Helmets

Timo said:

I'm relatively new to this whole helmet debate.

Up to now I've used one because I simply assumed it offers more
protection than no helmet.

A few articles I've read on the subject contradict that assumption.

I commute in a city, but mainly on quiet back streets. Should I wear a
helmet or not?

If you want. Don't go headbanging cars or lorries though, the helmet
cannot be relied on to protect you to any great extent.

Helemts are really useful for keeping your head warm, as a mount for a
light, and as a carrier for your gloves/hat when you get to where you
are going.

...d

Timo said:

I commute in a city, but mainly on quiet back streets. Should I wear a
helmet or not?

Only you can decide. http://www.cyclehelmets.org is a good place to
inform yourself about the decision you are making.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Timo said:

I'm relatively new to this whole helmet debate.

Up to now I've used one because I simply assumed it offers more
protection than no helmet.

A few articles I've read on the subject contradict that assumption.

I commute in a city, but mainly on quiet back streets. Should I wear
a helmet or not?

Do some research and make your own mind up while the choice is still
available to you. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ is a good place to
start.

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck
MARS Flight Crew http://www.mars.org.uk/
UKRA #1108 Level 2 UYB
Tripoli UK Member #9527 LSMR

In addition to cyclehelmets.org you could visit The Vehicular Cyclist
at http://magma.ca/~ocbc for range of international news and sceptical
opinions.

Considering the huge debate about helmets, this OP stinks of being a troll.

Leave it alone!

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
Remove PSANTISPAM to reply
"Timo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I'm relatively new to this whole helmet debate.

Up to now I've used one because I simply assumed it offers more
protection than no helmet.

A few articles I've read on the subject contradict that assumption.

I commute in a city, but mainly on quiet back streets. Should I wear a
helmet or not?

Pinky said:

Considering the huge debate about helmets, this OP stinks of being a
troll.

But there's no debate caused. Until someone goes off on a tangent about what
I wrote in this post.

--
Ambrose

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:27:39 GMT, "Pinky"
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Considering the huge debate about helmets, this OP stinks of being a troll.

I think it is a fair question fairly put.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Just read the post by "ambrose" -- and use your grey matter ----nuff said.

I shall not post again on this string.

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
Remove PSANTISPAM to reply
"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pinky said:

Considering the huge debate about helmets, this OP stinks of being a
troll.

But there's no debate caused. Until someone goes off on a tangent about
what I wrote in this post.

--
Ambrose

David Martin said:

Timo said:

I'm relatively new to this whole helmet debate.

Up to now I've used one because I simply assumed it offers more
protection than no helmet.

A few articles I've read on the subject contradict that assumption.

I commute in a city, but mainly on quiet back streets. Should I wear
a helmet or not?

If you want. Don't go headbanging cars or lorries though, the helmet
cannot be relied on to protect you to any great extent.

Helemts are really useful for keeping your head warm, as a mount for a
light, and as a carrier for your gloves/hat when you get to where you
are going.

..d

And you can stick mirrors on them.
--

Martin Bulmer

Timo said:

I'm relatively new to this whole helmet debate.

Up to now I've used one because I simply assumed it offers more
protection than no helmet.

A few articles I've read on the subject contradict that assumption.

I commute in a city, but mainly on quiet back streets. Should I wear a
helmet or not?

Depends whether you like lugging a sweaty plastic pisspot around at your
destination.

Not Responding said:

Timo said:

I'm relatively new to this whole helmet debate.

Up to now I've used one because I simply assumed it offers more
protection than no helmet.

A few articles I've read on the subject contradict that assumption.

I commute in a city, but mainly on quiet back streets. Should I wear a
helmet or not?

Depends whether you like lugging a sweaty plastic pisspot around at your
destination.

Cos if you do, you probably won't want to carry a helmet too :-)

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

"Pinky" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Considering the huge debate about helmets, this OP stinks of being a troll.

Quoted message said:

Leave it alone!

Quite. It's like deja vu all over again!

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

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

It's like deja vu all over again!

Not again! ;-)

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Please, don't be so quick to accuse me. Can I not ask a simple
question?

As I've said, I'm new to the helmet discussion, and cycling politics in
general, especially in this country. I've been cycling for the last 20
years almost every day of my life. And believe it or not - I did not
even realise there *was* a helmet discussion until recently, when I
started reading about cycling on the web. That's why I came to this
board in the first place.

I don't read cycling publications. I don't wear fancy gear. I'm not
familiar with cycling jargon. I don't take part in events. I don't
talk to any friends about cycling issues. I'm not a "cyclist". I'm
only a person who happens to cycle.

Please, don't be so quick to accuse me. Can I not ask a simple
question?

Quoted message said:

Considering the huge debate about helmets, this OP stinks of being a troll.

As I've said, I'm new to the helmet discussion, and cycling politics in
general, especially in this country. I've been cycling for the last 20
years almost every day of my life. And believe it or not - I did not
even realise there *was* a helmet discussion until recently, when I
started reading about cycling on the web. That's why I came to this
forum in the first place.

I don't read cycling publications. I don't wear fancy gear. I'm not
familiar with cycling jargon. I don't take part in events. I don't
talk to any friends about cycling issues. I'm not a "cyclist". I'm
only a person who happens to cycle.

"Kinetic" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Please, don't be so quick to accuse me. Can I not ask a simple
question?

You can ask; we don't have to repeat the same things till we've run out
of energy.

The whole helmet debate has run and rerun here ad nauseam recently. Go
to Google Groups cos I've nowt new to say.

Yawn

Goodnight.

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

Timo said:

I'm relatively new to this whole helmet debate.

Up to now I've used one because I simply assumed it offers more
protection than no helmet.

A few articles I've read on the subject contradict that assumption.

I commute in a city, but mainly on quiet back streets. Should I wear a
helmet or not?

The helmet debate amongst serious cyclists is similar to the speed
camera debate amongst serious motorists.

In either case the government seem to spin and misrepresent the findings
of a couple of reports or studies to support the "common sense",
"obvious" (cheap/profitable/pc fix) conclusion that they *must* be
beneficial.

Then the established "road safety" organisations see it as their duty to
support such "sensible" advice. Then the populist press find a few
grieving relatives to "prove" that the devices would save lives and must
be adopted forthwith.

Then the bandwagon is joined by those who, for reasons of prejudice, or
revenge, or preconceptions, or whatever, find the "solution" nicely fits
in with their perverted sense of justice, and "Bob's your uncle" they
become the established, definitive solution.

Then the bluff is called by a few "academics" who like to show how
clever they are by reading the fine details of the "evidence", and
drawing alternative conclusions, and hilighting shortcomings in the
rationale, and then search out further studies which offer "proof" that
the original concept was wrong.

Then heels dig in, and you are left to your own devices, to draw your
own conclusions, or fall in with the prejudices of those you look up to :-)

Take a look at the "Head protection - the case against" thread in this
ng, started on 2nd November.

Good luck!

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Timo said:

I'm relatively new to this whole helmet debate.

Up to now I've used one because I simply assumed it offers more
protection than no helmet.

A few articles I've read on the subject contradict that assumption.

I commute in a city, but mainly on quiet back streets. Should I wear a
helmet or not?

The helmet debate amongst serious cyclists is similar to the speed
camera debate amongst serious motorists.

In either case the government seem to spin and misrepresent the findings
of a couple of reports or studies to support the "common sense",
"obvious" (cheap/profitable/pc fix) conclusion that they *must* be
beneficial.

I believe the pot is attempting to call the kettle black here.

Quoted message said:

Then the established "road safety" organisations see it as their duty to
support such "sensible" advice. Then the populist press find a few
grieving relatives to "prove" that the devices would save lives and must
be adopted forthwith.

Yawn..

Quoted message said:

Then the bandwagon is joined by those who, for reasons of prejudice, or
revenge, or preconceptions, or whatever, find the "solution" nicely fits
in with their perverted sense of justice, and "Bob's your uncle" they
become the established, definitive solution.

A well balanced view, a chip on both shoulders..

Quoted message said:

Then the bluff is called by a few "academics" who like to show how
clever they are by reading the fine details of the "evidence", and
drawing alternative conclusions, and hilighting shortcomings in the
rationale, and then search out further studies which offer "proof" that
the original concept was wrong.

You misuse proof differently in both these senses.

Quoted message said:

Then heels dig in, and you are left to your own devices, to draw your
own conclusions, or fall in with the prejudices of those you look up to :-)

Only if you are a scientific illiterate.

Quoted message said:

Take a look at the "Head protection - the case against" thread in this
ng, started on 2nd November.

Your point?

...d

David Martin said:

Your point?

To selectively quote and draw ludicrous conclusions to "prove" that we
really agree with him about Gatsos, obviously...

Almost as obvious as the fact we don't and most probably won't, but
since he'll ignore anything that doesn't fit his predetermined
conclusion not, alas, obvious to him.

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