Sensible Helmets Letter in The Herald

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:19:41 -0800 (PST) someone who may be iarocu
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.1864010.0.wrong_to_make_children_wear_cycle_helmets.php

This refers to the original story, which is at
http://www.theherald.co.uk/search/display.var.1858302.0.safety_concerns_harming_children.php
and contains the rather foolish statement, "The commissioner said on
television that some safety restrictions, such as the use of cycling
helmets, were very sensible, but others were unnecessary
mollycoddling." It is a great pity, as she usually says sensible
things.

Should anyone wish to ask the Commissioner for the evidence upon
which she based her assertion then http://www.sccyp.org.uk/ has a
link to a contact us page with details of how to get in touch. I
have yet to have an answer to this question, which makes me suspect
that she did not base her assertion on any solid evidence.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Nov 28, 3:37 pm, David Hansen <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Should anyone wish to ask the Commissioner for the evidence upon
which she based her assertion thenhttp://www.sccyp.org.uk/has a
link to a contact us page with details of how to get in touch. I
have yet to have an answer to this question, which makes me suspect
that she did not base her assertion on any solid evidence.

I did (evidence of some sort - not sure if it's solid....):

"Thank you for your comment regarding the Commissioner for Children
and Young People's recent comments on protective clothing when
cycling.

We appreciate that this is a divisive subject and know that many
people feel very passionate about this area and that both sides of the
argument present compelling evidence.

I understand that opponents argue that wearing helmets may inhibit
bicycle use, thus preventing people from gaining the potential health
benefits associated with this. I also understand that there is an
argument that other countermeasures may have been responsible for the
decline in head injuries and that in young children, helmet use may
perhaps provide a false sense of security which may encourage risk
taking.

We are clearly not experts in this field and nor would we claim to be
so, but we did approach a number of key organisations to ensure that
what we were saying had their support. Before making her comments we
approached ROSPA and Cycling Scotland and the Commissioner's
statements were based on information and advice received from them We
were also to keen to ensure that the evidence supported our claims. In
this respect, our Information Officer provided some useful research
material which you may find of interest.

This included "Bicycle helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use
and prevention of head injuries" Macpherson , Spinks (2007) The
authors' conclusions were that such legislation appeared to be
effective in increasing helmet use and decreasing head injury rates
for the populations for which it is implemented. The report refers to
other research done on the same project which is also of interest.

As I say, we do not claim to be experts and like you we are seeking to
open the debate on proportionate protection with the ultimate aim of
ensuring that all our children are safe, active and happy. The overall
message Kathleen was trying to get across was that many so called
protective practices were actually limiting children's freedom and
healthy development and that children in residential homes were
disproportionately affected by this.

Thank you very much for your comments

Yours sincerely

Meg Cowie"

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 04:08:53 -0800 (PST) someone who may be squeaker
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

On Nov 28, 3:37 pm, David Hansen <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Should anyone wish to ask the Commissioner for the evidence upon
which she based her assertion thenhttp://www.sccyp.org.uk/has a
link to a contact us page with details of how to get in touch. I
have yet to have an answer to this question, which makes me suspect
that she did not base her assertion on any solid evidence.

I did (evidence of some sort - not sure if it's solid....):

Her office didn't bother to reply to me, or their reply was so badly
written that it triggered a spam filter.

Quoted message said:

"Thank you for your comment regarding the Commissioner for Children
and Young People's recent comments on protective clothing when
cycling.

We appreciate that this is a divisive subject and know that many
people feel very passionate about this area and that both sides of the
argument present compelling evidence.

Waffle. The helmeteers evidence is not in the least compelling.

Quoted message said:

We are clearly not experts in this field and nor would we claim to be
so, but we did approach a number of key organisations to ensure that
what we were saying had their support. Before making her comments we
approached ROSPA and Cycling Scotland and the Commissioner's
statements were based on information and advice received from them

The first are members of the helmet lobby, the second are
essentially the sport lobby.

Quoted message said:

As I say, we do not claim to be experts and like you we are seeking to
open the debate on proportionate protection with the ultimate aim of
ensuring that all our children are safe, active and happy.

Except in the case of cycle helmets, where they have sought to close
the debate down.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 4 Dec, 12:08, squeaker <[email hidden]> wrote:

<quoting, obviously- not squeaker's words>

Quoted message said:

Before making her comments we
approached ROSPA and Cycling Scotland and the Commissioner's
statements were based on information and advice received from
them ...

I might be going off on one here, but it occurs to me that if RoSPAs
role is to "prevent" accidents, then surely they should be dead
against helmets, which appear to increase the number of accidents that
occur.

Some argue that a cycle helmet may reduce the seriousness of certain
incidents, but I don't think I've heard anyone claim that they
actually prevent any accidents at all.

If RoSPAs agenda isn't accident prevention (as opposed to mitigation)
then they have a very stupid name!

Cheers,
W.

PS Is there a Royal Society for the Mitigation of Accidents? if there
is it seems to be pretty low profile...

squeaker said:

On Nov 28, 3:37 pm, David Hansen <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Should anyone wish to ask the Commissioner for the evidence upon
which she based her assertion thenhttp://www.sccyp.org.uk/has a
link to a contact us page with details of how to get in touch. I
have yet to have an answer to this question, which makes me suspect
that she did not base her assertion on any solid evidence.

I did (evidence of some sort - not sure if it's solid....):

"Thank you for your comment regarding the Commissioner for Children
and Young People's recent comments on protective clothing when
cycling..........
This included "Bicycle helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use
and prevention of head injuries" Macpherson , Spinks (2007) The
authors' conclusions were that such legislation appeared to be
effective in increasing helmet use and decreasing head injury rates
for the populations for which it is implemented. The report refers to
other research done on the same project which is also of interest.

You might ask the Commissioner to comment on the critique of the above paper
provided at:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1181

In summary, the paper shows no such things when it comes to the evidence.
But the text of the paper does make such claims.

It would appear that the fears in the critique are well founded. Policy
makers take a paper from Cochrane (a generally well regarded source of
papers) where the paper has a bias towards a particular outcome and use it
as evidence.

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

On Dec 4, 2:20 pm, David Hansen <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

what we were saying had their support. Before making her comments we
approached ROSPA and Cycling Scotland and the Commissioner's
statements were based on information and advice received from them

The first are members of the helmet lobby, the second are
essentially the sport lobby.

Nope. Cycling Scotland are the transport cycling group. Scottish
Cycling are the sport lot.

Yes it is Monty Pythonesque.

...d

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 08:19:04 -0800 (PST) someone who may be David
Martin <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The first are members of the helmet lobby, the second are
essentially the sport lobby.

Nope. Cycling Scotland are the transport cycling group.

Not in my experience. They seem to be largely from the sport lobby
to me.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Splitters! Sorry, but someone had to say it.

David Martin said:

On Dec 4, 2:20 pm, David Hansen <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

what we were saying had their support. Before making her comments we
approached ROSPA and Cycling Scotland and the Commissioner's
statements were based on information and advice received from them

The first are members of the helmet lobby, the second are
essentially the sport lobby.

Nope. Cycling Scotland are the transport cycling group. Scottish
Cycling are the sport lot.

Yes it is Monty Pythonesque.

...d

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 04:08:53 -0800 (PST) someone who may be squeaker
<[email hidden]> **quoted** this:-

Quoted message said:

We are clearly not experts in this field and nor would we claim to be
so, but we did approach a number of key organisations to ensure that
what we were saying had their support. Before making her comments we
approached ROSPA and Cycling Scotland and the Commissioner's
statements were based on information and advice received from them

Well, I have just got off the phone with Cycling Scotland and they
are not impressed. They say that their policy is at
http://www.cyclingscotland.org/FileAccess.aspx?id=181 (warning, it
is a Microshit Word file, full text below) and if any of their staff
has diverged from this then they would like to know who it was. They
say they are conducting inquiries about this.

======================================================================

Helmets

Since its formation in 2003, Cycling Scotland, along with many other
organisations, has followed the lead of the National Cycling
Strategy Board in supporting individuals who wish to wear cycling
helmets but rejecting calls for compulsion. Recent admissions by
the British Helmet Initiative Trust (BHIT) that their justifications
for cycle helmets becoming a legal requirement were based on opinion
rather than evidence have encouraged many organisations to
re-examine their position on encouraging helmet use.

Safety equipment such as cycle helmets can sometimes result in risk
compensation. The cyclist may have a false sense of security when
wearing a helmet which could lead to them taking more risks.
Cyclists should aim to avoid impact altogether through a positive
riding position, increased awareness and vigilance and ensuring high
visibility at all times.

The main thing to check when buying a helmet is that it fits
properly and meets the safety standards set and tested by institutes
such as Snell or ANSI (in the US), Eu (Europe), BSI (Britain) or AS
(Australia). This will be marked inside the helmet.

A helmet should fit your head like a glove. You should be able to
feel the helmet on the top of your head and it should move with your
scalp when you wiggle you eyebrows. It should fit low on your
forehead without obstructing your vision to the front or side.

======================================================================

Quoted message said:

As I say, we do not claim to be experts and like you we are seeking to
open the debate on proportionate protection with the ultimate aim of
ensuring that all our children are safe, active and happy.

Personally I don't think that one opens a debate on something with
the reported comments, "Ms Marshall told BBC Scotland's Politics
Show that some safety restrictions, such as the use of cycling
helmets, were very sensible."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7112145.stm but perhaps the
Commissioner and her staff have a different concept of debate, the
same sort of concept that BSHIT have.

Quoted message said:

The overall
message Kathleen was trying to get across was that many so called
protective practices were actually limiting children's freedom and
healthy development and that children in residential homes were
disproportionately affected by this.

Entirely correct. One of these "so called protective practices" is
cycle helmets. The report makes it clear that these are restricting
children, just like things like ropes when swimming. However, the
Commissioner took it upon herself to say that this "so called
protective practice" is "very sensible".

She singled out cycle helmets for praise. In my view she should
consider her position and, at the very least, apologise to children
for letting them down and promise not to make the same mistake
again. It is very sad, as she usually makes very sensible comments.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Cycling Scotland said:

A helmet should fit your head like a glove.

and really should have added the proviso that it will need to be a very
*big* glove, and that the bits for the fingers are mostly redundant -
but may provide extra safety by flapping about on top of ones head so as
to attract the attention of other road users

-dan