[H*lmet] Avoiding the inevitable

Chris Malcolm said:

Martin Bulmer said:

Or by wearing a helmet. You do get used to it.
Compulsory helmets would be a Bad Thing, and could well reduce the number of
new cyclists initially, but dedicated cyclists would not give up rather than
wear one, I think, and when everyone is wearing one, I don't think it will
put new cyclists off, any more than the motorbike helmet law does.

But motorcyclists don't have a sweating problem. In fact quite the
reverse. They also often travel at speeds where some pretty serious
face and eye protection against wind, grit, bugs, etc., is
essential. And when they test motorcycle jackets they don't test them
for sweatiness, breathability, etc.. They put heavy weights in them
and drag them down the road on a rope to test road abrasion
resistance.

Actually, re the sweating problem, although I'm someone that feels the
heat more than most (too much extra padding) I don't find that it makes
it any worse by having a helmet on. Mine's not great with the number of
vents and size of them, but I find I sweat more when I've stopped and
removed helmet than when I'm actually riding or have stopped briefly and
still have it on.

Velvet

--

Velvet

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

By "avoid" the law you mean "break" the law.

Quoted message said:

Well, yeah. I think it would be more "flout" the law really.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We don't condone breaking the law.

Quoted message said:

:-) I do.

It's the duty of a socially responsible citizen to break stupid
laws. I break one every day. One must do one's bit.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +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/]

Al C-F said:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 07:33:52 +0000, davek <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

By "avoid" the law you mean "break" the law. We don't condone breaking
the law.

I don't know who you claim to represent with your 'we', but isn't
there a well-documented point of view that one has a duty to break a
bad law? Thoreau, perhaps?

I'm disinclined to break even bad law, because in the breaking of it I
simply re-inforce the necessity for it in the minds of both the
convinced proponents of the law and those previously fairly
uninterested. When I see White Van Man tearing past my door with a
sandwich in one hand and a mobile phone in the other I'm reinforced in
my desire to have the waster prosecuted, even though I know the phone
clause is knee-jerk legislation which was always going to be
near-impossible to enforce.

Smart-[censored] tricks to "avoid" a helmet law (if noted and publicised)
would, I think, simply convince many people that the law must have been
necessary in the first place. Far better, if such an odious act were to
be passed at some stage, to continue campaigning for its repeal based on
sound fact and argument, however tedious and unexciting that approach
might be.

--
Brian G
To reply, replace junk with brian

Not Responding said:

Al C-F said:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 07:33:52 +0000, davek <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

By "avoid" the law you mean "break" the law. We don't condone breaking
the law.

I don't know who you claim to represent with your 'we', but isn't
there a well-documented point of view that one has a duty to break a
bad law? Thoreau, perhaps?

Smith, Paul.

Humour noted.

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:11:40 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden] (Chris

Malcolm) said:

Safety legislation looks like it is becoming deranged by a kind of
social insanity to me. Does anybody know what the prognosis is? I fear
that unless it is checked it will get worse.

Under the current Home Secretary, the prognosis is bad. He is bossy
and interfering and a certifiable menace. I can only assume that
without the evidence of his own eyes, he's easy prey for anyone who
can spin a good yarn, and reacts with the zeal of someone who knows
that 'something must be done'.

in message <[email hidden]>, Velvet

(') said:

Chris Malcolm said:

Martin Bulmer said:

Or by wearing a helmet. You do get used to it.
Compulsory helmets would be a Bad Thing, and could well reduce the
number of new cyclists initially, but dedicated cyclists would not
give up rather than wear one, I think, and when everyone is wearing
one, I don't think it will put new cyclists off, any more than the
motorbike helmet law does.

But motorcyclists don't have a sweating problem. In fact quite the
reverse. They also often travel at speeds where some pretty serious
face and eye protection against wind, grit, bugs, etc., is
essential. And when they test motorcycle jackets they don't test them
for sweatiness, breathability, etc.. They put heavy weights in them
and drag them down the road on a rope to test road abrasion
resistance.

Actually, re the sweating problem, although I'm someone that feels the
heat more than most (too much extra padding) I don't find that it
makes
it any worse by having a helmet on. Mine's not great with the number
of vents and size of them, but I find I sweat more when I've stopped
and removed helmet than when I'm actually riding or have stopped
briefly and still have it on.

But you are a lady, and consequently only glow. Personally I sweat
buckets in a helmet - most unpleasant and uncomfortable. I'm not aware
of my scalp sweating if I don't wear one - I expect it does, but it
isn't uncomfortable.

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

;; my other religion is Emacs

Simon Brooke said:

But you are a lady, and consequently only glow. Personally I sweat
buckets in a helmet - most unpleasant and uncomfortable. I'm not aware
of my scalp sweating if I don't wear one - I expect it does, but it
isn't uncomfortable.

Same here.

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

Quoted message said:

elyob said:

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

Quoted message said:

Ok, it's coming eventually so best be prepared.

Quoted message said:

Why do you say that? Any further information on the status of this
appreciated.

I don't see how you can prepare your lawyer for the court case when
the legislation hasn't even been enacted. I suspect if you tried he
might advise you that you were being a bit premature :-)

What are you on about Chris? I'm just wondering what the latest is on the
position of BHIT etc ...

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 16:05:03 GMT,

Simon Brooke said:

But you are a lady, and consequently only glow. Personally I sweat
buckets in a helmet - most unpleasant and uncomfortable. I'm not aware
of my scalp sweating if I don't wear one - I expect it does, but it
isn't uncomfortable.

I think it's evaporation that stops you feeling like you are sweating
and when you stop the loss of that 20mph wind means that the sweat no
longer evaporates quickly enough.

And once you put on a helmet the sweat doesn't evaporate quickly enough
and, after 3-4 miles, you start getting salty water dripping in your
eyes.

But there is enough evaporation that the salt is concentrated enough
that it stings.

The times when the sweat doesn't evaporate quickly enough (going up long
steep hills on cool days) it's easy to wipe enough of it away with a
hand to stop it dripping in your eyes. Once you put a helmet on you can
only wipe it off once it starts trickling down your face.

Tim.

Al C-F [email hidden] opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

without the evidence of his own eyes

Was that intentional? ;-)

Jon

davek said:

Mark Thompson wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Should it be too hot, or we just want to be difficult, what would be the
best way of avoiding a helmet law?

By "avoid" the law you mean "break" the law.

Not necesarily - why assume teh worst of someone? If you don't like
the requirements of a law it is entirely reasonable to avoid it.

For example, if you really don't like helmets, you could take up
riding a tricycle - it's quite likely the law will apply to bicycles
only (the motorbike laws don't apply to tricycles, and I beliew mad
martlews bull, sorry, bill wouldn't have appleid to tricycles). What
is wrong with this?

Quoted message said:

We don't condone breaking the law.

Don't be so prissy, especially based upon a shaky inference.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/download/helmets-contributory-negligence.pdf

That's actually an extremely long, well written and carefully researched
article, IMO, with much of use to 'us' in it, so I hope it can stay up!
Disturbing to note that insurers are routinely deducting 25% for injury to
non-helmet wearing cyclists (hardly surprising, since they'll use any
excuse to weasel out of or reduce their liability) and that claimants are
routinely accepting it (which does seem somewhat surprising, but I suppose
it's a case of them wanting to settle with the most speed and least
hassle)

Rich

Having just read it, I can only concur, a well-written and researched piece
of work. Just one point: will anyone whose lawyers agreed to the 25%
reduction in damages because they weren't wearing a cycle helmet be able to
sue those lawyers for negligence?

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 16:09:56 +0900, James Annan
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

We have a couple of Mormons who do that round here. At least it gives
everyone ample notice of their arrival so we can all get in the bath
and/or fail to hear the doorbell etc.

Stick a notice on the door which says "Mormons: we know about the
Arian heresy. ;-)

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 Washington University

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 07:06:53 -0000, "Martin Bulmer"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I don't think it will
put new cyclists off, any more than the motorbike helmet law does

In which case you think wrong. Check out Australia and New Zealand,
for starters.

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 Washington University

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 16:05:03 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Personally I sweat
buckets in a helmet - most unpleasant and uncomfortable.

I sued to be an habitual lid wearer, but having stopped wearing one
almost all the time I suddenly noticed that I wasn't getting headaches
after long, hot summer rides. Worn correctly, they are rather less
than perfectly comfortable. In my experience.

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 Washington University

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 10:30:23 +0000, Al C-F
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Which is a round about way of saying that he has no redeeming
qualities at all.

There now follows a complete and exhaustive list of his known
redeeming qualities:

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 Washington University

James Annan said:

Who is "we"?

The royal we.

d.

Ian Smith said:

For example, if you really don't like helmets, you could take up
riding a tricycle - it's quite likely the law will apply to bicycles
only (the motorbike laws don't apply to tricycles, and I beliew mad
martlews bull, sorry, bill wouldn't have appleid to tricycles).

To quote from Martlew's bill:
"In this Act— “cycle” means a bicycle, a tricycle or a cycle having four
or more wheels not being in any case a motor vehicle; "

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Ian Smith said:

Don't be so prissy, especially based upon a shaky inference.

Prissy schmissy. It's about using your noggin. I just don't see what's
so clever about giving the cager lobby ammunition to use against
cyclists by publicly discussing how to go about breaking the law while
on a bike.

Or is it one rule for Paul Smith, another rule for us? After all, Paul
Smith has arrived at his position by applying the Thoreau principle to
speeding laws.

Not that there is a law to break in this instance. Ride a trike indeed.
Mindless drivel. Why not just give up cycling and drive a car instead?

Or just do what you like. I don't really care anyway.

d.

Mark Thompson said:

Most
people are idiots.

I disagree. Most people are averagely intelligent. But intelligence
doesn't come into it anyway - like you say, it's an emotive issue.

Even very clever people occasionally fail to apply their normal high
standards of reasoning when there are gut feelings to overcome.

d.