Tim

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.