Sensible Helmet Advice from Reading BC

Not Responding said:

"Should I wear a Helmet?

Wearing a helmet won't prevent an accident, but it could mean a much less severe head injury if
you have one."

It could equally have read "Wearing a helmet won't prevent an accident, and there is little or no
evidence that it will protect you in the event of one. In some cases it may cause death or serious
injury that could have been avoided had you not been wearing it."

Based on the statistics in countries where helmet laws have been introduced...

"Zog The Undeniable" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Not Responding said:

"Should I wear a Helmet?

Wearing a helmet won't prevent an accident, but it could mean a much less severe head injury if
you have one."

It could equally have read "Wearing a helmet won't prevent an accident, and there is little or no
evidence that it will protect you in the event of one. In some cases it may cause death or serious
injury that could have been avoided had you not been wearing it."

You go too far. No-one will believe you. Especially with that last one...

Quoted message said:

Based on the statistics in countries where helmet laws have been introduced...

... and especially as you have nothing better than that to back it up.

W K said:

"Zog The Undeniable" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Based on the statistics in countries where helmet laws have been introduced...

... and especially as you have nothing better than that to back it up.

I've fallen off many times without wearing a helmet and never suffered head injuries, therefore
*not* wearing a helmet must have saved my life ;-)

See the problem?

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:55:58 +0000, Zog The Undeniable scrawled: ) It could equally have read
"Wearing a helmet won't prevent an accident, ) and there is little or no evidence that it will
protect you in the event ) of one."

There's an old saw about statisticians that's worth paraphrasing here: if a statistician saw a
thousand cyclists, five hundred with their heads on fire and five hundred with their feet frozen in
ice, he'd say that none of them need helmets.

No, hang on. If a cyclist saw two dozen statisticians, each with their helmet on fire.

If a statistician set everyone on uk.rec.cycling on fire, then encased them in ice.

OK: gin a body meet a body, coming through the rye....

J-P
--
[ We are on our Summer holidays, but find it impossible to shut up ]

And iff a thousand statisticians were laid end-to-end on Brighton beach, that would very likely be
the nearest to mental stimulation any of them have ever been... ;-)

With apologies to Steve Bell.

--

Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.ukOpen ↗
===========================================================

"j-p.s" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There's an old saw about statisticians that's worth paraphrasing here: if a statistician saw a
thousand cyclists, five hundred with their heads on fire and five hundred with their feet frozen
in ice, he'd say that none of them need helmets.

And if you laid all the statisticians in the world end-to-end, they still wouldn't reach a
conclusion.

Oh, hang on, that's economists. Same difference...

Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:55:58 +0000, Zog The Undeniable <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Not Responding said:

"Should I wear a Helmet?

Wearing a helmet won't prevent an accident, but it could mean a much less severe head injury if
you have one."

It could equally have read "Wearing a helmet won't prevent an accident, and there is little or no
evidence that it will protect you in the event of one. In some cases it may cause death or serious
injury that could have been avoided had you not been wearing it."

Based on the statistics in countries where helmet laws have been introduced...

I( wasn't really claimng it was perfect; just observing that it was a great deal closer to reality
than most councils' statements about the things.

Not Responding said:

I( wasn't really claimng it was perfect; just observing that it was a great deal closer to reality
than most councils' statements about the things.

I know, I was just having a rant. This Bill really worries me because I don't get on with the things
at all, whether it's the heat in summer or the choking effect of the chin strap.

I don't actually care whether they look silly; I look far weirder in my pink Giro d'Italia jersey
with Briko Stinger glasses. More of a fluorescentpinkbottle than a bluebottle.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004,

Not Responding said:

"Should I wear a Helmet?

Wearing a helmet won't prevent an accident, but it could mean a much less severe head injury if
you have one."

This seems to be the entirity of RBC's reference to cycle helmets. This seems remarkably
realistic advice and compares very favourably with most LAs which equate helmet wearing to total
safety and non-wearing to suicide.

I've posted some of Surrey CC's web information before: tinyurl.comc04vOpen ↗

On their 8-point list of "things to check before getting onto your bike" helmets is number 8, and
says: "The use of a helmet may in certain circumstances reduce the risk of head injury."

There's a printed leaflet from the council which says substantially the same thing - helmets is last
on the list and only get a "may reduce".

The web page also has the statement "If you are new to cycling or have had a long lay-off, don't
worry. By building up your skills and confidence you can be safely self-reliant on the road." Which
I like a lot, because it says 1: don't worry, 2: your skills matter,
3: cycles belong on the road and 4: cycling on the road can be safe. All of this is
welcome, I think.

regrads, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|