Helmets - again!

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 14:50:18 +0000 (UTC),

Peter Taylor said:

I am still confused by the apparent hostilty to, and ridiculing of, cyclists
who choose to wear helmets by various members of this newsgroup.

The arguments seem to revolve around (a) helmets will do nothing to protect
you in the event of an accident and (b) I am so damn skilled I will never
have an accident (c) helmets cause cyclists to have accidents.

I don't think anyone has claimed b) or c).

They have claimed a) in the case of major incidents and also d) they are
uncomfortable in hot weather and inconvenient to carry around the shops
and e) in accidents they may add to the likliehood of certain injures and
f) may also lead to more dangerous riding because the wearer believes he
is safer.

Quoted message said:

All of these seem to me to be contrary to all available medical evidence
and also to be counter intutive to my own experience.

Counter-intuitive maybe but not contrary to all available medical evidence.

Quoted message said:

Frankly, I don't give a flying f**k whether any adult does or does not wear
a helmet. What I find alarming is that there is a group within cycling who
appear actively to try to discourage others from using what the evidence
suggests is a sensible basic precaution. And I find this especially
alarming and irresponsible when adults try to dissuade children from using a
helmet.

When you were a child did you use a helmet? Most adults above a certain
age didn't and the roads weren't awash with blood.

If you look at the risk involved in riding a bike you would realise that
it is an extremely safe activity - with or without a helmet.

Again the evidence doesn't suggest what you think it does either.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Peter Taylor said:

So please, I have no objection to non helmet wearing between consenting
adults in private, but don't try to encourage others to your way of
thinking. I belive in freedom of expression and speech, but this is a bit
like shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema. Irresponsible and stupid.

But shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema is the right thing to do when
there's a fire, no?

The problem with your argument is that we're not talking about some sex act
between consenting adults in private that doesn't affect other people -
we're talking about pressure from lobbying groups to force cyclists to wear
helmets whether they want to or not. You have to be able to demonstrate a
substantial benefit before reducing people's freedom in this way, don't you
think?

If you think the benefit has been demonstrated please show us the proof.
Lots of people are waiting expectantly. By the way, intuition isn't
sufficient proof.

--
Michael MacClancy

Peter Taylor said:

I am still confused by the apparent hostilty to, and ridiculing of, cyclists
who choose to wear helmets by various members of this newsgroup.

I think you'll find the hostility is not towards people who wear
helmets but towards thoughtless and patently misleading statements
like "wearing a helmet will prevent your brains from being smeared
all over the road in the event of an accident" or "you should wear
a helmet because I think it's good for you".

A common view amonst what you might call the "anti-liddites" is
that "'by wearing helmets, cyclists are at best only marginally
reducing their chances of being fatally or seriously injured in a
collision'[1] This is perhaps a counter-intuitive paradox, but the
research shows that few fatalities and injuries can be prevented
by cycle helmets being worn"[2]

Quoted message said:

The arguments seem to revolve around (a) helmets will do nothing to protect
you in the event of an accident and (b) I am so damn skilled I will never
have an accident (c) helmets cause cyclists to have accidents.

All of these seem to me to be contrary to all available medical evidence,

"Show us the evidence... shows us the EVIDENCE".

Quoted message said:

I am no great cyclist
but have done a bit over the years, and have managed a number of unplanned
falls, most of which have resulted in my head coming into contact with
something harder than my skull, and have been very glad of a helmet on at
least 5 occasions.

Personally I have the opposite experience, I have managed a number
of unplanned falls over the years (some of which hurt considerably),
never whilst wearing a helmet and have never hit my head.

Consider this: In evolutionary terms, we're not all that far removed
from monkeys, with a number of reflexes we've picked up along the
way for protecting our vital bits when falling out of trees and
such. Increasing the size of your head by a large percentage by
strapping a lump of plastic to it is likely to mess with these
instincts, which may explain why you have hit your head more often
during your falls than I have.

Quoted message said:

Personally, I would not dream of biking without a helmet

That's your prerogative. I don't think anyone has tried to tell you
that you shouldn't wear a helmet.. Just be aware that it may not
be the Magic Shield that you seem to think it is.

Quoted message said:

So please, I have no objection to non helmet wearing between consenting
adults in private, but don't try to encourage others to your way of
thinking. I belive in freedom of expression and speech, but this is a bit
like shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema. Irresponsible and stupid.

Errm, so you believe in freedom of speech expect for when you don't
like what people have to say?

Pete.
[1] "Cycle Helmets: The Case for and Against", Mayer Hillman, 1993. Summary available at http://www.pcug.org.au/~psvansch/crag/psi.htm
[2] "Cycle Helmets and Contributory Negligence", Julian Fulbrook, 2004(?). Available at http://www.leighday.co.uk/upload/public/attachments/5/Cycle%20helmets%20and%20contributory%20negligence.doc - largely a legal review but well worth
reading

Peter Taylor said:

I am still confused by the apparent hostilty to, and ridiculing of,
cyclists who choose to wear helmets by various members of this newsgroup.

I'm sorry, but that is not really true.

What most people here are against is COMPULSION - ie. laws brought in to
make everyone, no matter what activity they are involved in, wear a helmet.

You comment that people on this group are encouraging people not to wear
helmets is unfounded.

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

Quoted message said:

I am still confused by the apparent hostilty to, and ridiculing of,
cyclists
who choose to wear helmets by various members of this newsgroup.

Please read www.cyclehelmets.org

Quoted message said:

So please, I have no objection to non helmet wearing between consenting
adults in private, but don't try to encourage others to your way of
thinking. I belive in freedom of expression and speech, but this is a bit
like shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema. Irresponsible and stupid.

Peter Taylor

Unlike you, I believe helmet wearing for cycling is injurious to our health.
It makes people think cycling is dangerous, when in fact it is safer than
walking on the pavement, and thus discourages people from cycling who would
otherwise be getting some excellent exercise and the accompanying health
benefits. The benefits of wearing a cycle helmet are dubious at best,
though this may seem contrary to common sense.

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

Quoted message said:

I am still confused by the apparent hostilty to, and ridiculing of,
cyclists
who choose to wear helmets by various members of this newsgroup.

<Yawn>

You said this on 3 Dec 2004, 8 Sep 2004, 7 Sep 2004, 17 May 2004, 13 Apr
2004 and 4 Feb 2004.

Guess what? You're still wrong.

Anybody interested in finding out why, google groups for uk.rec.cycling,
author Peter Taylor, and read the threads resulting from his posts.

clive

Peter Taylor said:

What I find alarming is that there is a group within cycling who
appear actively to try to discourage others from using what the evidence
suggests is a sensible basic precaution.

Have you *looked* at any of the evidence?

If so, what evidence have you looked at?

If not, www.cyclehelmets.org is a good starting place.

R.

Peter Taylor said:

I am still confused by the apparent hostilty to, and ridiculing of, cyclists
who choose to wear helmets by various members of this newsgroup.

The arguments seem to revolve around (a) helmets will do nothing to protect
you in the event of an accident and (b) I am so damn skilled I will never
have an accident (c) helmets cause cyclists to have accidents.

All of these seem to me to be contrary to all available medical evidence,
and also to be counter intutive to my own experience.

And also contrary to anything the arguments actually revolve around,
no one having actually made any of those claims.

Quoted message said:

So please, I have no objection to non helmet wearing between consenting
adults in private, but don't try to encourage others to your way of
thinking. I beleive in freedom of expression and speech, except when it
conflicts with my prejudices, but starting another helmet thread like
this is a bit like shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema. Irresponsible
and stupid.

IFYPFY. HTH, HAND.

John Hearns said:

Peter Taylor said:

I am still confused by the apparent hostilty to, and ridiculing of,
cyclists who choose to wear helmets by various members of this
newsgroup.

I'm sorry, but that is not really true.

What most people here are against is

endless bloody helmet threads.

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 14:50:18 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Peter
Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I am still confused by the apparent hostilty to, and ridiculing of, cyclists
who choose to wear helmets by various members of this newsgroup.

Nice try.

What some people have hostility towards is cyclists being forced to
wear the ineffective little polystyrene lids.

It seems clear from past history that you will not accept anything
that points out the flaws in your religion. Someone has already
pointed you towards www.cyclehemmets.org see if you can come up with
some convincing arguments against what is contained there.

--
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.

Clive George said:

Anybody interested in finding out why, google groups for
uk.rec.cycling, author Peter Taylor, and read the threads resulting
from his posts.

I'll save you the bother.

It's because he's a troll.

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Historians' Right To Work Campaign - We Demand A Continuing Supply Of
History!

Richard said:

Peter Taylor said:

What I find alarming is that there is a group within cycling who
appear actively to try to discourage others from using what the evidence
suggests is a sensible basic precaution.

Have you *looked* at any of the evidence?

If so, what evidence have you looked at?

If not, www.cyclehelmets.org is a good starting place.

R.

As Clive has pointed out, Mr Taylor is not interested in evidence. Only
in hit and run trolling. Please do not feed the troll.

Thank you.

--
Tony

"Don't argue the matter, the difficulties will argue for themselves"
-W.S. Churchill

Andy Leighton <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 14:50:18 +0000 (UTC),

Peter Taylor said:

I am still confused by the apparent hostilty to, and ridiculing of,
cyclists
who choose to wear helmets by various members of this newsgroup.

The arguments seem to revolve around (a) helmets will do nothing to
protect
you in the event of an accident and (b) I am so damn skilled I will never
have an accident (c) helmets cause cyclists to have accidents.

Quoted message said:

I don't think anyone has claimed b) or c).

I might not have claimed c) but:
Helmets make any head bigger and heavier.
Most conscious adults can usually avoid striking their unguarded head
when they fall by putting out their arms and lifting up their head.
A bigger head is more likely to hit something.
Kids use their helmets as head shields, rather than keeping their heads
out of trouble.

Quoted message said:

They have claimed a) in the case of major incidents and also d) they are
uncomfortable in hot weather and inconvenient to carry around the shops
and e) in accidents they may add to the likliehood of certain injures and
f) may also lead to more dangerous riding because the wearer believes he
is safer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All of these seem to me to be contrary to all available medical evidence
and also to be counter intutive to my own experience.

The medical evidence is open to interpretation, to say the least. It is
not all convincing as a matter of fact.

Quoted message said:

Counter-intuitive maybe but not contrary to all available medical evidence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Frankly, I don't give a flying f**k whether any adult does or does
not wear
a helmet. What I find alarming is that there is a group within
cycling who
appear actively to try to discourage others from using what the evidence
suggests is a sensible basic precaution. And I find this especially
alarming and irresponsible when adults try to dissuade children from
using a
helmet.

Quoted message said:

When you were a child did you use a helmet? Most adults above a certain
age didn't and the roads weren't awash with blood.

Quoted message said:

If you look at the risk involved in riding a bike you would realise that
it is an extremely safe activity - with or without a helmet.

Quoted message said:

Again the evidence doesn't suggest what you think it does either.

Don't forget that wearing a helmet is a silent vote for helmet
compulsion. When the proportion of people that wear helmets increases to
a higher threshold, the government is likely to introduce legislation to
make helmet-wearing compulsory.

This is likely further to reduce levels of cycling and these reduced
levels of cycling will make cycling *more* dangerous for those who
remain cycling on the roads...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

Peter Taylor said:

I am still confused by the apparent hostilty to, and ridiculing of, cyclists
who choose to wear helmets by various members of this newsgroup.

Every so often you pop up here with what appears to be a helmet troll.
I'm not aware of any of the regular posters here ever having ridiculed
anyone for choosing to wear a helmet. Indeed the usual anti-compulsion
position is that it should be a matter of personal choice.

Quoted message said:

The arguments seem to revolve around (a) helmets will do nothing to protect
you in the event of an accident and (b) I am so damn skilled I will never
have an accident (c) helmets cause cyclists to have accidents.

The arguments revolve round none of these things. Either you have not
read them properly, or you are not capable of understanding them, or
you are deliberately misrepresenting them.

Quoted message said:

All of these seem to me to be contrary to all available medical evidence,
and also to be counter intutive to my own experience. I am no great cyclist
but have done a bit over the years, and have managed a number of unplanned
falls, most of which have resulted in my head coming into contact with
something harder than my skull, and have been very glad of a helmet on at
least 5 occasions. Personally, I would not dream of biking without a
helmet, and would also make sure my kids wear one - in fact, none of them
would even think about cycling without wearing a helmet.

Thank you, this is a perfect illustration of risk compensation in
action. This is one of the factors that may account for the fact that
the looked-for benefits of helmets have never been achieved anywhere
helmet compulsion has been enacted.

Quoted message said:

Frankly, I don't give a flying f**k whether any adult does or does not wear
a helmet. What I find alarming is that there is a group within cycling who
appear actively to try to discourage others from using what the evidence
suggests is a sensible basic precaution.

Unfortunately the evidence is far from clear cut, as has been pointed
out to you in the past.

Quoted message said:

And I find this especially alarming and irresponsible when adults try to
dissuade children from using a helmet.

Can you point to examples of this, or are you making it up?

Quoted message said:

So please, I have no objection to non helmet wearing between consenting
adults in private, but don't try to encourage others to your way of
thinking. I belive in freedom of expression and speech, ...

That seems to be rather contradicted by the final clause of your
previous sentence.

Quoted message said:

... but this is a bit like shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema.

Taking a helmet-sceptical position risks starting a fatal panic? What
planet would this be on?

Quoted message said:

Irresponsible and stupid.

Yes, I think you are.

--
Dave...

Peter Taylor said:

Frankly, I don't give a flying f**k whether any adult does or does not
wear a helmet. What I find alarming is that there is a group within
cycling who appear actively to try to discourage others from using what
the evidence suggests is a sensible basic precaution. And I find this
especially alarming and irresponsible when adults try to dissuade children
from using a helmet.

Eh?
I am leading a family ride on Sunday.
I should imagine that a lot of the children will be wearing helmets.
But that's their parent's choice - parents should be making that sort
of choice for children.
I parents feel that their children are likely to be involved in bumps
and scrapes wile cycling, and want them to wear helmets then I'm all
for it.
(Just be aware that helmets are dangerous when playing on playground
equipment, and indeed they carry labels stating this).

On 06/07/2005 15:50:18 'Peter Taylor said:

I am still confused by the apparent hostilty to, and ridiculing of,
cyclists who choose to wear helmets by various members of this newsgroup.

Quoted message said:

Peter, there are those on here who actually argue against anything pro cycling on the grounds that anything that makes cyclists different will discourage cycling, also on newsgroups very few people have "personal" opinions, a lot of folk are here just so they can ram their opinions down the throats of others.

As far as the helmet debacle is concerned there are people who spend so much time arguing against them that they have lost sight of the good things that exist about helmets, did someone say crusade?

Just ignore the ranters or read the facts and ignore the fiction, I have learnt a lot here, even from the crazies.

At the end of the day there are only three things certain in life.

1) Death

2) Taxes

and 3) Trikes are better than bikes.
--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

www.catrike.co.uk

On 06/07/2005 16:34:57 'LSMike said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am still confused by the apparent hostilty to, and ridiculing of,
cyclists who choose to wear helmets by various members of this newsgroup.

Quoted message said:

Please read www.cyclehelmets.org

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So please, I have no objection to non helmet wearing between consenting
adults in private, but don't try to encourage others to your way of
thinking. I belive in freedom of expression and speech, but this is a
bit like shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema. Irresponsible and stupid.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Peter Taylor

Quoted message said:

Unlike you, I believe helmet wearing for cycling is injurious to our
health. It makes people think cycling is dangerous, when in fact it is
safer than walking on the pavement, and thus discourages people from
cycling who would otherwise be getting some excellent exercise and the
accompanying health benefits. The benefits of wearing a cycle helmet are
dubious at best, though this may seem contrary to common sense.

And so it starts again.

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

www.catrike.co.uk

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter

Taylor (') said:

I am still confused by the apparent hostilty to, and ridiculing of,
cyclists who choose to wear helmets by various members of this
newsgroup.

No-one's ridiculing people who have considered the evidence and chosen
to wear a helmet.

Quoted message said:

The arguments seem to revolve around (a) helmets will do nothing to
protect you in the event of an accident and (b) I am so damn skilled I
will never have an accident (c) helmets cause cyclists to have
accidents.

The issue is (a), not (b) or (c). Helmets do help in low speed accidents
- there's nothing controversial about that. In many low speed accidents
helmets will protect you from scratches and bruising to the scalp - it
won't protect your face, which is what usually gets injured in
over-the-bars type accidents.

What happens in higher energy impacts is less certain. What is certain
is that at a population level there is a positive correlation between
helmet wearing and deaths and serious injuries. If you wear a helmet,
you /are/ slightly more likely to be killed or seriously injured. That
is a fact. /Why/ it is a fact, no-one really knows, although there are
theories.

Quoted message said:

All of these seem to me to be contrary to all available medical
evidence,

No, this /is/ the available medical evidence.

Quoted message said:

and also to be counter intutive to my own experience.

I'd agree with you there.

Quoted message said:

What I find alarming is that there is a group within
cycling who appear actively to try to discourage others from using
what the evidence
suggests is a sensible basic precaution.

I repeat: the available evidence is that people using helmets are more
likely to be killed or seriously injured than people not wearing
helmets. That's the evidence across countries throughout the world - as
helmet wearing rises, so do deaths and serious injuries.

Quoted message said:

And I find this especially
alarming and irresponsible when adults try to dissuade children from
using a helmet.

I don't have children, so I'm in the lucky position of not having to
make decisions for children. I certainly wouldn't advise other people's
children either to wear or not to wear helmets. But on the evidence,
they are (slightly) safer without.

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

;; this is not a .sig

Peter Taylor said:

I am still confused by the apparent hostilty to, and ridiculing of, cyclists
who choose to wear helmets by various members of this newsgroup.

Get back under your bridge.

d.