Helmets

On 4/2/04 5:13 pm, in article [email hidden], "Peter

Taylor said:

I think I am missing something (brain, probably) in this debate about helmets.

A grasp of statistics perhaps?

Quoted message said:

And anyone who would serious consider riding on or off road without one needs their head examining
(and probably will, by a medic if lucky, or a pathologist if not) It is a basic, sensible
precaution.

As is wearing one when you walk along the street, harness and ropes when climbing a ladder or the
stairs. Fireproof suit and helmet when driving a car.

It is not about whether there is no danger, it is about relative danger. I wear one when riding off
road where I am more likely tohave a fall (and such a fall is likely to be ameliorated by a helmet).

I don't wear one on the road because the chance of me having an accident are slim, the chance of
injury in such an accident even slimmer, and the speed at which I would have such an accident into
the range where helmets will probably not help but could potentially exacerbate an injury.

Add to that the inconvenience of having to sort separate headgear, put the thing somewhere when I am
shopping etc.

I presume you carry a lightning conductor around with you. About the same number of people die
solely from preventable head injuries when cycling as are struck by lighning each year in UK (a
small number between 1 and ten).

..d

Peter Taylor said:

I think I am missing something (brain, probably) in this debate about helmets.

So do I.

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

Quoted message said:

I think I am missing something (brain, probably) in this debate about helmets.

Yup :-) An understanding of the counter-intuitive issues.

Quoted message said:

And anyone who would serious consider riding on or off road without one needs their head examining
(and probably will, by a medic if lucky, or a pathologist if not) It is a basic, sensible
precaution.

Part of your problem lies here : the answer is not "probably". In fact it's reasonably unlikely.
Millions of riders around the world manage to demonstrate this.

I assume you've read the core facts in the various discussions :

1) Helmets ought to make you safer in the event of a collision
2) Studies of head injuries show that the number of them doesn't seem to be related to the
proportion of people wearing helmets at all.

Now isn't that a bit strange? Fact 2 seems to imply fact 1 isn't true. Fact 2 also seems to imply
that wearing a helmet isn't the 'basic, sensible precaution' you say.

So, how do you reconcile these two facts?

clive

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

Quoted message said:

I think I am missing something (brain, probably) in this debate about helmets.

You said it :-)

Quoted message said:

Frankly, I really don't give a toss whether helmet wearing is compulsory

or

Quoted message said:

voluntary

Because, presumably, you don't care if a third of cyclists simply stop riding.

Quoted message said:

- after two or three instances where wearing a helmet has saved me
from a premature (in my opinion, others may beg to differ) end

Or not, it might have been the Mk. 1 Skull which has been protecting cyclists since before they were
cyclists...

Quoted message said:

I understand the arguments about personal freedom of choice - but anyone with the time and energy
on their hands to get exercised about this could find many other, more pressing issues to get
their teeth into.

As far as I'm concerned there is *no* more pressing issue in cycling right now than making sure the
misguided fools at the DfT don't destroy the green shoots of recovery in UK cycling by introducing a
law which, everywhere it's been tried, has had no effect on injury rates and caused a massive
reduction in cycling.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

I presume you carry a lightning conductor around with you.

LOL :-) :-)
--
Regards, Pete

Peter Taylor said:

I think I am missing something (brain, probably) in this debate about helmets.

You certainly are. Why do we have to re-open this time after time? The research has been done, the
verdict is in. Increased helmet wearing does not make any measurable difference to serious injuries
and deaths in whole population studies. Consequently *if* - as I believe - helmets do save some
lives that would otherwise have been lost in some accidents, they must logically cause at least as
many deaths where lives would not otherwise have been lost.

You can't escape that. It's an uncomfortable fact, but it's a fact. You are _exactly_ as likely to
be killed or seriously injured wearing a helmet as not. You're less likely to have minor cuts and
bruises, and you may psychologically feel safer. But that's all.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

See one nuclear war, you've seen them all.

This months Audax magazine carried a small amusing piece...

According to a Dr Palmer, of the west of England, the most common sporting head injury he treats is
from golf. Now whether this is down to the numbers playing the game, or the inherent risks....

Legislation for compulsory golf helmets can only be around the corner.

--
NC - Webmaster for 2mm.org.uk2mm.org.ukOpen ↗ Replies to newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please.

John Hearns said:

Peter Taylor said:

And anyone who would serious consider riding on or off road without one needs their head examining
(and probably will, by a medic if lucky, or a pathologist if not) It is a basic, sensible
precaution.

Oh Lord. YAHH (yet another helmet thread) But I can't help but reply. Sorry. Me, I mostly choose
to wear a helmet.

But Peter, please go to Holland. Stand on any high street, and start shouting at the shoppers,
students, grannies and mums and dads with kids on the crossbar, not a helmet to be seen
amongst them.

True enough, but how much motorised traffic are they cycling amongst?

--
Chris

NC said:

This months Audax magazine carried a small amusing piece...

According to a Dr Palmer, of the west of England, the most common sporting head injury he treats
is from golf. Now whether this is down to the numbers playing the game, or the inherent risks....

Legislation for compulsory golf helmets can only be around the corner.

There is a footpath near us that runs through a golf course. There are (were?) helmets available for
use by walkers passing through.

Peter Taylor said:

I think I am missing something (brain, probably) in this debate about helmets.

Frankly, I really don't give a toss whether helmet wearing is compulsory or voluntary -

Then why bother posting this diatribe. Back under the bridge.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

I think I am missing something (brain, probably) in this debate about helmets.

Yup :-) An understanding of the counter-intuitive issues.

As David Martin points out, one of those counter-intuitive issues is a grasp of elementary
statistics.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And anyone who would serious consider riding on or off road without one needs their head
examining (and probably will, by a medic if lucky, or a pathologist if not) It is a basic,
sensible precaution.

Part of your problem lies here : the answer is not "probably". In fact it's reasonably unlikely.
Millions of riders around the world manage to demonstrate this.

That is true.

Quoted message said:

I assume you've read the core facts in the various discussions :

1) Helmets ought to make you safer in the event of a collision

That is not a fact. The science and evidence is fairly balanced as to whether they are more likely
to reduce or increase brain damage. We simply don't know which, if either.

Quoted message said:

2) Studies of head injuries show that the number of them doesn't seem to be related to the
proportion of people wearing helmets at all.

That is true.

Quoted message said:

Now isn't that a bit strange? Fact 2 seems to imply fact 1 isn't true. Fact 2 also seems to imply
that wearing a helmet isn't the 'basic, sensible precaution' you say.

Yes.

Quoted message said:

So, how do you reconcile these two facts?

Divine inspiration. As given to his poodledom, Holy Tony.

Regards, Nick Maclaren.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I assume you've read the core facts in the various discussions :

1) Helmets ought to make you safer in the event of a collision

That is not a fact. The science and evidence is fairly balanced as to whether they are more likely
to reduce or increase brain damage. We simply don't know which, if either.

Note my use of the word 'ought' :-)

cheers, clive

"MSeries" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Frankly, I really don't give a toss whether helmet wearing is compulsory or voluntary -

Quoted message said:

Then why bother posting this diatribe. Back under the bridge.

Keeps people off the streets.

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:05:03 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Consequently *if* - as I believe - helmets do save some lives that would otherwise have been lost
in some accidents, they must logically cause at least as many deaths where lives would not
otherwise have been lost.

Although to be fair Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: they somply don't prevent the most
serious injuries.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

NC said:

According to a Dr Palmer, of the west of England, the most common sporting head injury he treats is
from golf. Now whether this is down to the numbers playing the game, or the inherent risks....

Note to self: remove flag from 'bent when riding past walkspoiling courses ;-)

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

you know? said:

Or not, it might have been the Mk. 1 Skull which has been protecting cyclists since before they
were cyclists...

It can't do any harm in giving the Mk. 1 Skull a helping hand (or skull in this case).

Gonzalez said:

Quoted message said:

Or not, it might have been the Mk. 1 Skull which has been protecting cyclists since before they
were cyclists...

Quoted message said:

It can't do any harm in giving the Mk. 1 Skull a helping hand (or skull in this case).

Unless it makes rotational injuries worse, or induces risk compensation, in which case it can.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Mseries

BPeter Taylor said:

I think I am missing something (brain, probably) in this debate about helmets.

Frankly, I really don't give a toss whether helmet wearing is compulsory or voluntary -

Then why bother posting this diatribe. Back under the bridge. [/B]

Trolled again! No problem - it's such a good opportunity to provide the information-antidote to the helmet delusion.

Perhaps the term 'troll' could be replaced (when the subject is helmets) with a better description - how about 'true believer'
(Gonzalez - where are you?)

Roger

"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business."

"It is the true believer’s ability to shut his eyes and stop his ears to facts which in his own mind deserve never to be seen nor heard which is the source of his unequalled fortitude and consistency."
- Eric Hoffer (Author of “The True Believer”)

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Taylor wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Frankly, I really don't give a toss whether helmet wearing is compulsory or voluntary -

Then why bother posting this diatribe. Back under the bridge.

He does appear to have trolled successfully in URC before. See
makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.comOpen ↗ .

Full URL = groups.google.co.ukgroupsOpen ↗
hreadm=bh89tq%24bpq%241%40hercules.btinternet.com&rnum=10&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-
8%26q%3Dauthor:peter%2540fponline.co.uk%2B

--
Dave...