Studies nor no studies

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

Quoted message said:

DiscoDuck said:

Motorists currently
have a choice in regards to helmets. Why can't cyclists?

Bikes don't have airbags.

But do not headi injuries occur in motor vehicle accidents? OR have
they been eliminated entirely?

"Paul - [censored]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mark McN vaguely muttered something like ...

Quoted message said:

Response to Paul - [censored]:

Quoted message said:

> The fact is you should have freedom of choice. Motorists currently
> have a choice in regards to helmets. Why can't cyclists?

errr ...cyclists do currently have freedom of choice.

Check the x-posts.

Who gives a [censored], I read and post to uk.rec.cycling.

Quoted message said:

A lot of cyclists don't.

UK cyclists do, who are all that concern me, really.

That freedom of choice in the UK is currently under a sustained and
determined attack. The barbarians are at the gates. That is why there
is so much traffic on this issue. It may be boring but people who care
about this issue are simply not going to let myths and misconceptions
go unchallenged in the current climate.

--
Dave...

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:13:36 -0600, "Richard Drown" <[email hidden]>

wrote in message TOmqd.21549$233.14584@okepread05: said:

UK cyclists can go straight to hell. Get off our board and start spelling
words correctly.

Interestingly the international standard spelling for Aluminium is the
British spelling, but the international standard spelling for Sulfur
is the US one.

Apparently all down to a compromise reached to stop any quibbling
within IUPAC [1]; us Brits got to keep our spelling of aluminium and
make it the
official IUPAC one, the trade-off being that our spelling of sulphur
is no longer used for chemistry textbooks [1], periodic tables, etc.,
the US version being the standard.

David E. Belcher

[1] International Union of Pure & Applied Chemistry, for those not in
the know. The body responsible for deciding how elements & compounds
should be named.
[2] I managed to sneak 'sulphur' into my PhD thesis, and got away with
it as (a) it wasn't directly relevant to the subject discussed and (b)
it only appeared once in the whole thing.

[email hidden] (Dave Kahn) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Paul - [censored]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mark McN vaguely muttered something like ...

Quoted message said:

Response to Paul - [censored]:
>> The fact is you should have freedom of choice. Motorists currently
>> have a choice in regards to helmets. Why can't cyclists?
>
> errr ...cyclists do currently have freedom of choice.

Check the x-posts.

Who gives a [censored], I read and post to uk.rec.cycling.

Quoted message said:

A lot of cyclists don't.

UK cyclists do, who are all that concern me, really.

That freedom of choice in the UK is currently under a sustained and
determined attack. The barbarians are at the gates. That is why there
is so much traffic on this issue. It may be boring but people who care
about this issue are simply not going to let myths and misconceptions
go unchallenged in the current climate.

You have so called safety organizations like BHIT* in the UK bandying
around exaggerations and falsehoods and we have ours here in Canada.

There's an exposé on their roles in Ontario's adult helmet law
proposal at The Vehicular Cyclist http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc

It is an anti-law campaign site also carrying a wealth of
international helmet research.

JFJ

* One of BHIT claims is that it has been shown in Canada that helmet
use has saved lives. This claim cannot be substantiated and is
blatantly false.

Paul - censored said:

Who gives a [censored], I read and post to uk.rec.cycling.

Quoted message said:

A lot of cyclists don't.

UK cyclists do, who are all that concern me, really.

Which is why you posted this to bc.cycling.

Eric Schild

David [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Just to put my $.02 worth in..........Maybe bike helmets haven't saved
lives in Canada but I would be willing to bet a donut that many EMT's
everywhere else would say they have saved lives in their country. From the
looks of this flame war it appears there are at least some Canadian's
with heads so hard they don't need helmets.

BTW I do wear a helmet for the same reason I wear safty glasses, a hard
hat and safty shoes at work. If 10 tons of steel falls on me all my safty
equipment isn't going to help. Nor is my helmet going to help if I get
under the tire of an 18 wheeler. But with the more ordinary and frequent
type of accident all my safty equipment can help out a lot. I can and
have walked away unhurt from incidents that would at the very least
resulted in painful bruises.

So if you guys don't mind, and I do know some of you do, I'll keep my
helmet on my head and do what I can to protect the ole cranium.

And learn how to spell? :-)

It is an odd perspective though. "I know that my helmet wont save me in
the situations that are liable to kill me, but I'll continue to wear it
anyway because it protects me from minor bruising."

I guess you must really like the feel of the foam on your head.

Jon

David said:

Just to put my $.02 worth in..........Maybe bike helmets haven't saved
lives in Canada but I would be willing to bet a donut that many EMT's
everywhere else would say they have saved lives in their country.

Oh, yes. My brother is a (medical) doctor specialising in trauma
medicine and occasionally nags at me to wear one, although he has never
treated a casualty in a bike accident where a helmet may have even
possibly saved a life. However, he recently attended a pedestrian who
had drunkenly strolled into a major road and been knocked down, striking
his head and subsequently dying despite everyone's best efforts. Yet
bro never suggests the need for walking helmets. :-)

R "statistical sample of one".

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:26:02 -0000, Jon Senior

jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk said:

David [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

BTW I do wear a helmet for the same reason I wear safty glasses, a hard
hat and safty shoes at work. If 10 tons of steel falls on me all my safty
equipment isn't going to help. Nor is my helmet going to help if I get
under the tire of an 18 wheeler. But with the more ordinary and frequent
type of accident all my safty equipment can help out a lot. I can and
have walked away unhurt from incidents that would at the very least
resulted in painful bruises.

So if you guys don't mind, and I do know some of you do, I'll keep my
helmet on my head and do what I can to protect the ole cranium.

And learn how to spell? :-)

It is an odd perspective though. "I know that my helmet wont save me in
the situations that are liable to kill me, but I'll continue to wear it
anyway because it protects me from minor bruising."

Ok. Let me give you a mild wack on the head with this piece of 4 x 2
while you're wearing a helmet.

NOW, let me do the same while you're NOT wearing the helmet.

Which do you prefer"?

---
Cheers

PeterC

[Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
[and there's nothing you can do about it at all]

On 30/11/04 9:03 am, in article [email hidden],

Peter Cremasco said:

Ok. Let me give you a mild wack on the head with this piece of 4 x 2
while you're wearing a helmet.

NOW, let me do the same while you're NOT wearing the helmet.

Which do you prefer"?

Try this instead. Let me whack you with a 2x4 while you are wearing a
helmet.

Now while you are recovering I will run away very fast so you can't hit me.

If your usual riding style involves people hitting you with 2x4 then I'd
suggest a hard shell helmet amy be a better option, rather than a bike
helmet.

Or do you have something other than a trite example of why you wear a helmet
whilst walking.

...d

Yes, exactly. I submit that the pro's are not well educated enough to
recognize the significance of an anecdote or a "sample of one". Further,
medical doctors aren't rocket scientists and pronunciations outside of their
field of expertise are possibly just as ignorant as those by hard-hat and
steel-toe wearers.

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

Quoted message said:

David said:

Just to put my $.02 worth in..........Maybe bike helmets haven't saved
lives in Canada but I would be willing to bet a donut that many EMT's
everywhere else would say they have saved lives in their country.

Oh, yes. My brother is a (medical) doctor specialising in trauma medicine
and occasionally nags at me to wear one, although he has never treated a
casualty in a bike accident where a helmet may have even possibly saved a
life. However, he recently attended a pedestrian who had drunkenly
strolled into a major road and been knocked down, striking his head and
subsequently dying despite everyone's best efforts. Yet bro never
suggests the need for walking helmets. :-)

R "statistical sample of one".

Response to Peter Cremasco:

Quoted message said:

Ok. Let me give you a mild wack on the head with this piece of 4 x 2
while you're wearing a helmet.

NOW, let me do the same while you're NOT wearing the helmet.

Which do you prefer"?

O Lord, not this again...

Let me throw this big'n'hard piece of road an inch past your skull.

NOW, let me do the same while you're wearing the helmet.

Which do you prefer?

I've come off the bike just twice in my life; both times I didn't hit my
head, though I came close - I suspect the fall reflex saved me. Helmets
make the head bigger and heavier; if I'd been wearing one, I might have
hit my head. So, should I have been wearing a helmet or not? And do you
think the question might be *possibly* a tad less simplistic than you're
implying?

(And why do so many helmet supporters seem to like hitting people over
the head/running into walls? ;-))

--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

David Martin said:

Try this instead. Let me whack you with a 2x4 while you are wearing a
helmet.

Now while you are recovering I will run away very fast so you can't hit me.

If your usual riding style involves people hitting you with 2x4 then I'd
suggest a hard shell helmet amy be a better option, rather than a bike
helmet.

Or do you have something other than a trite example of why you wear a helmet
whilst walking.

I still don't understand why some people pre-occupied with bonking
themselves on the head haven't called for the mandatory wearing of
helmets for users of stationary exercise bikes.

Eric Schild

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

Quoted message said:

Yes, exactly. I submit that the pro's are not well educated enough to
recognize the significance of an anecdote or a "sample of one". Further,
medical doctors aren't rocket scientists and pronunciations outside of their
field of expertise are possibly just as ignorant as those by hard-hat and
steel-toe wearers.

The Toronto Star published a letter from a neurologist that claimed
helmet use save lives. He was challenged in another letter shortly
after to substantiate the claim. It has been two weeks and he hasn't
replied.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

David said:

Just to put my $.02 worth in..........Maybe bike helmets haven't saved
lives in Canada but I would be willing to bet a donut that many EMT's
everywhere else would say they have saved lives in their country.

Oh, yes. My brother is a (medical) doctor specialising in trauma medicine
and occasionally nags at me to wear one, although he has never treated a
casualty in a bike accident where a helmet may have even possibly saved a
life. However, he recently attended a pedestrian who had drunkenly
strolled into a major road and been knocked down, striking his head and
subsequently dying despite everyone's best efforts. Yet bro never
suggests the need for walking helmets. :-)

R "statistical sample of one".

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

Quoted message said:

JFJones said:

* One of BHIT claims is that it has been shown in Canada that helmet
use has saved lives. This claim cannot be substantiated and is
blatantly false.

Just to put my $.02 worth in..........Maybe bike helmets haven't saved
lives in Canada but I would be willing to bet a donut that many EMT's
everywhere else would say they have saved lives in their country. From the
looks of this flame war it appears there are at least some Canadian's
with heads so hard they don't need helmets.

Never let science get in the way of the beliefs of an EMT.

Quoted message said:

.....

JFJones said:

* One of BHIT claims is that it has been shown in Canada that helmet
use has saved lives. This claim cannot be substantiated and is
blatantly false.

One of their range of New! Improved! semi-truths is that the Ontario
helmet law hasn't resulted in a large decline in cyclist numbers, so we
Don't Have To Worry About That Any More. Spoilsports have pointed out
that very little has been done to enforce it, unlike e.g. Western
Australia where enforcement happened and cyclist numbers went down
significantly. They also tried to write off all the teenage cycling
decline in the whole of Australia by pointing out that the single state
of Victoria's legal driving age was reduced.

See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1027 for more...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Cremasco said:

Ok. Let me give you a mild wack on the head with this piece of 4 x 2
while you're wearing a helmet.
NOW, let me do the same while you're NOT wearing the helmet.
Which do you prefer"?

Scenario A: Hey! Hit me with that! I bet my helmet will stop it
hurting at all! OUCH!

Scenario B: Hey! Hit me with that! No, no, only kidding. <runs
away>

Any more straw men lined up back there?

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

Peter Cremasco [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Ok. Let me give you a mild wack on the head with this piece of 4 x 2
while you're wearing a helmet.

NOW, let me do the same while you're NOT wearing the helmet.

Which do you prefer"?

Neither. And if you try to whack me on the head (Helmeted or otherwise)
with anything, I'll make damn sure that you don't remember your own name
when they finally discharge you! ;-)

How about. Which do you prefer. Being hit on the head while wearing a
helmet, or not being hit on the head? Since being hit on the head is not
actually an inevitable consequence of cycling, I see as much merit in
wearing protection against that, as I do for wearing fire retardant
clothing.

In the unlikely event that I do actually hit my head, it'll almost
certainly be against the car that just hit me and is unlikely to be in
the order of magnitude where a helmet will do anything for me.

I don't like the feel of foam against my head. I don't like the
excessive heat that I feel as a consequence, and I don't like the
visibility problems caused by the sweat pouring into my eyes. Until a
helmet offers me more than amelioration of minor cuts and scrapes, the
disadvantages vastly outweigh the advantages as far as I'm concerned.

Jon