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.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

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.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

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. icberkshire.icnetwork.co.uklettersOpen ↗
/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

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.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

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.
chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

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)
thehewitts.plus.comthehewitts.plus.comOpen ↗ - 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"

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)
thehewitts.plus.comthehewitts.plus.comOpen ↗ - 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: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

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)
jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

;; 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]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

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. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

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. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

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

Andy Hewitt wrote: <snip>

Quoted message said:

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

🙂

My car has no seat belts. It definitely results in more
cautious driving, in part because the seatbelt isn't there
to stop you sliding across the seat in a corner, but also
because there's a big spike - the steering column - already
pointed at your chest.

Pete