Some updates

Just zis Guy said:

to http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk

I am happy to have any contributions people feel like sending in.

At <URL:http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/law-failure-4.html> you use the
term "liddites". We all know what it means, but I think it might be
better to use a term that will make more sense to newcomers to the debate.

Otherwise, what I've looked at so far looks good.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Richard said:

Clearly your reading comprehension lacks something, then, as none of the
regulars are anti-helmet. Please attempt to prove me wrong by pointing
to posts where the author shows an anti-helmet bias.

I'll help Kristian out here. The most recent example that springs to
mind was posted on 23/03/06 by Mike Causer in the thread "To be fair to
Tom Crispin". I quote:
"I am robustly anti-helmet"

Mike is a regular. I don't know whether he actually meant what he wrote.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Danny Colyer said:

Richard said:

Clearly your reading comprehension lacks something, then, as none of the
regulars are anti-helmet. Please attempt to prove me wrong by pointing
to posts where the author shows an anti-helmet bias.

I'll help Kristian out here. The most recent example that springs to mind
was posted on 23/03/06 by Mike Causer in the thread "To be fair to Tom
Crispin". I quote:
"I am robustly anti-helmet"

Mike is a regular. I don't know whether he actually meant what he wrote.

I /do/ try to write what I mean, and mean what I write, but my position is
somewhat more complex.

I am helmet-negative:
when they encourage the idea that cycling is dangerous
when the lack of one makes a cyclist subject to intimidation by people
in cars, or more typically vans.
when enforcement reduces the number of people cycling
when the protection provided does not match up to the likely hazards

I am helmet-neutral:
when something of greater safety value can be obtained through the
cynically political use of them -- eg proper training of
schoolchildren

I am helmet-positive:
when on a motorbike on road or track
when in a racing car on a track
my climbing days are long over, but I'd probably be inclined to wear
one on loose rock or ice.

Each of those statements could be amplified, if really required.

Mike

Typos:

law-failure-2.html

"The difference between your speed and tat of other traffic" - tat?

navigation link opens in new window.

law-failure-3.html
"thinking that cycling ins dangerous " - ins?

law-failure-5.html

"with a bit of packing some time" - with a bit of polystyrene packing
foam some time

"helmet tester that the energies car v. cyclists collisions routinely"
- there appears to be a word missing.

believe-allages.html

link to not-enough.html opens in a new window, unlike the other links.

I think all the other ones have already been caught.

A general point:

Would it be possible to link to many of the wonderful graphics you
have? It is a rather texty site.

I'm thinking of trying to find a picture of big lorries on a busy road,
blag the DoT hedgehogs and put a flat one behind the truck with two
others looking at the mess saying "If only he'd worn his helmet"

Or maybe there is a talented cartoonist who would do so.

...d

Mike Causer said:

I /do/ try to write what I mean, and mean what I write...

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply otherwise, though clearly that's exactly
what I implied. I merely sought to refute the assertion that there is
no evidence for any of the regulars here being anti-helmet - an
assertion that usually seems to be made shortly after someone states
outright that he is anti-helmet!

Quoted message said:

... but my position is somewhat more complex.

Your explanation seems to tie up with my own opinions. I wouldn't
describe myself as anti-helmet, though, partly because it plays into the
hands of those pro-compulsionists who regard anyone who is
anti-compulsion as being anti-helmet.

I'd describe myself as strongly anti-compulsion and fairly strongly
anti-promotion.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Danny Colyer said:

Mike Causer said:

I /do/ try to write what I mean, and mean what I write...

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply otherwise, though clearly that's exactly
what I implied. I merely sought to refute the assertion that there is
no evidence for any of the regulars here being anti-helmet -

The point I was abjectly failing to make was indeed that many of the
regulars here are anti-compulsion, not being the same as being anti-helmet.

R.

Just zis Guy said:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:20:56 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'd personally suggest a less strident tone...

Quoted message said:

Okey-dokey, first cut at a toned down version is ftping right now.
Thanks for the input, you are all (of course) absolutely right.

great improvements in tone and content. I'd agree with the comments
that it still tends a little towards wordiness, jargon and a bit of an
in-crowd feel.

on law-failure.html, para one has a hyperlink Starting Off, meaning
starting with item 1 of the list below, however item two on that list
is laso ahyperlink called Starting Off which is a little confusing. I
suspect the second instance of starting off is meant ot read Look
before you leap

best wishes
james

Richard richard at percival dot demon dot co dot tld for united kingdom

Quoted message said:

Danny Colyer said:

Mike Causer said:

I /do/ try to write what I mean, and mean what I write...

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply otherwise, though clearly that's
exactly what I implied. I merely sought to refute the assertion
that there is no evidence for any of the regulars here being
anti-helmet -

The point I was abjectly failing to make was indeed that many of the
regulars here are anti-compulsion, not being the same as being
anti-helmet.

So. am I correct in thinking that everyone is agreed:

1 Helmets are a good thing, providing some benefit in some circumstances

but

2 Helmet promotion is a bad thing because it implies cycling is dangerous

and

3 Helmet compulsion is a bad thing because is results in a drop in cycling
numbers?

and

4 Helmet compulsion is a bad thing on civil liberties grounds.

pk

p.k. said:

So. am I correct in thinking that everyone is agreed:

1 Helmets are a good thing, providing some benefit in some circumstances

but

2 Helmet promotion is a bad thing because it implies cycling is dangerous

and

3 Helmet compulsion is a bad thing because is results in a drop in cycling
numbers?

and

4 Helmet compulsion is a bad thing on civil liberties grounds.

Yes on 2,3 & 4 but No on 1. The evidence is that helmets are at best
neutral with any benefits in minor scratch and scrape amelioration
offset by disbenefits greater probability of hitting your head and
greater rotational head and neck stresses in bigger accidents. So 1
should be Helmets are neither a good or bad thing, providing some
benefit is some circumstances but making things worse in others.

Tony

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Just zis Guy said:

to http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk

I am happy to have any contributions people feel like sending in.

The tactic on the home page of setting out possible starting positions
on the issue is an interesting and perhaps sensible one. However my own
position, which I suspect is a rather common one, isn't covered. I
habitually wear a helmet, not because I want to or have any faith in its
powers, but because (in my case) my wife insists on it. This is because
despite my many attempts to discuss the issues with her she returns to
the view that it must be safer for me to wear one than not. OK. I could
refuse, but the married men amongst you may be able to calculate the
excessive price to be paid for such a show of manly independence.

I'm then left facing the very uncomfortable suggestion that by acting in
this way I'm doing the compulsionists' work for them by moving in my own
tiny way towards the day when a perceived majority of cyclists supports
helmet wearing. If I'm right in my guess that I'm far from alone in
this position, you might want to air it to add to my discomfort.

--
Brian G

Brian G said:

Just zis Guy said:

to http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk

I am happy to have any contributions people feel like sending in.

The tactic on the home page of setting out possible starting positions
on the issue is an interesting and perhaps sensible one. However my own
position, which I suspect is a rather common one, isn't covered. I
habitually wear a helmet, not because I want to or have any faith in its
powers, but because (in my case) my wife insists on it. This is because
despite my many attempts to discuss the issues with her she returns to
the view that it must be safer for me to wear one than not. OK. I could
refuse, but the married men amongst you may be able to calculate the
excessive price to be paid for such a show of manly independence.

I'm then left facing the very uncomfortable suggestion that by acting in
this way I'm doing the compulsionists' work for them by moving in my own
tiny way towards the day when a perceived majority of cyclists supports
helmet wearing. If I'm right in my guess that I'm far from alone in
this position, you might want to air it to add to my discomfort.

You are definitely not alone, I too am in the same position. Especially
since my wife is nurse, there's just no convincing her.

Chief!

in message <[email hidden]>, p.k.

(') said:

Richard richard at percival dot demon dot co dot tld for united kingdom

Quoted message said:

Danny Colyer said:

Mike Causer wrote:

> I /do/ try to write what I mean, and mean what I write...

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply otherwise, though clearly that's
exactly what I implied. I merely sought to refute the assertion
that there is no evidence for any of the regulars here being
anti-helmet -

The point I was abjectly failing to make was indeed that many of the
regulars here are anti-compulsion, not being the same as being
anti-helmet.

So. am I correct in thinking that everyone is agreed:

1 Helmets are a good thing, providing some benefit in some
circumstances

I think we're all agreed that helmets provide some benefits in some
circumstances. This does not mean they're a good thing, because they
also appear to have substantial disbenefits in some circumstances. So
the best you can say is they are a good thing in some circumstances.

Quoted message said:

2 Helmet promotion is a bad thing because it implies cycling is
dangerous

A relatively small proportion of cyclists ride in conditions where helmet
use would be beneficial; the majority ride on the road, in traffic,
where helmets at best do no good. Helmet promotion is a bad thing
because it puts more people at more risk, and, at the same time,
distracts from more important safety issues like maintenance and
training.

Quoted message said:

and

3 Helmet compulsion is a bad thing because is results in a drop in
cycling numbers?

That's certainly true.

Quoted message said:

4 Helmet compulsion is a bad thing on civil liberties grounds.

Well, yes, I suppose. But mainly because it kills people.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

<p>Schroedinger's cat is <blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p>

p.k. said:

So. am I correct in thinking that everyone is agreed:

1 Helmets are a good thing, providing some benefit in some circumstances

Nope. "Good thing", like "bad thing", involves a value judgement
I don't want to make until and unless you propose a much more
specific scenario.

Quoted message said:

2 Helmet promotion is a bad thing because it implies cycling is dangerous

Nope. Helmet promotion is entirely valid for those whose business is
helmets. And at least they don't go around spamming, like promoters
of financial or pharmaceutical [censored].

Quoted message said:

3 Helmet compulsion is a bad thing because is results in a drop in cycling
numbers?

Yes in part. Yes it's a bad thing, but I reject your "because"
clause as far too limiting.

Quoted message said:

4 Helmet compulsion is a bad thing on civil liberties grounds.

Yes. Though I dislike the term "civil liberties": along with "human
rights" it's been abused to the point where the fascist backlash
we're now seeing became inevitable, and even Dubya seemed the lesser
of two evils to many of his voters.

--
not me guv

p.k. said:

So. am I correct in thinking that everyone is agreed:

FSVO "everyone", naturally... none of us can speak for lurkers who
prefer not to air their views, because none of us know them.

Quoted message said:

1 Helmets are a good thing, providing some benefit in some circumstances

Helmets are a good thing in some circumstances, rather than a good
thing generally because they are a good thing in some circumstances.

Quoted message said:

but
2 Helmet promotion is a bad thing because it implies cycling is dangerous

and it costs money and time and effort that could be spent more
usefully, and encourages a mentality of victim-blaming in lieu of
resolving the basic issues causing cycling casualties.

Quoted message said:

3 Helmet compulsion is a bad thing because is results in a drop in cycling
numbers?
and
4 Helmet compulsion is a bad thing on civil liberties grounds.

and it costs etc. as above.

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/

Chief said:

You are definitely not alone, I too am in the same position. Especially
since my wife is nurse, there's just no convincing her.

I married a scientist who is prepared to trust me that I know what I am
doing..

TBH, I think I am more worried if she does a long trip in the car.

Maybe every time she takes the car you should remind her to drive
carefully, take a shovel and spare food (I was in Crieff in the snow
the other weekend). Maybe she'd get the message.

'Wouldn't it be safer to go by train?' is another one..

...d

Peter Clinch said:

p.k. said:

So. am I correct in thinking that everyone is agreed:

FSVO "everyone", naturally... none of us can speak for lurkers who
prefer not to air their views, because none of us know them.

I normally lurk for the helmet threads (if I read them at all). I find
them a tad Shakespearian - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
Make of that what you will.

JimP

--
<Benny Hill mode>
I've got a cycle helmet, I'll wear it when I like
And if they want to make me, I'll go hunting on me bike
</Benny Hill mode>

David Martin said:

Maybe every time she takes the car you should remind her to drive
carefully, take a shovel and spare food

Do you not keep a shovel in the car? First aid kit, clean water &
folding shovel reside in the boot of mine. Admittedly, the shovel
sees more action at the beach than digging the car out of treacherous
situations...

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

Brian G said:

The tactic on the home page of setting out possible starting positions
on the issue is an interesting and perhaps sensible one. However my own
position, which I suspect is a rather common one, isn't covered. I
habitually wear a helmet, not because I want to or have any faith in its
powers, but because (in my case) my wife insists on it. This is because
despite my many attempts to discuss the issues with her she returns to
the view that it must be safer for me to wear one than not. OK. I could
refuse, but the married men amongst you may be able to calculate the
excessive price to be paid for such a show of manly independence.

You are not alone!.

When I started my current job and decided to commute by bike, the prime
reason for getting a helmet was at the insistence of my wife. If only to
set a good example for the children. Personally I was ambivalent. A
couple of days ago I broached the subject of not wearing one based on
the arguments I have seen here and the response was less than enthusiastic.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Are you still here? The message is over. Shoo! Go away!

p.k. said:

So. am I correct in thinking that everyone is agreed:

You're 'avin a bubble baff, aren't you?

~PB

Thinking of making a small card up with the following information on it.
Would welcome comments, suggestions and maybe the odd bit of abuse.

Idea is to hand it to friends/strangers/aquaintances that ask where my
helmet is - I get it enough that keeping a card or two in my wallet makes
sense.

Quoted message said:

So. am I correct in thinking that everyone is agreed:

1 Helmets are a good thing

A combination of *walking* being more dangerous[1], and helmets only up
to protecting against relatively minor injuries[2] to one part of the
body means I sort of disagree with this.

They're aimed at the wrong activity. Walking is both more dangerous and
has it's (non-motor vehicle) incidents well within a cycle helmet's
design parameters.[3]

For them to be worth talking about, the cycling has to be significantly
more dangerous (stunts, off-road stuff?), or in a situation where higher
standards of care are expected (in-school training?).

To conclude, for normal people doing normal cycling, helmets are sadly
the Wrong Thing for the Wrong Activity. Those that currently wear them
for 'normal' cycling should consider:

- Whether they should wear them when walking too

- Whether they should upgrade to something that can provide the sort
of protection they want

Those that don't currently cycle should consider why they're obsessing
about an activity that they don't partake in, and that has a lower risk
than *walking*. [this is more than a bit rude, so will just have it on
the online version. In Real Life I don't meet people like this]

[1] Walking more dangerous
<www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7250.xls>

[2] Protect only against relatively minor injuries
<decent authoritative reference needed>

[3] Incidents whilst walking well within cycle helmet's parameters
<decent authoritative reference needed>

I'd also like to chuck something in about the relative risks of head
injury of walking compared to cycling, as at the mo that's the obvious
question to ask (and I don't know the answer:-)