Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:35:20 -0700,

David Martin said:

In the Scotsman. http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1641322007

It is being introduced as a ten minute rule bill. Unfortunately the
BMA are saying how wonderful it would be..

Time for some proactive lobbying.

Some interesting comments and plenty of inane ones. Very disheartening
to see that Ladyman apparently approves of the idea.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

David Martin said:

In the Scotsman. http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1641322007

It is being introduced as a ten minute rule bill. Unfortunately the
BMA are saying how wonderful it would be..

Time for some proactive lobbying.

...d

I suppose the only way to prove the helmet thing is to try it. Make it
law for a period and wait for the results. Sound like as good an option
as any to me!

Andy Leighton said:

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:35:20 -0700,

David Martin said:

In the Scotsman. http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1641322007

It is being introduced as a ten minute rule bill. Unfortunately the
BMA are saying how wonderful it would be..

Time for some proactive lobbying.

Some interesting comments and plenty of inane ones. Very disheartening
to see that Ladyman apparently approves of the idea.

It seems the bloody nose he got from the HC hasn't taught him a lesson.

"More than 200 children were injured and five killed while cycling on
Scotland's roads last year."

They seem to have forgotten to mention how many of those deaths and
injuries would actually have been prevented had the children been
wearing helmets, or for that matter whether any of the children involved
were wearing helmets at the time.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

"More than 200 children were injured and five killed while cycling on
Scotland's roads last year."

They seem to have forgotten to mention how many of those deaths and
injuries would actually have been prevented had the children been
wearing helmets, or for that matter whether any of the children involved
were wearing helmets at the time.

Never let the facts get in the way of an emotional headline..

...d

marc said:

Coyoteboy said:

David Martin said:

In the Scotsman.
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1641322007

It is being introduced as a ten minute rule bill. Unfortunately the
BMA are saying how wonderful it would be..

Time for some proactive lobbying.

...d

I suppose the only way to prove the helmet thing is to try it. Make it
law for a period and wait for the results. Sound like as good an
option as any to me!

Like the "temporary" 70mph speed limit, the Tax ( income) that was meant
to pay for a war that finished almost 200 years ago, the seatbelt law,
the prevention of terrorism act ( given the nod every year for how many
years before it was replaced with a tougher one?) or the "hostilities
only" conscripts that were still being called up in 1947?

Laws don't go away when enacted, far better to stop them beforehand.

Not if they might be of use.

Coyoteboy said:

I suppose the only way to prove the helmet thing is to try it. Make it
law for a period and wait for the results. Sound like as good an option
as any to me!

If you could trust the monitoring and results provided, maybe, but
experience tells us we can't. TPTB are generally of the opinion that
Helmets Work and it takes a really, truly, hugely amazingly obvious
disbenefit (like, say, Prohibition in the US) to make TPTB go back on
such "public spirited" legislation.

Look at Australia and NZ: no clear benefit after over a decade, not much
sign of anyone changing things, indeed their wonderful example being
quoted as a reason we need that law too.

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/

Coyoteboy said:

David Martin said:

In the Scotsman.
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1641322007

It is being introduced as a ten minute rule bill. Unfortunately the
BMA are saying how wonderful it would be..

Time for some proactive lobbying.

...d

I suppose the only way to prove the helmet thing is to try it. Make it
law for a period and wait for the results. Sound like as good an option
as any to me!

Like the "temporary" 70mph speed limit, the Tax ( income) that was meant
to pay for a war that finished almost 200 years ago, the seatbelt law,
the prevention of terrorism act ( given the nod every year for how many
years before it was replaced with a tougher one?) or the "hostilities
only" conscripts that were still being called up in 1947?

Laws don't go away when enacted, far better to stop them beforehand.

Peter Clinch said:

If you could trust the monitoring and results provided, maybe, but
experience tells us we can't.

Experience tells me there's people that argue both sides with equal
determination and neither can prove their points one way or the other
with any real science that doesnt commecne from a biased point of view
(looking at helmet literature presented on several websites). I guess it
doesnt bother me (the law) because A) I dont live there and B) I wear a
helmet (and have been very thankful for it several times) anyway.

Coyoteboy said:

Quoted message said:

Laws don't go away when enacted, far better to stop them beforehand.

Not if they might be of use.

Though we have several examples to look at of similar laws elsewhere,
and what they tell us is they haven't been of use. (Unless, of course,
they actually wanted a way to reduce cycling...)

Ergo, why suppose they will be of use here? Aside from it's an article
of blind faith?

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/

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

If you could trust the monitoring and results provided, maybe, but
experience tells us we can't.

Experience tells me there's people that argue both sides with equal
determination and neither can prove their points one way or the other with
any real science that doesnt commecne from a biased point of view (looking
at helmet literature presented on several websites). I guess it doesnt
bother me (the law) because A) I dont live there and B) I wear a helmet
(and have been very thankful for it several times) anyway.

So you think it's a good idea to introduce law based on unproven evidence?
Coz even with the most rosy-tinted view of what you've written, that's what
you imply.

Have you any idea how much more difficult it is to get a law repealed than
to get one brought in? It would require people to admit to mistakes, which
they _really_ don't want to do. As such, it's far far better to not
introduce the thing in the first place.

cheers,
clive

Coyoteboy said:

David Martin said:

In the Scotsman. http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1641322007

It is being introduced as a ten minute rule bill. Unfortunately the
BMA are saying how wonderful it would be..

Time for some proactive lobbying.

...d

I suppose the only way to prove the helmet thing is to try it. Make it
law for a period and wait for the results. Sound like as good an option
as any to me!

That's been done - haven't done your reading?

Coyoteboy said:

Peter Clinch said:

If you could trust the monitoring and results provided, maybe, but
experience tells us we can't.

Experience tells me there's people that argue both sides with equal
determination and neither can prove their points one way or the other
with any real science that doesnt commecne from a biased point of view
(looking at helmet literature presented on several websites). I guess it
doesnt bother me (the law) because A) I dont live there and B) I wear a
helmet (and have been very thankful for it several times) anyway.

Methinks your experience is very lacking. You should try the
interwebby-thing and go to www.cyclehelmets.org and come back when you have
some more.

Paul Boyd usenet.is.worse@plusnet said:

"More than 200 children were injured and five killed while cycling on
Scotland's roads last year."

They seem to have forgotten to mention how many of those deaths and
injuries would actually have been prevented had the children been
wearing helmets, or for that matter whether any of the children involved
were wearing helmets at the time.

And Scotland is the most obese nation in Europe. They seem to think
that there is a two state outcome. Kids wear helmets or don't wear
helmets.
In reality it is three states. Kids wear helmets cycling. Kids don't
wear helmets cycling. Kids don't cycle.

What helmet laws do is to push a few kids from the second to the
first, and a lot more from the second to the third group.

At a time when obesity is a major problem.

...d

Peter Clinch said:

Coyoteboy said:

Quoted message said:

Laws don't go away when enacted, far better to stop them beforehand.

Not if they might be of use.

Though we have several examples to look at of similar laws elsewhere,
and what they tell us is they haven't been of use. (Unless, of course,
they actually wanted a way to reduce cycling...)

Ergo, why suppose they will be of use here? Aside from it's an article
of blind faith?

Pete.

Because the examples we see elsewhere are from studies with flaws/other
aims behind their reporting, from what I have read. The vast majority of
injuries to people on bikes are not head injuries, of those that are the
vast majority would not be fatal. Helmets reduce the severity of most
impacts. Much like seatbelts - sure they can make life worse if they jam
and the car starts burning, but the number of cases in which they make
the accident worse is so small the normal benefits, in lower speed
accidents, means overall it makes sense. I hear lots of "you've no
proof" from the anti-helmet bunch, but they themselves provide nothing
but flawed, highly localised/specialised reports as
"proof" of their point. I'm not satisfied that there has been sufficient
investigation solely of the helmet/no helmet issue to draw any
conclusions, however from personal experience of a large number of
cyclists both on and off-road I'd say helmets help in most cases, even
if just to prevent facial/cranial scarring.

_ said:

Coyoteboy said:

Peter Clinch said:

If you could trust the monitoring and results provided, maybe, but
experience tells us we can't.

Experience tells me there's people that argue both sides with equal
determination and neither can prove their points one way or the other
with any real science that doesnt commecne from a biased point of view
(looking at helmet literature presented on several websites). I guess it
doesnt bother me (the law) because A) I dont live there and B) I wear a
helmet (and have been very thankful for it several times) anyway.

Methinks your experience is very lacking. You should try the
interwebby-thing and go to www.cyclehelmets.org and come back when you have
some more.

That was one of the first and easiest pages to dismiss as being biased
and presenting results that are a great example of "here we took these
results and they show this, therefore these other results must prove
this"! I've been through this in the past, I cant see any reports in
that bunch that I would consider worthy of a second look due to obvious
flaws in their creation. I'm open minded, id prefer to ride "sans
helmet" as it feels nice to have the wind in your hair. But I've also
bounced my head on the floor plenty of times at high speeds, into
concrete, cars, trees, gravel and have yet to experience any time when
the helmet may have caused more damage.

Clive George said:

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

If you could trust the monitoring and results provided, maybe, but
experience tells us we can't.

Experience tells me there's people that argue both sides with equal
determination and neither can prove their points one way or the other
with any real science that doesnt commecne from a biased point of view
(looking at helmet literature presented on several websites). I guess
it doesnt bother me (the law) because A) I dont live there and B) I
wear a helmet (and have been very thankful for it several times) anyway.

So you think it's a good idea to introduce law based on unproven
evidence? Coz even with the most rosy-tinted view of what you've
written, that's what you imply.

Have you any idea how much more difficult it is to get a law repealed
than to get one brought in? It would require people to admit to
mistakes, which they _really_ don't want to do. As such, it's far far
better to not introduce the thing in the first place.

cheers,
clive

I see it as the only way of getting a tester done to prove it one way or
another. As you say, it would be hard to get anyone to explain that it
didn't work, but any results are better than the half-made-up cobbled
together, unrelated rubbish put out by some websites...

_ said:

Coyoteboy said:

David Martin said:

In the Scotsman. http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1641322007

It is being introduced as a ten minute rule bill. Unfortunately the
BMA are saying how wonderful it would be..

Time for some proactive lobbying.

...d

I suppose the only way to prove the helmet thing is to try it. Make it
law for a period and wait for the results. Sound like as good an option
as any to me!

That's been done - haven't done your reading?

Not in this country, with our laws and road structure. Can't you see
that's totally different to another country with a different attitude
and level of bike use?

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

Quoted message said:

_ said:

Coyoteboy said:

Peter Clinch wrote:
> If you could trust the monitoring and results provided, maybe, but
> experience tells us we can't.
Experience tells me there's people that argue both sides with equal
determination and neither can prove their points one way or the other
with any real science that doesnt commecne from a biased point of view
(looking at helmet literature presented on several websites). I guess it
doesnt bother me (the law) because A) I dont live there and B) I wear a
helmet (and have been very thankful for it several times) anyway.

Methinks your experience is very lacking. You should try the
interwebby-thing and go to www.cyclehelmets.org and come back when you
have
some more.

That was one of the first and easiest pages to dismiss as being biased and
presenting results that are a great example of "here we took these results
and they show this, therefore these other results must prove this"! I've
been through this in the past, I cant see any reports in that bunch that I
would consider worthy of a second look due to obvious flaws in their
creation. I'm open minded, id prefer to ride "sans helmet" as it feels
nice to have the wind in your hair. But I've also bounced my head on the
floor plenty of times at high speeds, into concrete, cars, trees, gravel
and have yet to experience any time when the helmet may have caused more
damage.

T'aint as simple as that though. For example you wear a helmet a lot, and
keep bouncing your head into things. I don't, and don't bounce my head into
things. Risk compensation is real.

cheers,
clive