Wierd BHIT claim

[Just zis Guy]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 16:41:19 +0000 (UTC), "PK"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>It isn't damaging to their case at all. Only the paranoid anti compulsionists would see it as that.

Except that they assert that helmets prevent almost all injuries and deaths. So in terms of their
simplistic no-shades-of-grey argument it is indeed an own-goal.

>I always smile at guy's term liddites. The luddites aimed to prevent beneficial progress. Speaking
>so vociferously so often against a safety device, it is Guy who is the liddite.

Er, up to a point, Lord Copper. The problem with the "safety device" thing is that evidence from
around the world shows that any safety benefit is unprovable at the population level. But that is an
aside. My main beef is with aggressive helmet promotion which (a) deters cycling and (b) reinforces
risk compensation behaviour.

BeHIT like to use phrases like "28,000 tragedies" potentially being saved by compulsory helmets for
children. That is more than ten times the number of children admitted to hopsital with head
injuries, of any severity, in a year. They wrote an Early Day Motion which included the figure of 53
child deaths per year due to cycling. Actually its only half that, and the figures were in the
public domain. They quoted someone's five-year-old repetition of a written answer in Hansard, rather
than checking their facts. Still trust them as the leading influence on public policy on helmets?
Because they /are/ the dominant force in helmet policy right now. They have been given over a
quarter of a million of public money.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:55:30 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>They wrote an Early Day Motion which included the figure of 53 child deaths per year due to
>cycling. Actually its only half that, and the figures were in the public domain. They quoted
>someone's five-year-old repetition of a written answer in Hansard, rather than checking
>their facts.

You are being too kind to them. They probably knew what the real figures are, but decided to use a
higher wrong figure instead. That is precisely what they have done with things like the 85% (or
thereabouts) figure.

--
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.

 

[RogerDodger]

Originally posted by Pk

... How daft is it for less expereinced cyclists to fail to protect themselves!

... I always smile at guy's term liddites...

pk

Pk is getting strong on smug conceit and weak on reasonable argument - not an inspiring combination is it?

When Pk writes "I always smile at guy's..." he is stroking himself on a soapbox - a display of sneering and condescending arrogance - as if there are readers on this ng who will be impressed by this sort of display?

Perhaps the use of supercilious condescension is tantamount to an admission that Pk is desperately bereft of acceptable argument?

In Pk's support seeking & question begging claim - "How daft is it for less expereinced cyclists to fail to protect themselves!" - we can see that he thinks that disparaging people as "daft" is acceptable as a means of persuasion.

Additionally, Pk's words "... cyclists to fail to protect themselves!"
indicates that he fails to comprehend the argument which has been presented here repeatedly - that the so called "protection"
that helmets are believed to provide - is an exaggeration born out of ignorance and wishful thinking. The challenge is, as the evidence shows, that the purported protection is but an illusion, then it follows that it is not daft to not wear one - the syllogism is unsound.

The word "protection", in this empty talk of helmet protection, is a Humpty Dumpty word - a word that means exactly what some want it to mean - the amount of protection a helmet provides is limited only by their imagination.


It seems clear from this that Pk is better described, not a Liddite, but rather a "True Believer" - no matter how much sound reasonable argument is presented, the True Believer will always reject and regress back into reciting the equivalent of Apostles Creed, their mantra or Desiderata.

For the record I am (somewhat obviously) anti compulsion (and anti promotion as well) and I am most definitely not paranoid or rabid (or any other cheap shot derogatory appelation) But most of all I am anti irrationality - if people want believe anything, that's
their prerogative - but I object most strenuously when people attempt to infect others with their false beliefs and thereby foist their delusions into public policy and onto me - out proselytes out!

Roger

Remember Sir Francis Bacon?...
XXXIX
There are four classes of Idols which beset men's minds. To these for distinction's sake I have assigned names, calling the first class Idols of the Tribe; the second, Idols of the Cave; the third, Idols of the Market Place; the fourth, Idols of the Theater.

XLVI
The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.

XLIX - (For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes)
The human understanding is no dry light, but receives an infusion from the will and affections; whence proceed sciences which may be called "sciences as one would." For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope...

 

[Pk]

RogerDodger wrote:
> wrote:
> > Originally posted by Pk ... How daft is it for less expereinced cyclists to fail to
> protect > themselves!
> > ... I always smile at guy's term liddites... pk
>
>
>
> Pk is getting strong on smug conceit and weak on reasonable argument - not an inspiring
> combination is it?

When posting such things it is best to stick on the moral high ground and not then proceed in the
manner you purport to criticize

> When Pk writes "I always smile at guy's..." he is stroking himself on a soapbox - a display of
> sneering and condescending arrogance - as if there are readers on this ng who will be impressed by
> this sort of display?

No, just an ironic amusment at a joke phrase that has a double edge.

>
> Perhaps the use of supercilious condescension is tantamount to an admission that Pk is desperately
> bereft of acceptable argument?

Ohhh, how supercillious of you!

>
> In Pk's support seeking & question begging claim - "How daft is it for less expereinced cyclists
> to fail to protect themselves!" - we can see that he thinks that disparaging people as "daft" is
> acceptable as a means of persuasion.

Good old internet tactic of selective snipping of a section of textr meant to be read and taken
as a whole.

Nice one

>
> Additionally, Pk's words "... cyclists to fail to protect themselves!" indicates that he fails to
> comprehend the argument which has been presented here repeatedly -

Oh i understand them, very well. the selectively snipped text was an attempt to put words into bhit,
to explain why the example quoted was not as ridiculous as some here seem to think.

>
> It seems clear from this that Pk is better described, not a Liddite, but rather a "True Believer"
> - no matter how much sound reasonable argument is presented, the True Believer will always reject
> and regress back into reciting the equivalent of Apostles Creed, their mantra or Desiderata.

Oh delightful ad hominem attack, great cathartic release in penning them isn't there?

>
> For the record I am (somewhat obviously) anti compulsion (and anti promotion as well) and I am
> most definitely not paranoid or rabid (or any other cheap shot derogatory appelation)

.

As I've said before, I'm anti compulsion. But very few of the arguments put here to the already
convinced like me are in any way convincing. the habit of grabbing at random selective statistics
and explaing them by a helpful proposition (exemplar: Risk compensation) the frankly facile argument
by analogy (walking helmets) are great jokes within the closed circle of URC but are so
transparently daft outsideas to damage the credibility of those puttong them in the eyes oy the
innocent bystander.

I know many cyclists of varying styles and abilities. From Commuters to pop to the shops to rabid
down hillers, all of whom were helmets as a matter of course. No one i know argues anyting else
other than helmets are a good thing. If you want to convince them otherwise, you are going exactly
the wrong way about doing it. your (collective) arguments are so poor as to damage not help your
case - and it is no defence to say bhit are worse.

I'm tired of two things here: 1 the narrow & closed mindedness of the anti compulsion lobby 2 the
"Cyclist = perfect: any other road used = evil devil" mind set that too many here exhibit. My
experincce in sw london is that there is a far greater proportion of cycists who are inconsidrate
twats than any other form of road or pavemenmt user. I was out in the car the other evening: I saw 4
cyclists - all in full stealth mode of dark clothing and no lights. On that car journey they were
the only cyclists i saw.

Cheerio!

Finally a quote from guy a little while ago: <<I am paranoid about the possibility of a helmet law>>
when stepping back and apologising for having gone off on one wrt helmets

pk

 

[Peter Clinch]

PK wrote:

> As I've said before, I'm anti compulsion. But very few of the arguments put here to the already
> convinced like me are in any way convincing. the habit of grabbing at random selective statistics
> and explaing them by a helpful proposition (exemplar: Risk compensation) the frankly facile
> argument by analogy (walking helmets) are great jokes within the closed circle of URC but are so
> transparently daft outsideas to damage the credibility of those puttong them in the eyes oy the
> innocent bystander.

Perhaps you'd care to explain why the reasoning for walking helmets should be any different from the
reasoning for cycle helmets if the reason given for wearing a cycle helmet is "it is safer with it
than without, so it's daft not to" (often heard, previously from my own lips). You say it's "frankly
facile", I say it is a direct analogy to make people think about their reasoning. If the same
reasoning doesn't work in a parallel situation then there's a very good chance the reasoning is
flawed. If it's just a facile joke then you shouldn't have any problem demonstrating the flaws in
the argument through logical reasoning rather than just writing if off as nonsense, but you haven't
done so yet. So do so, if you really think have a point.

> I'm tired of two things here: 1 the narrow & closed mindedness of the anti compulsion lobby

Since I have a narrow and closed mind, perhaps you'd elaborate on how it should be open and broader?
Are you really disputing that cycle use has fallen where compulsion has been introduced, or that
falling cycle use is a bad thing? If not, why is using that particular combination of points as a
basis for thinking compulsion being a Very Bad Thing "narrow & closed minded"?

> 2 the "Cyclist = perfect: any other road used = evil devil" mind set that too many here exhibit.

Though as is often pointed out, including certainly by Guy and myself ("rabid anti-compulsionists"
both) the posters in this awful place are road users in other capacities than cycling themselves.
Any usenet group will have a share of ranting, and it's understandable in people who've nearly been
knocked off their bikes.

> Finally a quote from guy a little while ago: <<I am paranoid about the possibility of a helmet
> law>> when stepping back and apologising for having gone off on one wrt helmets

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. The consequences of it
happening are, according to the track records we have available as examples, bad. The consequences
of people being paranoid about it with no real problem are some people get a bit ****** off with
us ranting on about it. I think it's better to risk pissing people off with a rant than having a
major public health own-goal, at least in part because as a taxpayer I get to pay for public
health. Public money is already being spent on helmet compulsion measures. Seems to me someone
*is* out to get us.

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

 

[Dave Kahn]

RogerDodger wrote:

> Pk is getting strong on smug conceit and weak on reasonable argument - not an inspiring
> combination is it?

Getting?

--
Dave...

 

[Dave Kahn]

"PK" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Dave Kahn wrote:

> > You have to remember that BHIT do not care about details or about facts. I suspect they're fully
> > aware that this example is damaging to their case, and are simply relying on the assumption that
> > most people won't read beyond the headline.

> It isn't damaging to their case at all. Only the paranoid anti compulsionists would see it
> as that.

The fact that one helmet failed to prevent a serious injury in one case does not show that helmets
are generally ineffective, I agree. However, that is only true in the rational world. In the BHIT
world everyone who dies without a helmet would have been saved if only they had been wearing one,
and everyone who survives a blow on the head while wearing one has been saved by it. Certainly it's
damaging to their case.

--
Dave...

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:50:22 +0000 (UTC), "PK"
<[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

>No one i know argues anyting else other than helmets are a good thing.

The arguments against helmets:

The statistics arguably show that wearing helmets is more dangerous than not.

Helmets do protect heads against impact speeds of up to 12mph in cases where the head travels in an
absolutely straight lline with no rotational movement of the head whatsoever.

However:

1) There is a considerable body of evidence to show that people take larger risks when they perceive
themselves to be safer. (inc. controlled studies, involving braking distances estimated by
drivers when wearing, and when not wearing seat belts.

The perceived safety benefits of helmets are larger than the actual safety benefits. As can be seen
from the fact that many cyclists wear helmets in traffic, where the biggest danger is from motorised
traffic, and which helmets have very little protective value against.

2) Helmets are substantially larger than the human skull.

Humans have well developed reflexes to tuck their head in in falls.

The extra size of the helmet means that the head + helmet combination is substantially more likely
to make contact with a solid object than the skull will alone.

3) Helmets are substantially larger than the human skull.

This means that Helmets give a substantially larger 'lever arm' with which to /cause/ rotational
movements around the axis of the neck on impact.

Accidents causing rotation are substantially more damaging to the jelly-like material of the brain
than simple linear movements are.

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[Peter Clinch]

Gawnsoft wrote:

> The arguments against helmets:

<snip>

The stuff snipped is specific to what happens in an impact, but there's a wider argument against
them that comes in at a higher and broader level than the specific time you whack your head.

We have good evidence that compulsory helmet wearing reduces cycling levels. It can at least be
argued that helmet promotion (at least concentrating on horror stories to do it) discourages cycle
use because it creates an air of danger about cycling. We have good evidence that more cyclists on
the road correlates with lower serious accident rates, so it follows that if there are fewer
cyclists they are probably in more danger of being in a serious accident to start with.

This is not specifically against helmets, but against compulsion and promotion in such a way that
cycling is made to look more dangerous relative to alternatives than it really is.

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

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:50:22 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "PK"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>frankly facile argument by analogy (walking helmets) are great jokes within the closed circle of
>URC but are so transparently daft outsideas to damage the credibility of those puttong them in the
>eyes oy the innocent bystander.

Ah proof by assertion, the old standby usually employed when bereft of better arguments. Neither
"frankly facile argument" or "transparently daft" are convincing arguments.

>No one i know argues anyting else other than helmets are a good thing.

If true that probably tells us something.

>If you want to convince them otherwise, you are going exactly the wrong way about doing it. your
>(collective) arguments are so poor as to damage not help your case

Nice try, but you will need more than assertion if you are to mount a convincing argument.

--
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.

 

[Andyp]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote

> Perhaps you'd care to explain why the reasoning for walking helmets should be any different from
> the reasoning for cycle helmets if the reason given for wearing a cycle helmet is "it is safer
> with it than without, so it's daft not to"

The sort of speed anyone is going to bang their head walking into a low bit of scaffolding doesn't
warrant a helmet. If you trip and fall over whilst walking you are unlikely to bang your head
because the natural reflex is to put your arms out to protect yourself. The increased speed you
might bang your head on a low branch (or still low scaffolding for the pavement cyclists) whilst
cycling might well warrant a helmet. In the case of a fall off a bike you are more likely to bang
your head because your natural reflex is to keep hold of the bars. If you're unfortunate to get
knocked down by a car a helmet isn't likely to afford much useful protection and is the same in
either case.

 

[Anonymous]

"AndyP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> In the case of a fall off a bike you are more likely to bang your head because your natural
reflex
> is to keep hold of the bars.

Not IME. I believe I'm quite normal in having the natural reflex of putting my hands out to take
the fall. Not that this is a good thing (breaking of wrist is a distinct possibility) but it is
the natural thing to do. One's reflexes do at least seem to be aware that hitting of heads is a
bad thing.

clive

 

[Peter Clinch]

AndyP wrote:

> The sort of speed anyone is going to bang their head walking into a low bit of scaffolding doesn't
> warrant a helmet. If you trip and fall over whilst walking you are unlikely to bang your head
> because the natural reflex is to put your arms out to protect yourself.

All quite true. But people still end up in A&E having banged their heads while travelling on foot,
so there is clearly a finite chance of a problem. So again the case that if being safer despite
being in a low risk environment to start with is a good enough reason of itself, then it should
remain a good reason on foot. Especially if you're going down stairs!

It's pretty much the result of what you say above that I think it's pointless me wearing a helmet
for walking. There simply isn't enough risk to bother with the extra discomfort, expense and general
faff of a helmet. But (utility) cycling is actually pretty safe as well... Take a look at
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582 (which incidentally illustrates how
"walking helmets" as a deliberate provocation to think isn't limited to "rabid anti compulsion"
lobbies making in-jokes in u.r.c., but warrants being published in the BMJ which doesn't have any
particular axe to grind on any issue beyond health).

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

 

[Graeme]

@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk:

> I believe I'm quite normal in having the natural reflex of putting my hands out to take the fall.
> Not that this is a good thing (breaking of wrist is a distinct possibility) but it is the natural
> thing to do.

True, that's why in some activities where the hands are not used so much for control, e.g. roller
blading, unicycling, it is common to wear wrist protection. On a bike this would be impractical
though. I've needed my wrist protection a number of times when falling off my unicycle. I've never
yet needed my helmet, but that is also related to the lower probability of head involvment in a
unicyle fall as well as my protective reflexes.

Graeme

 

[Mike Sales]

I think that it is interesting to compare various countries' cycling cultures and their attitudes to
helmet wearing. The former colonies are where cycle helmets and mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) began.
The U.S.A., Australia, Canada and New Zealand have, relative to the U.K., low rates of cycling per
head, and high rates of accident per mile cycled.( About twice our rate.) Cyclists tend to be
cycling for fitness or recreation, even if they also commute it is looked upon as being a bonus.
They accept the higher accident rate as people tend to when climbing, say, or riding horses. They
are happy with "the look" lycra and helmets perhaps. Other north European countries have much higher
rates of cycling and much lower accident rates, compared to us. They cycle to get around, in
ordinary clothes and would find a helmet a hassle in the bar. The roads are safer for child cyclists
and indeed everyone. Which direction do we want to go? Mike Sales

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

>AndyP wrote:

>> The sort of speed anyone is going to bang their head walking into a low bit of scaffolding
>> doesn't warrant a helmet. If you trip and fall over whilst walking you are unlikely to bang your
>> head because the natural reflex is to put your arms out to protect yourself.

>All quite true. But people still end up in A&E having banged their heads while travelling on foot,
>so there is clearly a finite chance of a problem.

In fact toppling over from a standing position, not putting your hands out, and walloping your head
on the pavement or something similarly hard, is by and large the skull impact threshold for
concussive damage. Happens to people who fall over backwards, to people whose hands were trapped,
and can easily be exceeded if you head into the thing at higher speed because you were running or
forcibly knocked over. And of course the threshold is less if there are any sharp edges or pointy
bits involved in the impact, such as the edge of a kerb, or if you happen to be one of those
unfortunates with a genetically low impact damage threshold anyway, the cranial equivalent of what
boxers call a "glass jaw".

Why didn't these clear risks of damaging injury cause evolution to provide us with thicker skulls
and better internal cushioning? I guess evolution "discovered" that there is also a survival
downside to having a bigger heavier head...

--
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/]

 

[RogerDodger]

I had a look at this thread:
Helmet law...your choice or the goverments?? Lt J.A. Moss (on Bike Cafe)
and I wondered if what I was reading was the equivalent of an American infomercial (do you get these on UK TV?) for helmets. I wonder if this thread was sponsored by a helmet manufacturer?
This could be a surreptitious PR strategy - a bunch of stooges giving endorsements?

Roger

 

[RogerDodger]

Pk has graciously pointed out that in Guy's term "Liddites" any allusion to the Luddites ain't quite right.
In the spirit of invention I'd like to offer another - BHittites - in which there could be construed allusion to the ancient Hittites...

Roger

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 16:04:29 -0000, "AndyP"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>The sort of speed anyone is going to bang their head walking into a low bit of
>scaffolding doesn't warrant a helmet. If you trip and fall over whilst walking
>you are unlikely to bang your head because the natural reflex is to put your
>arms out to protect yourself. The increased speed you might bang your head on a
>low branch (or still low scaffolding for the pavement cyclists) whilst cycling
>might well warrant a helmet. In the case of a fall off a bike you are more
>likely to bang your head because your natural reflex is to keep hold of the
>bars. If you're unfortunate to get knocked down by a car a helmet isn't likely
>to afford much useful protection and is the same in either case.

But this is not borne out by the facts. I have been anaylsing the detailed
hospital admissions data for children. The proportion of cyclists injuries which
are head injuries is not significantly different from the proportion in other
activities, and by far the greatest numbers of head injuries children are
sustained in falls, a figure which dwarfs the number of cycling injuries.

And yes, I will post the data, when I have clarified some points with the DoH.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 10:00:27 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>I have been anaylsing the detailed hospital admissions data for children.

As an addendum, here is the league table of head injury causes in children in
England for 2002-2003:

Fall on level ground 27.2% Fall at elevation 22.5% Striking 13.5% Other causes
12.3% Assault 8.3% Pedestrian (RTC) 4.9% Pedal Cyclist RTC 3.6% Pedal Cyclist Non-
RTC 3.4% Motor Vehicle occupant 2.9% Horse/horse-drawn veh. 1.5%

You will note that assault and just plain banging your head on something are both
more common than cycling-related injuries, and falls alone make up half of all
head injuries. Time for walking helmets.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University