More local papers and helmets

"People have no objection to wearing helmets on motorbikes, and
cyclists
are exposing themselves to similar risks on the road."

Well, I've tried and tried again, but I've not yet managed 180kph on
the A605

Tony Raven said:

I think the BMA spokesperson forget legs in his list in the
penultimate paragraph.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2005/09/03/3af22aa3-f496-4f27-808f-daee43e2e727.lpf

Campaigner attacks calls for helmet law

My follow up letter to the paper:

As a former helmet wearing cyclist I have to say I am with Simon Nuttall
(Campaigner attacks calls for helmet law, CEN Sept 3). There is little
evidence that cycle helmets do anything other than deter people from
cycling. Indeed a recent study of UK official figures shows that
although twice as many female cyclists wear helmets compared to males,
they suffer just as many head injuries in accidents.

The BMA spokesperson in your article claims solid scientific evidence in
favour of their recent controversial change of policy but the main plank
of the evidence in their recent policy decision was an American study
that compared head injury rates in mainly middle class helmeted children
riding in parks with mainly poor helmetless children riding on urban
streets. That study did show the oft quoted 85% figure for protection
from head injury but it also showed helmets protect against 75% of leg
injuries as well - clearly a nonsense study although one much loved by
helmet protagonists..

Cycling, as Simon points out, is no less safe than walking and the
biggest safety factor in cycling is the number of people cycling.
Which is perhaps why Holland has the highest number of people cycling
and the lowest cyclist head injuries as well as the lowest (0.1%) helmet
wearing rate in the world.

So quit worrying about cycle helmets and get out and enjoy cycling as
the safe and healthy activity it is.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

iakobski said:

"People have no objection to wearing helmets on motorbikes, and
cyclists
are exposing themselves to similar risks on the road."

Well, I've tried and tried again, but I've not yet managed 180kph on
the A605

You need PeteC's cycle computer!

Colin

Simon Nuttall > "I went to Australia last year where they have this law
and ...." etc

BMA spokeswoman> "There is solid scientific evidence..." etc

Unfortunately, this comes across very poorly. It may be down to the
journo, of course, but it really makes the case against helmets sound
like (biased) opinion, and the case for sound like fact.

Tony Raven said:

cycling. Indeed a recent study of UK official figures shows that
although twice as many female cyclists wear helmets compared to males,
they suffer just as many head injuries in accidents.

Can you give me a reference for that?

Cheers,

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

cycling. Indeed a recent study of UK official figures shows that
although twice as many female cyclists wear helmets compared to males,
they suffer just as many head injuries in accidents.

Can you give me a reference for that?

'Tis slightly misstated. The study was the one in Exeter (that is the
location of the researcher) and he looked at child cyclist accidents.

...d

Tony Raven said:

I think the BMA spokesperson forget legs in his list in the penultimate
paragraph.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2005/09/03/3af22aa3-f496-4f27-808f-daee43e2e727.lpf

Campaigner attacks calls for helmet law

.... snip

Quoted message said:

A BMA spokeswoman said: "We have had a lot of criticism like this but we
have equally had a lot of people writing in saying they are glad we have
taken this stance, particularly doctors working in Accident and
Emergency departments who see the injuries coming in every day on people
who don't wear cycle helmets."

The spokeswoman added: "There is solid scientific evidence bike helmets
protect against head, brain and facial injuries as well as death as a
result of cycle accidents. The latest research from other counties shows
making helmets compulsory does not have a significant long-term effect
on cycling levels.

Counties? I think this probably should be countries. Canada has been
cited as an example by BHIT. It is true in the province of Ontario
cycling levels haven't changed since our child helmet law was
introduced in 1995. The reason is simple - the law has never been
enforced. Helmet use went up at first but then returned to pre-law
levels. Net effect of our law (other than the irritation factor) has
been zero. In other porovinces, BC and Nova Scotia where the law was
enforced in varying degrees, cycling did decline. There was some
evidence that injury rates increased. Net effect - cyclists were at
greater risk than before.

More at The Vehicular Cyclist <http://magma.ca/~ocbc>

AB

David Martin said:

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

cycling. Indeed a recent study of UK official figures shows that
although twice as many female cyclists wear helmets compared to males,
they suffer just as many head injuries in accidents.

Can you give me a reference for that?

'Tis slightly misstated. The study was the one in Exeter (that is the
location of the researcher) and he looked at child cyclist accidents.

I decided for the sake of brevity for public digestion to leave out that
he looked at the under 16 age group(which is where the majority of
accidents are anyway), not all ages. But it was on whole country
figures. There is no reason why, if helmets had a protective effect it
would not be seen in that age group so leaving out the age information
did not change the validity of the point.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Tony Raven said:

I decided for the sake of brevity for public digestion to leave out that
he looked at the under 16 age group(which is where the majority of
accidents are anyway), not all ages. But it was on whole country
figures. There is no reason why, if helmets had a protective effect it
would not be seen in that age group so leaving out the age information
did not change the validity of the point.

Well, it /might/.

/devil's advocaat/ assuming that cycle helmets *are* beneficial, there
might be a mechanism whereby female child (< 16) cyclists don't keep
their heads supported in some proportion of falls (because their neck
muscles are weaker), but male child, and all adult, cyclists keep their
neck supported. This could increase injuries in female child cyclists
to the same level as males, counterbalancing the (assumed) beneficient
effect of helmets.
/end devil's advocaat/

I'm not suggesting this argument, or its assumptions, are correct; but I
do think you should qualify the result by mentioning that they apply to
<16s.

R.

Richard said:

Tony Raven said:

I decided for the sake of brevity for public digestion to leave out that
he looked at the under 16 age group(which is where the majority of
accidents are anyway), not all ages. But it was on whole country
figures. There is no reason why, if helmets had a protective effect it
would not be seen in that age group so leaving out the age information
did not change the validity of the point.

Well, it /might/.

/devil's advocaat/ assuming that cycle helmets *are* beneficial, there
might be a mechanism whereby female child (< 16) cyclists don't keep
their heads supported in some proportion of falls (because their neck
muscles are weaker), but male child, and all adult, cyclists keep their
neck supported. This could increase injuries in female child cyclists
to the same level as males, counterbalancing the (assumed) beneficient
effect of helmets.
/end devil's advocaat/

True but then male cyclists take far more risks to counterbalance that
and I'm a great fan of Occam and his razor ;-)

Quoted message said:

I'm not suggesting this argument, or its assumptions, are correct; but I
do think you should qualify the result by mentioning that they apply to
<16s.

You get to the point where there are so many qualifications, caveats and
warnings wrapped around everything you say that the core message is lost
amongst them. Yes, you can postulate scenarios where it could be
important by my assessment is that its not that important to the point
being made. YMMV

Tony

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Tony Raven said:

True but then male cyclists take far more risks to counterbalance that
and I'm a great fan of Occam and his razor ;-)

He was a sharp guy. :-)

Quoted message said:

You get to the point where there are so many qualifications, caveats and
warnings wrapped around everything you say that the core message is lost
amongst them.

'tis true. But we (rightly) criticise BsHIT and the like for being
"economical with the truth"; I think we should maintain the high moral
ground and make sure our references are above reproach. Anyway, MMDV. ;-)

R.

Richard said:

'tis true. But we (rightly) criticise BsHIT and the like for being
"economical with the truth"; I think we should maintain the high moral
ground and make sure our references are above reproach. Anyway, MMDV. ;-)

Point of order Mr Chairman, BsHIT are not economical with the truth;
they are munificent with the untruth.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Tony Raven quoted a BMA spokeswoman:

Quoted message said:

"People have no objection to wearing helmets on motorbikes..."

I understood otherwise.

Google easily found this Leftpondian page:
<URL:http://home.tampabay.rr.com/ourplace/Biker/facts.htm>

But I'm sure I've seen a site somewhere representing UK motorcyclists
campaigning against mandatory helmet legislation.
<searches again>
OK, if you go here:
<URL:http://www.mag-uk.org/index2.html>
and search for "helmets", you will find details of a campaign to repeal
mandatory motorcycle helmet legislation (assuming your browser will let
you view it).

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Tony Raven said:

My follow up letter to the paper:

Seems they are going to publish it in the Cambridge Evening News!

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon