Letter in Reading Chronicle

And one apparently in the Post (not seen the original or indeed the
one it was replying to)

As I found G Chapman's letter somewhat of a curiosity, I turned to
Hansard for an accurate account of the debate which was curtailed by a
procedural move and therefore not fully heard.

In doing so I found that Sir George Young made an eloquent, profound
and sincere speech supporting the bill in its entirety.

Indeed the only dissenting voice was prepared to back down.

The bill has not been lost and is due to return to Parliament on June
18, where no doubt further procedural moves can be deployed to ensure
that the bill is lost in this session.

It is a great pity that in giving Parliamentarians the rights and
privilege to make the law that our system is flawed to the extent that
an individual can disrupt this right.

It would have been advantageous for the bill to have gone to committee
stage so that the chaff can be separated from fact and sense of a
vital issue - the protection of 27 % of the population who make up
children and who are the novice cyclists relying on adult guidance for
their safety and well-being.

The only point that I agree with Mr Chapman on is that common sense
should prevail, though I seldom find it in Lycra-dressed fanatics.

Name and address supplied
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

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

Quoted message said:

<url:http://tinyurl.com/yqeqw>

Good reasons for opposing the Bill
May 20 2004

THE idea Jane Griffiths is not serious about cyclist safety because
she does not support BHIT's attempts to force people to wear helmets
misunderstands the role of helmets in preventing serious and fatal
cyclist injuries (which is minimal at best). <snip>

I can see the arguments when taken en-masse, statistically, and factoring in
such things as increased risk taking and the like.
However, if *I* decide, as an individual, to wear a helmet, *and I do not
take increased risk due to my wearing one* , am I not (however slightly)
decreasing my chances of head injury? Would there not be circumstamces in
which a fall might be serious without a helmet but much less serious with
one? And the balancing situations in which a helmet would lead to increased
damage would, I'd have thought, be much rarer.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

And my reply to that last one:

Having expressed distrust of fanatics, your correspondent will no
doubt be more likely to accept the judgement of an organisation with a
125-year history of working for cycling, rather than that of a
single-issue pressure group. One of the more accurate points Mr
Martlew made in his vituperative and often misleading speech was that
not one of Britain's cycling bodies supports compulsion. Including
the traders who sell helmets. The BMA are also against it. As are the
Royal College of General Practitioners.

And small wonder. As transport Minister David Jamieson acknowledged,
the government knows of no case where cyclist safety has improved with
increasing helmet use. We do not know why this is, yet some insist on
pushing headlong to repeat the failed experiment while blithely
ignoring the underlying causes of injury to both cyclists and (much
more numerous) pedestrians.

Sir George Young's speech was indeed interesting. He cited the case
of Troy Parker, who died when he rode off a pavement into the path of
a car while riding a bike with defective brakes. Apparently a law
would have enabled his parents to force him to wear a helmet designed
to protect in simple falls (explicitly not crashes involving motor
vehicles) where the laws on pavement cycling and pedal cycles
(construction and use) failed to inspire either safe riding or the use
of a roadworthy machine.

Why choose to promote injury mitigation designed for other sorts of
crashes over measures which would have prevented the crash in the
first place? Apparently all the pro-helmet propaganda has made people
forget that of the small number of cyclists killed on the road, very
few die of head injuries alone. Or maybe if your only tool is a
hammer every problem looks like a nail.

I ride a bike as my principal form of transport, so cycle safety is
literally a life or death matter and I take it seriously. And yes, I
do wear Lycra, mainly because it is designed for the job but partly it
must be said because it flatters my middle-aged ego when women
wolf-whistle at my legs. Call it a collateral benefit!

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

Tumbleweed said:

However, if *I* decide, as an individual, to wear a helmet, *and I do not
take increased risk due to my wearing one* , am I not (however slightly)
decreasing my chances of head injury? Would there not be circumstamces in
which a fall might be serious without a helmet but much less serious with
one? And the balancing situations in which a helmet would lead to increased
damage would, I'd have thought, be much rarer.

Nobody knows or will ever know whether for you individually a helmet would be
a good, indifferent or bad thing. It depends on many factors which are
unknown. All that is known is that there is a correllation between helmet
wearing and injury rates which means statistically you are more likely to
suffer a head injury wearing a helmet than not. At the end of the day the
whole issue is retaining your right to assess your personal situation and make
your choice without being dictated to by the State. In my case reviewing the
evidence changed my views from pro to anti helmet but you must make your own
choice.

Tony

Just zis Guy said:

And my reply to that last one:

There are two letters listed on the following page, one from Angie Lee and one
from A. Non, the former of which is worth reading.
http://icberkshire.icnetwork.co.uk/letters/letters/index.cfm?page=2

Tony

Quoted message said:

I can see the arguments when taken en-masse, statistically, and
factoring in such things as increased risk taking and the like.
However, if *I* decide, as an individual, to wear a helmet, *and I do
not take increased risk due to my wearing one* , am I not (however
slightly) decreasing my chances of head injury? Would there not be
circumstamces in which a fall might be serious without a helmet but
much less serious with one? And the balancing situations in which a
helmet would lead to increased damage would, I'd have thought, be much
rarer.

Yep, but where a helmet makes things worse it'll be because it creates a
rotational type impact. Whilst rare, these are the type that tend to
cause the most serious brain damage and deaths. So whilst you lessen the
degree of injury in the impacts that aren't serious, you increase the
(much smaller but much, much worse) risk of serious and permanent brain
injury.

However...

There's been little research on this (i.e. insert possibly at the
beginning of every sentence). More to the point death through head
injury in the absence of other life-ending injuries in incrediably rare,
as is what I regard as serious injuries (e.g. permanent brain damage that
you actually notice). A helmet on the road will probably at some point
save you from a bump (or reduce the size of the bump) on your head but is
less likely than an unlikely thing to ever get the chance of 'saving your
life'.

In short, given what they're designed for and the likelyhood of anything
bad actually happening it really doesn't matter if an individual wears a
helmet or not - it's never going to be involved in an accident involving
serious injury to the head/brain. If it does, its very unlikely to help,
'cos it's not designed to do that sort of thing. I'm waffling - I'll
shut up now.

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

Quoted message said:

Tumbleweed said:

However, if *I* decide, as an individual, to wear a helmet, *and I do

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

take increased risk due to my wearing one* , am I not (however slightly)
decreasing my chances of head injury? Would there not be circumstamces

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

which a fall might be serious without a helmet but much less serious

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

one? And the balancing situations in which a helmet would lead to

increased

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

damage would, I'd have thought, be much rarer.

Nobody knows or will ever know whether for you individually a helmet would

be

Quoted message said:

a good, indifferent or bad thing. It depends on many factors which are
unknown. All that is known is that there is a correllation between helmet
wearing and injury rates which means statistically you are more likely to
suffer a head injury wearing a helmet than not. At the end of the day the
whole issue is retaining your right to assess your personal situation and

make

Quoted message said:

your choice without being dictated to by the State. In my case reviewing

the

Quoted message said:

evidence changed my views from pro to anti helmet but you must make your

own

Quoted message said:

choice.

Tony

I agree, and I've certainly changed my mind from pro to anti-enforcement for
kids, OTOH I fail to see how I would become safer if, as I cycled along, my
cycle helmet were to magically dissapear.

I suspect its the taking of increased risk that is the main factor, but
perhaps its also that by weeding out people who wont wear helmets, you are
left with a 'hard core' that are, for some reason, more likely to have an
accident (maybe just because they cycle more so are more likely to put up
with it) whereas occasional riders who might ride in relatively safer
places, might just pack it in rather than bother to buy one.

When I see the local kids cycling to school, helmets or not, it seems
miraculous there arent a couple of fatalities a day. Never mind car drivers,
the kids at my local school are positively suicidal.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks for email address

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 25 May 2004 20:15:54 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

There are two letters listed on the following page, one from Angie Lee and one
from A. Non, the former of which is worth reading.

Yes, seen thanks. That's what prompted mine of 20 May.

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

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

Nobody knows or will ever know whether for you individually a helmet
would be a good, indifferent or bad thing. It depends on many
factors which are unknown. All that is known is that there is a
correllation between helmet wearing and injury rates which means
statistically you are more likely to suffer a head injury wearing a
helmet than not.

You mis-use the data there and confuse correlation with causality.

The correlation is at the population level, and the nature of it is both
disputed and unclear either way.

to extend this correlation into causality at the level of the individual
"which means statistically you are more likely to suffer a head injury
wearing a helmet than not." is quite simply incorrect and invalid.

{Postulate: there is a subset of cyclists who exhibit significant risk
compensation when wearing helmets, they more than balance the majority who
do not risk compensate with the result that there is an apparent positive
correlation between helmet wearing and head injury.

There is nothing in the data I've seen to disprove that postulate!

But to argue it as fact would be wrong - just as wrong as your flawed
argument above.}

pk

On Tue, 25 May 2004 20:01:34 +0000 (UTC), "PK"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All that is known is that there is a
correllation between helmet wearing and injury rates which means
statistically you are more likely to suffer a head injury wearing a
helmet than not.

Quoted message said:

You mis-use the data there and confuse correlation with causality.

In what way? Statistically, you /are/ more likely to hit yur head if
wearing a helmet.

Quoted message said:

The correlation is at the population level, and the nature of it is both
disputed and unclear either way.

It may be disputed by the True Believers, but it's pretty clear: as
David Jamieson said, the government knows of no case where cyclist
safety has improved with increased helmet wearing. That is not a some
you win, some you lose thing: there is simply no known case where
increased helemt wearing has improved safety. There are, of course,
several cases where safety is significantly worse.

Liddites claim that helmets work. They use large numbers in thier
claims. These numbers are simply not visible at the population level.
Nobody knows why this is, partly because by all appearances nobody is
trying that hard to find out.

Quoted message said:

to extend this correlation into causality at the level of the individual
"which means statistically you are more likely to suffer a head injury
wearing a helmet than not." is quite simply incorrect and invalid.

Tony's post does not infer causality. It might simply be a bizarre
coincidence that head injuries rise as helmet use rises. Occam's
razor indicates otherwise, of course.

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

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

<Snipped Text>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You mis-use the data there and confuse correlation with causality.

In what way? Statistically, you /are/ more likely to hit yur head if
wearing a helmet.

Yup that is so true. I can remember well enough doing rock climbing and
such some years ago in the Scouts, I can guarantee that I'd be bumping
my head on every flippin' small rock if I wore a lid. If I didn't wear a
lid I found I had much more freedom of movement and could more clearly
understand my orientation in the environment, and as far I can remember
never once bumped my head.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The correlation is at the population level, and the nature of it is both
disputed and unclear either way.

It may be disputed by the True Believers, but it's pretty clear: as
David Jamieson said, the government knows of no case where cyclist
safety has improved with increased helmet wearing. That is not a some
you win, some you lose thing: there is simply no known case where
increased helemt wearing has improved safety. There are, of course,
several cases where safety is significantly worse.

Indeed, IIRC there were a lot of reports of bad neck injuries when the
first helmets arrived. Although they were poorly designed with very wide
rims on them, and poorly fitting padding. I recently bought a compact
lid with a very well fitting strap system.

Very much the same happened when motorcycle helmets were made a legal
requirement too. Indeed, I haven't taken the time to find out if wearing
a helmet on a motorcycle actually made any difference to deaths caused
by injuries to the head. Of course we have no data to prove otherwise
anymore.

Quoted message said:

Liddites claim that helmets work. They use large numbers in thier
claims. These numbers are simply not visible at the population level.
Nobody knows why this is, partly because by all appearances nobody is
trying that hard to find out.

Yes, this helmet thing is even worse than the usual statistical
nonsense, as there aren't actually any valid statistics to back up
anybody's claims.

Of course we could use the data we have in the groups and clubs that
would have some fair indications of real world observations, even at a
localised level you could make your own decisions on whether a helmet is
of benefit or not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to extend this correlation into causality at the level of the individual
"which means statistically you are more likely to suffer a head injury
wearing a helmet than not." is quite simply incorrect and invalid.

Tony's post does not infer causality. It might simply be a bizarre
coincidence that head injuries rise as helmet use rises. Occam's
razor indicates otherwise, of course.

Well, that's most likely the same as the ABS and air bag syndrome we
have with car drivers. The rate of accidents *with* helmets probably
increases with the stupidity of the activities the rider undertakes
because they *think* they are safer!

As for the cars, I really think we should substitute the air bag for a
spike.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

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

[Re: Helmet compulsion]

Quoted message said:

The BMA are also against it.

For anyone reading that who might mistakenly be led into thinking that the
BMA think helmets are a bad idea this is what they actually say on their
website.

"The BMA does not consider that the wearing of cycle helmets by all pedal
cyclists when on the public highway should be made compulsory at present,
but strongly recommends that all cyclists, especially children, wear proper
fitting helmets"

in message <[email hidden]>, Tumbleweed

(') said:

I can see the arguments when taken en-masse, statistically, and
factoring in such things as increased risk taking and the like.
However, if *I* decide, as an individual, to wear a helmet, *and I do
not take increased risk due to my wearing one* , am I not (however
slightly) decreasing my chances of head injury?

Probably. But much less than you think you are, since the degree of
protection offered is quite small.

Quoted message said:

Would there not be
circumstamces in which a fall might be serious without a helmet but
much less serious with
one? And the balancing situations in which a helmet would lead to
increased damage would, I'd have thought, be much rarer.

You'd think so, but the statistical evidence is against you. It seems
likely that helmets mitigate minor injuries and aggravate serious ones.

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

AndyP said:

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

[Re: Helmet compulsion]

Quoted message said:

The BMA are also against it.

For anyone reading that who might mistakenly be led into thinking that the
BMA think helmets are a bad idea this is what they actually say on their
website.

"The BMA does not consider that the wearing of cycle helmets by all pedal
cyclists when on the public highway should be made compulsory at present,
but strongly recommends that all cyclists, especially children, wear proper
fitting helmets"

So? Whether we should, or shouldn't wear helmets isn't the issue at all.
It's whether we should be *forced* to wear them by legislation. There's
nothing wrong at all with 'recommending' that we wear them *if* you have
evidence to suggest that doing so is indeed safer.

Indeed, if the BMA does not have any evidence to show that wearing a
helmet *increases* safety, they could be in for liability issues if in
fact the opposite turned out to be true.

If the evidence for wearing helmets makes riding bikes safer to such a
degree that it's stupidity not too, then perhaps even the legislation
might have some point to it.

However, I personally think it's just something more to police, and our
force just doesn't need to be involved in something like this at the
moment.

For a start, how would they police it? bikes aren't licenced, nor are
the riders, so penalty points won't work. Fines might work to some
degree, but unless the fine is far greater than the cost of a helmet,
they are pointless. If they are too high, they'll just end up going to
court for non-payment and being ordered to pay at 50p per week or
something.

I think the only way we have seen this really work is, as we have seen
in another thread, peer pressure. But that only works for organised
clubs, and not kids mucking about in the streets.

--
Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online

On Tue, 25 May 2004 20:23:57 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

OTOH I fail to see how I would become safer if, as I cycled along, my
cycle helmet were to magically dissapear.

Well, there are two key issues.

One - what effect does this have on your likelihood of having an
accident.

a) At rest, a human body puts out 100W. 20W of which comes from the
brain alone.

Therefore there is a major heat dissipation issue.

Some competition cyclists have been measured at >800W.

The expanded polystyrene foam of which most helmets is made is the
same thing we use in disposable cups to keep hot drinks hot.

Hot heads = lots of sweat, some of which can find its way into the
eyes.

(This affected me very badly at the weekend - by the end of my run my
eyes were stinging from the salty sweat running into them).

b) People take care in prportion to how safe they feel. It is
possible to be less careful when feeling safer, whether the feeling of
safety is real or just imagined.

Helmets can make people feel safer.

------------------
Two - what effect does this have on you in the event of an accident.

c) helmets effectively increase the size of the head. This can
increase the likelihood of your head making contact with other
surfaces, e.g. by negating the effect of the reflexive curls of the
head .

d) ...and it also increases the leverage that can be exerted on the
head for a given force of impact. Increasing the rotational effects
of head blows, which can be a major cause of brain damage even where
the skull is left intact.

e) Often helmets are worn jauntily back off the forehead - they are
not supposed to be worn this way. This could cause, for example, the
load in an accident to be transmitted to the head via the chinstraps
rather than by the compression of the foam.

--------

The key point is that there are studies in America, in London and in
Australia which point to actual increases in injury rates with actual
rises in helmet use.

Quoted message said:

I suspect its the taking of increased risk that is the main factor, but
perhaps its also that by weeding out people who wont wear helmets, you are
left with a 'hard core' that are, for some reason, more likely to have an
accident (maybe just because they cycle more so are more likely to put up
with it) whereas occasional riders who might ride in relatively safer
places, might just pack it in rather than bother to buy one.

When I see the local kids cycling to school, helmets or not, it seems
miraculous there arent a couple of fatalities a day. Never mind car drivers,
the kids at my local school are positively suicidal.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

in message <[email hidden]>, PK

(') said:

to extend this correlation into causality at the level of the
individual "which means statistically you are more likely to suffer a
head injury wearing a helmet than not." is quite simply incorrect and
invalid.

{Postulate: there is a subset of cyclists who exhibit significant risk
compensation when wearing helmets, they more than balance the majority
who do not risk compensate with the result that there is an apparent
positive correlation between helmet wearing and head injury.

A postulate which seems to me more probable: people who are less
experienced or more timid cyclists are more likely to wear helmets and
more likely to have accidents; the increased accidents are a
consequence of inexperience or timidity and not a consequence of helmet
wearing.

I remain persuaded, however, that in high-speed, high energy impacts
helmets must aggravate injury because they increase the probability of
high rotational forces in the brain.

If this is so then it is true to say 'you are more likely to suffer
severe brain damage wearing a helmet than not', but this is of course
not a statistical argument.

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

;; 99% of browsers can't run ActiveX controls. Unfortunately
;; 99% of users are using the 1% of browsers that can...
[seen on /. 08:04:02]

Tumbleweed said:

I agree, and I've certainly changed my mind from pro to anti-enforcement for
kids, OTOH I fail to see how I would become safer if, as I cycled along, my
cycle helmet were to magically dissapear.

You'll probably not change your level of safety by a significant amount
either way. However, it is possible that in the event of a fall your
head being effectively bigger would mean hitting it where otherwise you
may not have, and the shape and extra size of the helmet can cause
rotations which some people (mainly in the neurosurgery trade AIUI)
think can make thinsg worse. OTOH if you were going to band the top of
your head anyway you'd probably get away without major bumps and grazes
and concussions you might suffer would probably be reduced.
Or, put another way, the jury's out and you cannot say for sure you are
safer, period.

Quoted message said:

When I see the local kids cycling to school, helmets or not, it seems
miraculous there arent a couple of fatalities a day. Never mind car drivers,
the kids at my local school are positively suicidal.

We probably seemed that way. Looking at kids doing a lot of things I
think they're mad and need more fear, but thinking about it there's not
really much they're trying that my peers weren't getting up to when I
was a sprog.

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] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

AndyP said:

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

[Re: Helmet compulsion]

Quoted message said:

The BMA are also against it.

Quoted message said:

For anyone reading that who might mistakenly be led into thinking
that the BMA think helmets are a bad idea this is what they actually
say on their website.

I don't think anybody who has been following the debate is in any doubt what
the BMA position is, it having been repeatedly stated.

Quoted message said:

"The BMA does not consider that the wearing of cycle helmets by all
pedal cyclists when on the public highway should be made compulsory
at present, but strongly recommends that all cyclists, especially
children, wear proper fitting helmets"

And when you probe deeper you find that the BMA's endorsement of helemts is
founded on Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, which also proves that helmets
make you white, middle class, less likely to ride unsupervised on the road,
and prevent most injuries to the lower body.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Simon Brooke said:

Quoted message said:

{Postulate: there is a subset of cyclists who exhibit significant
risk compensation when wearing helmets, they more than balance the
majority who do not risk compensate with the result that there is an
apparent positive correlation between helmet wearing and head injury.

Quoted message said:

A postulate which seems to me more probable: people who are less
experienced or more timid cyclists are more likely to wear helmets and
more likely to have accidents; the increased accidents are a
consequence of inexperience or timidity and not a consequence of
helmet wearing.

We have whole-population data to go on, which removes both sets of
variables. Guess what? Helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit their
heads even if they only wear helmets because of compulsion.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!