Helmets - again!

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 still confused that people who have such excellent opportunities to
read lucid arguments on the matter as anyone that regularly reads u.r.c.
can come away thinking there's any degree of hostility and ridiculing
cyclists who choose to wear helmets.

Let's take a couple of examples of Likely Candidates. Well, there's me:
take a look at the pictures on my website and you'll find pictures of me
cycling in a helmet. There's Guy. Take a look at the pictures on his
website and you'll find they include snaps of him cycling in a helmet.
That's the sort of evidence that breaks down theories of hostility, yet
it's still ignored.

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.

There are no arguments at all to ridicule people who wear helmets.
Ridiculing of people trying to force us to wear them is quite a
different matter.

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.

So, why has there been no observable decrease in head injuries with
increasing helmet wearing anywhere anyone's looked at the population
level figures?
Rather than what you think /should/ happen, look at what actually *has*
happened.

Quoted message said:

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.

Cycles have been around for a long time now, and cycle helmets haven't.
Yet before they were on the scene millions of people of all skill
levels cycled on a daily basis and there was no particularly noteworthy
problem of head injuries particularly happening to cyclists more than
anyone else. That is a good demonstration that cycling without a helmet
is not only something that can be dreamed or imagined, but can actually
happen. Furthermore, the head injury rate has been unchanged by the
increasing use of helmets in many places, indicating they do less than
you seem to give them credit for.

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.

I haven't seen much in the way of active dissuasion, merely people being
asked to find out the true extent of the effectiveness. Which boils
down to saving you a bump, a nasty graze and a headache, *not* saving
your life.

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.

Less stupid than telling people something that almost certainly won't
save their life will. You are busy telling everyone the cinema is
fireproof, when you have no true knowledge of that being the case.
Considerably dafter and less responsible than disseminating FACTS on the
true efficacy of helmets as seem through real world, population level
statistics.

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/

you know? said:

At Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:43:43 GMT, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by Buck
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the following:

Quoted message said:

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,

Quoted message said:

Really? Can you think of anything pro cycling which people here have
argued against?

Over the last couple of years we have had people saying things like the use of cycle lanes will ultimately lead to bicycles being banned from the roads so cycle lanes should be abolished/ignored.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

LOL! Have you ever heard of Eric Martlew, MP? Now *there* is a man who
wants to ram his opinion down your throat!

Happens all the time on newsgroups.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

Crusade, eh? Is that where people force others to convert to their faith?
Let me introduce you to Angela Lee, another non-cyclist whose faith-based
approach to helmets inspired the MP named above...

Some people see their point of view as a near religion.

Quoted message said:

You have the situations reversed. Most of us who argue against zealotry
are sceptics. We have looked at the evidence and seen the faults in it;
we have found that there is conflicting evidence which the pro-helmet
lobby will not acknowledge; and we have documented proof that helmet
promoters have lied to MPs and others in order to try to get them to
change the law to enforce their judgment on everybody else..

You argue against a general post that condemns no individual, feeling guilty?

Quoted message said:

It's a high stakes game, and where the Liddites have won the cost has been
high for cycling.

No argument from me.

Quoted message said:

Incidentally, some of the most authoritative sceptical material I have
read has come from John Franklin, author of Cyclecraft, and from Brian
Walker, who runs the largest helmet testing laboratory in the UK.

Quoted message said:

I'll say again: Angela Lee, Britain's foremost helmet promoter, is *not* a
cyclist. Neither is Eric Martlew, who tabled a private member's bill to
compel helmet use.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just ignore the ranters or read the facts and ignore the fiction,

I see you cut my last sentence to support your argument, somewhat disingenuous don't you think? I expect better from you Guy.

Quoted message said:

Absolutely. Start here: http://www.cyclehelmets.org

Quoted message said:

Incidentally, have you any figures on the risk of helmet-preventable head
injury while riding a recumbent trike? I'd say that "zero" was a pretty
good first approximation ;-)

Hence the fact that I rarely wear a helmet unless I am racing.

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

www.catrike.co.uk

On 06/08/2005 09:20:28 Buck said:

Hence the fact that I rarely wear a helmet unless I am racing.

I might add that the speed when racing rules out any real advantage of the helmet in a crash, but rules dictate.

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

www.catrike.co.uk

Buck said:

Quoted message said:

Really? Can you think of anything pro cycling which people here have
argued against?

Quoted message said:

Over the last couple of years we have had people saying things like the
use of cycle lanes will ultimately lead to bicycles being banned from the
roads so cycle lanes should be abolished/ignored.

So you think cycle lanes are pro-cycling and that anybody who disputes
your view is wrong? I think that there are sound reasons for being
opposed to cycle lanes. Whether you agree with them or not is
immaterial, the people who say these things have a solid evidential
basis for saying it, so have every right to say so.

Here's an example from someone whose opinion I value:
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html

Saying cycle lanes are good (or bad) or helmets are good (or bad) and
citing evidence is fine. Informed discussion is good, we all learn
from that (that's how I changed from being a helmet zealot to a
sceptic). Dogma is bad. But I know we agree about this, even if we
may occasionally differ on what qualifies as dogma ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

LOL! Have you ever heard of Eric Martlew, MP? Now *there* is a man who
wants to ram his opinion down your throat!

Quoted message said:

Happens all the time on newsgroups.

Indeed. The issue is that you (or so I read you) falsely portray this
behaviour as being unique to sceptics. Actually it is *much* more
characteristic of the pro-helmet lobby than the sceptics.

In context, I also read your post after being reminded that "Peter
Taylor" is a serial troll.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Crusade, eh? Is that where people force others to convert to their faith?
Let me introduce you to Angela Lee, another non-cyclist whose faith-based
approach to helmets inspired the MP named above...

Quoted message said:

Some people see their point of view as a near religion.

Too right. As stated, Angela Lee will not rest until everybody in
Britain is forced to wear a helmet when cycling. It won't affect her,
as she is not a cyclist, and she doesn't actually care about cyclist
safety (she has never campaigned for funding for training, for
example), as far as I can tell her interest begins and ends with
helmets. Her view has infected a number of otherwise perfectly sane
and rational people.

But look at the sceptics around here. Are we interested only in
helmets? Or do we take an interest in motor traffic danger reduction,
training, cycle maintenance, lights?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You have the situations reversed. Most of us who argue against zealotry
are sceptics. We have looked at the evidence and seen the faults in it;
we have found that there is conflicting evidence which the pro-helmet
lobby will not acknowledge; and we have documented proof that helmet
promoters have lied to MPs and others in order to try to get them to
change the law to enforce their judgment on everybody else..

Quoted message said:

You argue against a general post that condemns no individual, feeling guilty?

Your general post seems designed to impugn those who are sceptical,
and applies to the sceptical lobby (of which I am a vociferous member)
a number of labels which apply more accurately to the Liddites. I
apologise if this is a false impression, but you are right that I am
sensitive. I have been attacked in public for "interfering with
people making an informed choice" - by giving them information which
those who would seek to make the choice on their behalf, would rather
they did not have.

Do I feel guilty? No. I feel scared, insecure and wracked with
doubt. My whole take on the helmet issue might be erroneous! I might
be entirely wrong. I don't think I am, but I absolutely acknowledge
that I might be. Each new piece of research that comes out, I read
and try to understand, because it may tell me one way or the other.
And I am scared because there is a very real possibility of a helmet
law in this country, just at a time when cycling is starting to enjoy
a real renaissance. The laws in Australia knocked leisure cycling
back by a decade and utility cycling has never properly recovered -
that would have a genuine and possibly immediate effect on my safety,
since the one thing which seems to me proven to improve the safety of
cyclists is more people cycling.

I am so uncertain that I have spent hundreds of hours reading hundreds
of papers in an attempt to find a single, clear, unequivocal message.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/research_evidence

I'm still looking for a reliable indication of how many injuries of
what scale helmets might be expected to provide. Even the
whole-population figures don't work for that, because large chunks of
the cycling population simply stop cycling if you try to make them
wear helmets, and the values from these populations come out at around
zero, while the values for unforced populations tend to come out large
and negative. The whole thing is baffling in the extreme

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just ignore the ranters or read the facts and ignore the fiction,

Quoted message said:

I see you cut my last sentence to support your argument, somewhat disingenuous don't you think? I expect better from you Guy.

Not really; I just didn't want to get into who might be crazies, what
might be fact and what fiction - these are largely subjective
judgments.

Or do you mean the bit about trikes being better than bikes? As if
anyone could disagree with that? ;-)

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 CHS, Puget Sound

you know? said:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:20:28 GMT, Buck <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Really? Can you think of anything pro cycling which people here have
argued against?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Over the last couple of years we have had people saying things like the
use of cycle lanes will ultimately lead to bicycles being banned from the
roads so cycle lanes should be abolished/ignored.

Quoted message said:

So you think cycle lanes are pro-cycling and that anybody who disputes
your view is wrong?

I never said that, you are judging me by your own disjointed view.

Quoted message said:

I think that there are sound reasons for being
opposed to cycle lanes. Whether you agree with them or not is immaterial,
the people who say these things have a solid evidential basis for saying
it, so have every right to say so.

So you agree with me that people have argued against pro cycling issues here?

You are getting very like Paul Smith these days Guy, lots of sentences to try and hide the fact that you know you are often wrong, then sticking your head up your [censored] and pretending not to hear.

Over the last couple of years I have changed my view on helmets due to reading these groups and gaining better understanding of the real facts, including from you, my original views were based on a friend dying from head injuries while cycling without a helmet, with the facts at hand I can see that his death would not in all likelyhood have been prevented by a helmet.

But I have to say you are sounding more like a fanatic than a reasoned debator these days, what has happened to you?

I'm all for free speech, I will just point out, as is my right, that your ravings merely serve to fragment cyclists from one another and will likely cause less cysling than more, a year ago I would have said the tone of your posts, though extreme, were more reasoned, but now I am un-impressed.
--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

www.catrike.co.uk

Buck said:

On 06/08/2005 10:52:44 "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So you think cycle lanes are pro-cycling and that anybody who
disputes your view is wrong?

Quoted message said:

I never said that, you are judging me by your own disjointed view.

I read that quite differently: it's not a judgement, it's a rhetorical
question AFAICT. Perhaps some clarification from Guy?

Quoted message said:

But I have to say you are sounding more like a fanatic than a
reasoned debator these days, what has happened to you?

If people mistake rhetorical questions for judgments it's not 100% Guy's
fault.

Not that I'd say anyone (including me) expressing forthright views isn't
inclined to get carried away from time to time, and exchanges such as
this are useful to concentrate the mind into not doing so. But that
said, because I think you've mistaken a sceptical tone for a judgmental
one, I don't think your points are 100% fair either.

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/

in message <[email hidden]>, Buck

(') said:

you know? said:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:20:28 GMT, Buck <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Really? Can you think of anything pro cycling which people here
> have argued against?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Over the last couple of years we have had people saying things like
the use of cycle lanes will ultimately lead to bicycles being banned
from the roads so cycle lanes should be abolished/ignored.

Quoted message said:

So you think cycle lanes are pro-cycling and that anybody who
disputes your view is wrong?

I never said that, you are judging me by your own disjointed view.

Quoted message said:

I think that there are sound reasons for being
opposed to cycle lanes. Whether you agree with them or not is
immaterial, the people who say these things have a solid evidential
basis for saying it, so have every right to say so.

So you agree with me that people have argued against pro cycling
issues here?

Which part of "cycle lanes are not 'pro cycling'" did you not
understand?

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

;; Women are from Venus. Men are from Mars. Lusers are from Uranus.

On 06/08/2005 11:55:35 Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Buck
([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On 06/08/2005 10:52:44 "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:20:28 GMT, Buck <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Really? Can you think of anything pro cycling which people here have
>> argued against?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Over the last couple of years we have had people saying things like the
> use of cycle lanes will ultimately lead to bicycles being banned from
> the roads so cycle lanes should be abolished/ignored.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So you think cycle lanes are pro-cycling and that anybody who disputes
your view is wrong?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I never said that, you are judging me by your own disjointed view.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think that there are sound reasons for being opposed to cycle lanes.
Whether you agree with them or not is immaterial, the people who say
these things have a solid evidential basis for saying it, so have every
right to say so.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So you agree with me that people have argued against pro cycling issues
here?

Quoted message said:

Which part of "cycle lanes are not 'pro cycling'" did you not understand?

Anybody can say that anything is not pro cycling so the original point by Guy is moot.

I don't see Guy saying that cycle lanes are not pro cycling by the way, can you point out those exact words in his post Simon?

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:36:27 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Folks, it's not all gloom - as you may know, the Government has given
CTC a quarter of a million over two years to facilitate cycle
training. I cannot imagine that any cyclist could see this as
anything other than positive!

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 CHS, Puget Sound

you know? said:

Ravings? Perhaps you could give me an example?

Quoted message said:

I don't mind being an Aunt Sally for the sceptics, but at least let me
know what the ammunition is.

Quoted message said:

Guy

You mean other than the fact you went off on a complete tangent? Very Paul Smith of you.

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

you know? said:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:36:27 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Folks, it's not all gloom - as you may know, the Government has given CTC
a quarter of a million over two years to facilitate cycle training. I
cannot imagine that any cyclist could see this as anything other than
positive!

Quoted message said:

Guy

It's about time something like this started happening, how are they going to implement the training?

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

Buck said:

you know? said:

Folks, it's not all gloom - as you may know, the Government has given CTC
a quarter of a million over two years to facilitate cycle training. I
cannot imagine that any cyclist could see this as anything other than
positive!

It's about time something like this started happening, how are they going to implement the training?

Via the Open University apparently. The training pack comes with a DVD,
course text and a loan bicycle scheme.

Colin

Colin Blackburn said:

Buck said:

you know? said:

Folks, it's not all gloom - as you may know, the Government has given CTC
a quarter of a million over two years to facilitate cycle training. I
cannot imagine that any cyclist could see this as anything other than
positive!

It's about time something like this started happening, how are they going to implement the training?

Via the Open University apparently. The training pack comes with a DVD,
course text and a loan bicycle scheme.

Do you have any contacts/links for this?
Is it aimed at cyclists wanting instruction, or training of new instructors?
Only today I've been approached by someone wanting to train as an instructor.
There doesn't seem to be anything on the CTC website.

John B

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 11:42:29 GMT, Buck

ian@*remove*trikesandstuff.co.uk said:

Quoted message said:

Ravings? Perhaps you could give me an example?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't mind being an Aunt Sally for the sceptics, but at least let me
know what the ammunition is.

Quoted message said:

You mean other than the fact you went off on a complete tangent?
Very Paul Smith of you.

You are Bill Zaumen & I claim my five pounds.

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 CHS, Puget Sound

On 06/08/2005 12:50:12 Colin Blackburn said:

Buck wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On 06/08/2005 12:40:55 "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Folks, it's not all gloom - as you may know, the Government has given
CTC a quarter of a million over two years to facilitate cycle training.
I cannot imagine that any cyclist could see this as anything other than
positive!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's about time something like this started happening, how are they going
to implement the training?

Quoted message said:

Via the Open University apparently. The training pack comes with a DVD,
course text and a loan bicycle scheme.

Quoted message said:

Colin

Excellent idea, do you get a helmet?

--
Buck

I would rather be out on my Catrike

http://www.catrike.co.uk

JohnB said:

Colin Blackburn said:

Buck said:

On 06/08/2005 12:40:55 "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Folks, it's not all gloom - as you may know, the Government has given CTC
>a quarter of a million over two years to facilitate cycle training. I
>cannot imagine that any cyclist could see this as anything other than
>positive!

It's about time something like this started happening, how are they going to implement the training?

Via the Open University apparently. The training pack comes with a DVD,
course text and a loan bicycle scheme.

Do you have any contacts/links for this?
Is it aimed at cyclists wanting instruction, or training of new instructors?
Only today I've been approached by someone wanting to train as an instructor.
There doesn't seem to be anything on the CTC website.

Cycling Scotland OTOH have just sent me an email with details of their
trainer training courses.

I am tempted to get a foot on the ladder.

...d

Buck said:

On 06/08/2005 12:50:12 Colin Blackburn said:

Buck said:

It's about time something like this started happening, how are they going
to implement the training?

Quoted message said:

Via the Open University apparently. The training pack comes with a DVD,
course text and a loan bicycle scheme.

Excellent idea, do you get a helmet?

Don't be silly! You do get a protective kipper tie.

Colin (OU Associate Lecturer)

Colin Blackburn said:

Don't be silly! You do get a protective kipper tie.

And leather patches for the elbows of your tweed jacket.

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 CHS, Puget Sound

JohnB said:

Colin Blackburn said:

Buck said:

On 06/08/2005 12:40:55 "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Folks, it's not all gloom - as you may know, the Government has given CTC
>a quarter of a million over two years to facilitate cycle training. I
>cannot imagine that any cyclist could see this as anything other than
>positive!

It's about time something like this started happening, how are they going to implement the training?

Via the Open University apparently. The training pack comes with a DVD,
course text and a loan bicycle scheme.

;-)

Quoted message said:

Do you have any contacts/links for this?
Is it aimed at cyclists wanting instruction, or training of new instructors?
Only today I've been approached by someone wanting to train as an instructor.
There doesn't seem to be anything on the CTC website.

Colin

David Martin said:

Cycling Scotland OTOH have just sent me an email with details of their
trainer training courses.

I am tempted to get a foot on the ladder.

Try Cycling Tayside will provide free training for volunteers, so they
might be a good place to start. I'm waiting for their next dates
announcement as the last one was while I was away :-(

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/