Helmets

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:20:33 +0100, "Vivian" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I see the helmets as a protection, really.

So you wear one as a pedestrian then?

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. -
Mark Twain

Quoted post said:

posted by Vivian
I see the helmets as a protection, really. When wearing
seatbelts becase compulsory, did that deter drivers from
buying and driving cars? Don't think so. All the contrary by
the looks of it!! Did the obligatory use of helmets for
motorcyclist reduce their numbers? Nope.

I think we should trust people a bit more, that's all.

Vivian

Vivian claims

"Did the obligatory use of helmets for
motorcyclist reduce their numbers? Nope."

Are you sure about that, or is that a claim that you would prefer to believe, and that seems credible, and is a claim that you don't expect anyone to be able to refute?

Well here's a claim that contradicts the assertion that mandatory motorcycle helmet laws reduce motorcyclist numbers:

"It is also proffered that the repeal of mandatory helmet-use laws, by offering individuals a choice in whether to wear protective helmets, increases the attractiveness and convenience of motorcycle use. This in turn affects miles traveled and sales of motorcycles. For example, Kraus, Peek, and Williams (1995) reported that after an unrestricted helmet-use law went into effect in California in 1992, there was a substantial decrease in the number of motorcycles observed traveling on roads in various California cities." (page 132*)

* “BORN TO BE WILD” The Effect of the Repeal of Florida’s Mandatory Motorcycle Helmet-Use Law on Serious Injury and Fatality Rates, Stolzenberg L.,D'Alessio S.J., Florida International University, Evaluation Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, April 2003 131-150
www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/FloridaMHL.pdf

Vivian's use of analogous 'reasoning' seems silly and is hardly relevant:
"When wearing seatbelts becase compulsory, did that deter drivers from buying and driving cars? Don't think so. All the contrary by the looks of it!! "

I've seen this type of use of analogy in many guises before -where you can get the sense that the person who has need to resort to coming up with some patently silly and sneering, and irrelevant analogy - is bereft of a good argument and the ability to reason it through.
What's more laughable about this is that Vivian is effectively sneering - and (s)he can't see that what he's sneering at his own pathetically silly analogy.

There seems to be a very strong whiff of self assured smugness and condescension in what Vivian writes - as if to say that we're stupid and that he knows better.

I don't think the epithet 'troll' is appropriate here - any suggestions for alternative term of endearment - anybody?

Roger

davek said:

Since joining this newsgroup I have somewhat revised my
opinion so that I now trust my instinct less and the facts
and evidence more.

Take care! Many so called "facts and evidence" posted on
this NG have been grossly distorted or presented in such a
way to give a false picture.

Gonzalez said:

Take care! Many so called "facts and evidence" posted on
this NG have been grossly distorted or presented in such a
way to give a false picture.

What, like all of the BHIT ones?

The most salient *facts* are helmet compulsion has reduced
cycling numbers everywhere it's been introduced and overall
safety increases with increased numbers cycling.

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 hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Take care! Many so called "facts and evidence" posted on this NG have been grossly distorted or presented in such a

way to give a false picture.

Point taken, but what I really meant was that I've changed my attitude from making assumptions based on spurious instinctive reasoning to considering the evidence - I'm not necessarily saying that I entirely accept all these 'facts' at face value (I'm wary enough of newsgroups to avoid that pitfall - also wary enough to avoid the pitfall Vivian has leapt straight into).

d.

Vivian said:

I see the helmets as a protection, really.

But you do need to be aware how *much* protection. Cycle
helmets are designed for low speed impacts of the sort that
are actually rather unlikely to result in serious injuries
in any case. They are primarily designed to prevent grazes,
lacerations and the like. Now, there's nothing wrong with
that, but should it be criminal not to guard yourself
against bruises and grazing? The sort of fall cycle helmets
are designed to protect against isn't too different from the
sort of fall down stairs that puts plenty of people into
hospital with head injuries every year (note that more
children are hospitalised from simple falls than by cycling
accidents), so should helmets be made compulsory for
negotiating staircases? Of course not, we realise that's far
more trouble than it's worth, but if you look harder at the
facts of cycling you see it's actually basically pretty
safe, rather like stairs, despite some nasty accidents
happening.

Quoted message said:

When wearing seatbelts because compulsory, did that deter
drivers from buying and driving cars? Don't think so.

Rather a different matter though. There is no mass culture
of utility cycling in the UK and so very few people
*relying* on cycles for their economic wellbeing. The same
is not true of cars, and was not true when compulsory
seatbelts were introduced. People could not just give up
driving as their day to day routines depended on the car,
so they had to put up with it. Cycling generally exists as
a leisure activity in the UK, so people can just find
different ones. Also the case that wearing a foam hat with
a snug chinstrap on a machine that requires the energy from
the wearer to move makes far more comfort difference than a
seatbelt. Though they're reasonably comfortable these days
they are far *less* comfortable than not wearing one for
most riding. And furthermore, look harder at the figures
for how good the seatbelt laws have been for the nation's
health. People just drove worse since they were "safer",
and ultimately the injury trends in motor vehicles didn't
really change. Pedestrian and cycle casualties went up
though. Seat belt compulsion has actually been a public
health own goal at the population level. Yes, really, and
note that's not anti-seatbelt just as resisting helmet
compulsion isn't anti-helmet.

Quoted message said:

Did the obligatory use of helmets for motorcyclist
reduce their numbers? Nope.

Again the case that motorcycles are typically used as
utility machines more than cycles in the UK, and that was
more the case at the time of compulsion than it is now. If
you look at US states that have repealed helmet compulsion
laws their head injury rates are actually doing at least as
well, if not better, than those that haven't, so you
shouldn't assume that seatbelts and m/cycle helmets are as
obviously benign when you're compelled to use them as most
people seem to think.

FACT: everywhere cycle helmets have been compelled (in
Canada, Australia and NZ) cycle use has fallen significantly
(by up to around a third). This *has happened* and probably
is a better indication than seat belt and m/cycle helmet
cases. Why do you feel that the UK is so different to
Canada, Australia and NZ in its cycling culture that it is
bound to be different here?

Quoted message said:

I think we should trust people a bit more, that's all.

If we trust people to use "common sense" then that's not a
plan with a good track record. First up, not many people
have very much, and second it is often the case that Real
Life is rather more complicated than "common sense" allows
for. And this is one of those cases (and compulsory
seatbelts are another).

You may say it's "common sense" that compelling helmets is a
Good Thing because they make people safer, but I say that
the proven track record elsewhere that cycling numbers are
reduced and serious head injury rates have remained
basically unaffected makes it "common sense" that it is a
Very Dopey Idea indeed, especially when you factor in the
net public health reduction from thousands of people not
doing a healthy activity.

And why should anyone trust people like BHIT when their
claims are so demonstrably false?

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 hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Vivian said:

I see the helmets as a protection, really. When wearing
seatbelts becase compulsory, did that deter drivers from
buying and driving cars? Don't think so.

When helmets became compulsory in Australia did that deter
people form cycling? Yes. Massively. Did the same happen
in New Zealand? Yes. Have cyclist fatality and injury
rates risen by 40% in the USA while helmet use rose from
17% to 50%? Yes.

Did compulsory seat belts for car drivers lead to the
largest recorded rise in pedestrian, cyclist and rear-seat
passenger fatalities? Yes. Did the fatality rate for
motorcyclists get relatively worse following helmet
compulsion? Yes. Do drivers in ABS equipped cars follow
closer and brake later? Yes. Do drivers drive faster than
when they wear seat belts than when they are unbelted? Yes.

Not as simple as it looks, is it? ;-)

Thing is, cycling is hard work, whereas driving is easy.
There is far more incentive to drive than to cycle.

Quoted message said:

I think we should trust people a bit more, that's all.

Quite. And that includes not lying to them (e.g. saying
helmets prevent 85% of injuries, when we know that number is
completely bogus).

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

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

Simon Brooke said:

What common sense would predict would happen with 'safety'
legislation, and what really does happen, are often
different.

For details read Risk by John Adams ;-)

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

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

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:20:33 +0100, "Vivian" <[email hidden]>
wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

I see the helmets as a protection, really. When wearing
seatbelts becase compulsory, did that deter drivers from
buying and driving cars? Don't think so.

Cars are used often for transport where there are no easily
substitutable alternative forms of transport.

Quoted message said:

All the contrary by the looks of it!! Did the obligatory
use of helmets for motorcyclist reduce their numbers? Nope.

Actually, it did. Specifically for Sikhs.

Plus, motorcycles regularly travel at skull-smashing
impact speeds.

The other key point about motorbikes and cars is that the
driver/rider does not have to provide the effort involved
for carrying any extra weight, e.g. helmets, or storage bins
for things like helmets once parked up.

Quoted message said:

I think we should trust people a bit more, that's all.

And also ignore teh results observed when helmets have been
made compulsory elsewhere.

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:11:21 +0100, "Vivian" <[email hidden]>
wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

This guy? THIS GUY????????????????????????????/ I'M A
WOMAN!!!!!!!

Jeeeeesus.....!!

We were fooled by the fact you signed it 'Vivian' in a uk.*
newsgroup, rather than the more usual feminised forms.

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

Gawnsoft said:

Cars are used often for transport where there are no
easily substitutable alternative forms of transport.

The word "no" seems to have slipped into the above by
accident ;-)

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

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

In article said:

I thought that a troll was somebody who insulted other
members of the newsgroup. Now, I haven't insulted anyone.
Not yet at least! ;-)

So, I think you should take it back. Really.

I think you're a troll, and a top-posting troll, which is
worse. Really.

Just zis Guy said:

Gawnsoft wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cars are used often for transport where there are no
easily substitutable alternative forms of transport.

Quoted message said:

The word "no" seems to have slipped into the above by
accident ;-)

Yes and no ;-) Tell me how to get to Arisaig with 2x5m sea
kayaks in an evening without using a private motor vehicle
and I'll be interested and surprised. OTOH I know people
that drive less than 1 km and don't see it as silly
(although cyclists they don't cycle as they have totally
impractical road racers and only cycle if they're all togged
up in All The Gear, though why they don't just walk is a bit
beyond me).

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 hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

Yes and no ;-) Tell me how to get to Arisaig with 2x5m sea
kayaks in an evening without using a private motor vehicle
and I'll be interested and surprised.

Start at Mallaig? :-)

cheers, clive

Quoted message said:

This is why people might think you were trolling.

Not to mention the complete lack of explanation for your
views, especially as they're controversial.

I'm interested to know your views on the other debates on
the law, particularly whether you think mandatory helmet
laws have worked well in other places that have
introduced them.

Also wondered what you think about how dangerous cycling is
compared to other things (walking etc).

Basically, 1) Is parliamentry legislation needed for the
specific activity of cycling?
2) Is the proposed legislation going to work? (i.e. has
similar legislation worked elsewhere where it has
been tried?).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is why people might think you were trolling.

Not to mention the complete lack of explanation for your
views, especially as they're controversial.

I'm interested to know your views on the other debates on
the law, particularly whether you think mandatory helmet
laws have worked well in other places that have
introduced them.

Also wondered what you think about how dangerous cycling
is compared to other things (walking etc).

Basically, 1) Is parliamentry legislation needed for the
specific activity of cycling?
2) Is the proposed legislation going to work? (i.e. has
similar legislation worked elsewhere where it has been
tried?).

(should point out that the above was addressed to
Vivian, not Jon).

Peter Clinch said:

Tell me how to get to Arisaig with 2x5m sea kayaks in an
evening without using a private motor vehicle and I'll be
interested and surprised.

Happy to be of service :-)

tricolour.net36.htmlOpen ↗

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

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

Peter Clinch said:

Yes and no ;-) Tell me how to get to Arisaig with 2x5m sea
kayaks in an evening without using a private motor vehicle
and I'll be interested and surprised.

It's a funnny thing how this sea kayaking lark seems to
require car ownership, but as a student I was rowing in 50
foot boats all over the country (and even abroad once) for
years with no car and no particular problems.

It seems that the problem with kayaks is not that they are
awkward to transport, but that they are not awkward enough!

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is by treading on the
toes of giants. ne.jphomeOpen ↗

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tell me how to get to Arisaig with 2x5m sea kayaks in an
evening without using a private motor vehicle and I'll
be interested and surprised.

Happy to be of service :-)

tricolour.net36.htmlOpen ↗

He he. I want one. It'd be worth taking up kayaking just to
play with that!

Jon

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-
virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗). Version: 6.0.661 /
Virus Database: 424 - Release Date: 19/04/2004

Just zis Guy said:

Peter Clinch wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tell me how to get to Arisaig with 2x5m sea kayaks in an
evening without using a private motor vehicle and I'll be
interested and surprised.

Quoted message said:

Happy to be of service :-)

tricolour.net36.htmlOpen ↗

Yes, I've seen it and would like both HPVs pictured, but I'm
afraid your geography could do with a top up if you think I
can pedal from Dundee to Arisaig in an evening... :-(

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 hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗