Helmets and Autopsy

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

The point is that there are reports that lead to opposing
conclusions, both sides reports are flawed - who decides which is more
valid? Certainly not a bunch of Usenet cyclists, one would hope.

Even when that "bunch of Usenet cyclists" include a number who are
eminently qualified to assess and a lot of experience and expertise in
assessing research? I might have some sympathy for your position if you
showed any evidence of having read the research yourself but so far all
I see is fingers in the ears and lots of "Lalala - I can't hear you -
ing"

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I have not read said reprt so
I'll not delve deeper. All I've said is both sides arguments are flawed.

I think those two sentences together are a perfect illustration of your
problem.

--
Tony

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from
the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so."
- Douglas Adams

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

Fair enough - however you are about the only person on either the
pro-compulsion or anti-compulsion side of the argument that argues
that only data from the UK (and seemingly only that from urban areas
as your point was partly about densities) is valid for the UK.

Explaining why you think that could be illuminating.

Especially if done with reference to the work of Hewson.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

Tony Raven said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I think you're overlooking an aweful lot. But that is where my argument
rests because I'm not willing to waste any more of my life arguing
pointlessly on the internet where none of the contributors are well
placed to comment on either side.

ITYM you are not well placed to comment on either side. Some of us have
bothered to read the research, lots of it, and some of us have also
ridden in the places you claim are different (and not by listening to
some colleagues who haven't apparently even bothered to try riding in
the UK). So some of us are well placed but as usual you want to
preserve your beliefs by pretending its not so and flouncing off under a
pretence.

I do wish that the pro-helmet whackos^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H proponents would stay
flounced once flounced. They seem to think that if they just lie low for a
bit then the arguments which showed they were wrong last time will somehow
magically dissappear.

In article said:

Fair enough - however you are about the only person on either the
pro-compulsion or anti-compulsion side of the argument that argues
that only data from the UK (and seemingly only that from urban areas
as your point was partly about densities) is valid for the UK.

Explaining why you think that could be illuminating.

It's the astonishing leap from "we don't have any comparable data"
to "and therefore it could be worth making helmets compulsory as
an experiment" that is really unusual, I think.

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

Quoted message said:

Coyoteboy wrote:

"Policy based evidence making". The DfT's "independent" Road Safety
Research report 30 is a fine example...

letter from my MP today, in response to one of mine about helmets

"On the issue of cycling research, the Department is planning to conduct an
integrated programme of research assessing road user safety issues in
relation to cycling and make recommendations for future policy and practice.
The programme will be developed and undertaken with the full involvement and
participation of stakeholders representing a range of perspectives on
cycling issues. The research will produce issue papers, reports and other
outputs for policy and practitioner audiences. The contract will be for 36
months from the date of award. The research project as a whole is likely to
take 3 years, but we are aiming to complete the review of cycle helmet
effectiveness within two years, so by autumn 2009.

Key issues to include: road user safety and cycling data; cycling
infrastructure; attitudes and behaviours, and bicycle helmets. In relation
to cycle helmets, the research will examine the role of bicycle helmets
inimproving road safety for cyclists, building on the review of bicycle
helmet effectiveness published by the DfT in 2002. Of particular interest
to |Mr Burton, outputs from this component of the project will be subject to
robust peer review.

Jim Fitzpatrick - Parliamentary undersecretary of state?"

I think that means that they are going to continue to lie about helmets for
at least another two years, and they will carefully select the peer
reviewers to make sure that the right conclusion is reached, so that they
can carry on lying after that too.

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

Quoted message said:

TerryJ said:

I thought the case had 'fallen' from a 6th floor onto concrete.
Her chest was full of blood amongst other things.I did not stay with
the program, so unfortunately missed his assertion that a cycle helmet
would have helped.
I look forward to a live demonstration with him as the subject.
If her skull was in such a state I wonder what her brain must have
looked like.

TerryJ

He never asserted that a cycle helmet would have helped in this case. That
would be yet another case of anti-helmet knee jerk assumptions disease.

yet another? so post a few then. Or are you just another paranoid troll?

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:44:36 +0000 someone who may be Coyoteboy
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I rarely fall over when walking, however when cycling at 20mph on
muddy concrete surfaces

Muddy concrete surfaces are not exactly usual for people cycling to
work or the library.

Quoted message said:

No-one can discuss anything helmet related without the big mouths of the
anti-helmet brigade shouting people down - they simply cant accept
criticism of their own propaganda, while dishing out plenty toward the
pro helmet brigade.

This sort of claim reminds me of the very similar claims by the
anti-wind farm lobby.

People are not shouted down, their assertions are challenged and
they are pointed at the facts. The tone of these exchanges tends to
be set by the virulence with which the helmeteer expresses their
view.

Some people flounce off following such challenges, making comments
of the sort you have done. Others are open-minded enough to study
the facts for themselves, some post here and acknowledge that it was
the challenges which made them investigate the subject in more
detail.

The pro-choice is not funded by large amounts of our money, unlike
the helmet lobby. All it has are the arguments.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

letter from my MP today, in response to one of mine about helmets

"On the issue of cycling research, the Department is planning to conduct an
integrated programme of research assessing road user safety issues in
relation to cycling and make recommendations for future policy and practice.
The programme will be developed and undertaken with the full involvement and
participation of stakeholders representing a range of perspectives on
cycling issues. The research will produce issue papers, reports and other
outputs for policy and practitioner audiences. The contract will be for 36
months from the date of award. The research project as a whole is likely to
take 3 years, but we are aiming to complete the review of cycle helmet
effectiveness within two years, so by autumn 2009.

Perhaps you could find out the mechanism by which the contract will be
let and maybe we can encourage Dr Hewson and/or the Bicycle Helmet
Research Foundation to bid.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

letter from my MP today, in response to one of mine about helmets

"On the issue of cycling research, the Department is planning to conduct
an
integrated programme of research assessing road user safety issues in
relation to cycling and make recommendations for future policy and
practice.
The programme will be developed and undertaken with the full involvement
and
participation of stakeholders representing a range of perspectives on
cycling issues. The research will produce issue papers, reports and
other
outputs for policy and practitioner audiences. The contract will be for
36
months from the date of award. The research project as a whole is likely
to
take 3 years, but we are aiming to complete the review of cycle helmet
effectiveness within two years, so by autumn 2009.

Perhaps you could find out the mechanism by which the contract will be
let and maybe we can encourage Dr Hewson and/or the Bicycle Helmet
Research Foundation to bid.

Interesting idea Tony, I'll make the request of my MP, as well as asking why
DfT is running an advertising campaign promoting helmets when they are about
to do a study to see if they work!

Tony Raven said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

The problem is that, as I said, all the studies done so far have equally
large flaws as the ones we have FOR helmets - so they are pointless. For
a start NZ and Aus have such a small population and vehicle density that
it isnt even remotely comparable.

Have you actually ridden in Australian or New Zealand cities or is this
another ill informed assumption you are making. Because I have and my
experience was that it was a pretty similar experience to UK cities.

I'd second this. I lived in New Zealand for the best part of a year
and travelled in Australia for a couple of months thereafter. The road
usage culture in both countries is similar to the UK's- more so, I
would say, than pretty much anywhere else I've travelled and driven
(Southern European countries spring to mind, for example).
Even if you hadn't actually been there you could guess that this was
likely to be the case from the cultural similarities between our
nations- people often focus on the subtle differences and gloss over
the broad and deep similarities.
I'd challenge your assertion that vehicle density isn't comparable-
much of NZ has similar population density to Scotland, for example,
and Australia is a very heavily urbanised country- it has vast tracts
of emptiness but the bits that are populated are quite similar to much
of the UK.

In my opinion you are dismissing the evidence from those countries as
flawed for no good reason. Obviously you're free to continue to do so,
but I would suggest that you think again before doing so.

Cheers,
W.

Coyoteboy said:

I've lost the link to the figures but I'm fairly sure walking was
notably safer.

You're right; people on the 'net do tend to make
unsubstantiated claims.

BugBear

.. People keep assuming I'm pro helmet too, when in

Quoted message said:

fact I am still in the process of considering it for myself. Fanatical
knee-jerk yelling from the AH members leads me to question them more.

I think most cyclists are against helmet compulsion by law rather than
anti-helmet.
I reserve the right to wear a helmet if I think it might be a good
idea depending what I am up to, and most of the time on a bike I do,
principally to avoid a cut on my head.
I am especiallly impressed by 1)the notion that the police, who have
such difficulty dealing with people who endanger others deliberately
and habitually, might be made to spend their time chasing cyclists
for such a paltry and probably useless reason
2)it is unfair to focus on a minority group when much, much larger
safety improvements could be proposed by targeting bigger groups, such
as car occupants and pedestrians and toddlers.......etc. 3)it is an
infringement of my right to move about the country to make me wear a
helmet when others do not
4) if a law comes in it will reduce cycling and increase obesity and
reduce fitness and pollution 5)if your child or mother gets hit by a
careless driver the lawyers for the insurance companies will
drastically reduce the compensation payments, they are already up to
this kind of thing even though one might think they are bluffing.If
you can persuade a respected dr of 85% what chance has a jury got if
the law says it too.

If it were not for the threat of a law I do not think there would be
much resistance to helmet promotion and that might be good or bad
depending on your point of view, but we are stuck with this argument
for ever now.

Coyoteboy said:

Tony Raven said:

I suspect their logic is similar to a car repairer who reckoned Fords
are the most dangerous cars because they see lots of them in for repair
but exotic supercars are very safe because he's never had one to repair.

Hmm not sure about that one, dont thnk ive seen car safety so poorly
compared since the mid 80s, these days they are given standardised
tests. Dont think I've seen supercars entered for the NCAP testing
procedure though.

I think you're missing Tony's point. The logic is that there are a
lot more Fords on the road than supercars therefore the car repairer
sees a lot more Fords than supercars. Of course, the car repairer may
not know or think about the number of Fords vs sukper cars. He sees
more wreaked Fords than wreaked supercars, therefore Fords must be
more dangerous. Simple generalization from poor or incomplete data.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Quoting _ <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I do wish that the pro-helmet whackos^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H proponents would stay
flounced once flounced.

Indeed, he's flounced out of _this single thread_ twice.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?
Today is Second Monday, November.

Coyoteboy said:

The problem is that, as I said, all the studies done so far have equally
large flaws as the ones we have FOR helmets - so they are pointless. For
a start NZ and Aus have such a small population and vehicle density that
it isnt even remotely comparable.

You are wrong.

I've been living in Melbourne, Australia for nearly five years now. Traffic is every bit as dense as it is in any other UK city,

Not only that, the bias against cyclists here is, if anything, worse than it is in the UK.

We do have one of the best stretches of road for cycling on worldwide however :-)

As for New Zealand, it's the most car dependent country on the planet.

Coyoteboy said:

The problem is that, as I said, all the studies done so far have equally
large flaws as the ones we have FOR helmets - so they are pointless. For
a start NZ and Aus have such a small population and vehicle density that
it isnt even remotely comparable. Even in cities we are talking of
cities of 400K people (Capital of NZ) and overall population of 4
million. Theres more people living (driving and cycling) in some of our
larger cities than in the entirety of NZ. They have been brought up
under different cultures, with different road rules. They simply arent
applicable in much the same way as the anti-85% arguments that say
"helmeted were mostly white upper class in parks" and "unhelmeted were
mostly black, riding on the streets". The arguments dont work one way.
You need a statistically and scientifically fair test in the country in
questions and across a range of locations. No point comparing city
riding in NZ to city riding in the UK.

Auckland has a population of 1.3 million; 400k in Auckland City, but
it'd be silly to ignore the neighbouring cities that are part of the
same urban area. The population density is little over a quarter of that
of London, though the difference in the split between private and public
transport means that the number of cars is much closer.

By "some of our larger cities" where do you mean? Obviously London, but
you indicated that there were other UK cities with a population of more
than 4 million. I think you meant "urban area" rather than "city", but I
can't find a second one of those that gets much more than half way
there.

There is a lot of shared heritage between .uk and .nz so the culture
isn't as different as you seem to think. The laws with regard to helmets
are obviously a lot different, but the other road rules are similar
enough the tourists from one country don't have that much trouble
driving in the other. I'd say that in terms of culture, and much of the
law, the UK has more in common with NZ than with much of Europe. The
laws of science are identical.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoting _ <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I do wish that the pro-helmet whackos^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H proponents would
stay
flounced once flounced.

Indeed, he's flounced out of _this single thread_ twice.

Not surprising, this is not really a place that tolerates different
viewpoints.

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:44:36 +0000 someone who may be Coyoteboy
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I rarely fall over when walking, however when cycling at 20mph on
muddy concrete surfaces

Muddy concrete surfaces are not exactly usual for people cycling to
work or the library.

Quoted message said:

No-one can discuss anything helmet related without the big mouths of the
anti-helmet brigade shouting people down - they simply cant accept
criticism of their own propaganda, while dishing out plenty toward the
pro helmet brigade.

This sort of claim reminds me of the very similar claims by the
anti-wind farm lobby.

the fact that 'it reminds you' of something else is meaningless.

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

Coyoteboy wrote:

> I got involved in one and was basically told my opinion wasn't worth
> listening to.

perhaps because your information wasn't particularly up to speed?

My points were simply that the references given, suggesting helmets were
bad, were as flawed as the opposition. It didn't go down well and I'm a
busy man, I don't have time for too much petty online arguing, although
it does get the better of me at times!

And you clearly didn't have time to inform yourself before presenting
ill informed opinion on the topic either. Yet you seem surprised that
you were pulled up for it.

Quoted message said:

One would hope that more research were done into this area and the
opponents on both sides of the argument would be consulted on the test
procedure in order to settle the argument once and for all. It seems to
me that both sides quote flawed material and no-one actually sets about
doing a good study, so the usenet arguments are futile.

There's plenty of research out there and if you have a training in
research evaluation as many of us here have, its pretty easy to sift
through it and sort out the good from the bad. Its even been done with
a commentary at cyclehelmets.org for those too lazy or inexperienced to
do it for themselves. But I take it that unlike many here, you haven't
bothered to do that exercise and have built your suggestion on a false
premise.

Can you point to an 'anti' paper on cyclehelmets.org that has a critical
commentary attatched to it? I notice that many 'pro' helmet papers have such
commentaries, so it would be a useful balance to have evidence of at least
one critical commentary the other way.