Some updates

On the criticisms of the TRT nonsense: it is legitimate to use the
odds ratio as an estimate of relative rate (i.e. OR 0.15 => 85%
reduction) as long as the base probability is low. I take it you're
not arguing that head injury is a frequent feature of cycling :-)

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
[email hidden] http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

Tony Raven said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

We need to distinguish between the general idea of a safety helmet for
cycling, and the kind of [censored] that is currently being sold. If I
wanted to cycle at speed down a rocky slope I'd want to wear a helmet,
but the last thing I'd wear would be one of today's silly cycle
helmets. They're a triumph of marketing and fashion over function. The
latest changes in their specification made them *less* protective. I
value my brains a lot more than that.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Don Whybrow said:

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.

Quoted message said:

You are not alone!.

Quoted message said:

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.

Well, I can understand this could be an excuse for buying one of the
things, leaving the house with it, and returning with it in the
evening. Actually wearing it seems to be going a bit far :-)

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Don Whybrow said:

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.

I had already been commuting by bike for 5 years by the time I met my
wife. She accepted my choice not to always wear a helmet, but was
initially insistent that once we had kids I would have to wear a helmet
all the time in order to set a good example.

Fortunately, by the time the first munchkin came along I had persuaded
her that helmets were not necessarily a good thing.

Keep broaching. And I wouldn't let someone else (even my wife) tell me
to do something for my own safety when I have good reason to believe
that it won't provide any benefit.

--
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

Chris Malcolm said:

We need to distinguish between the general idea of a safety helmet for
cycling, and the kind of [censored] that is currently being sold. If I
wanted to cycle at speed down a rocky slope I'd want to wear a helmet,
but the last thing I'd wear would be one of today's silly cycle
helmets. They're a triumph of marketing and fashion over function. The
latest changes in their specification made them *less* protective. I
value my brains a lot more than that.

Demand, in the interests of consumer information, that helmets are
marked with a speed rating (like the '50' etc. on caravans).

Max Speed 12mph. emblazoned on the helmet might bring some appreciation of
their usefulness.

-adrian

Chris Malcolm said:

Well, I can understand this could be an excuse for buying one of the
things, leaving the house with it, and returning with it in the
evening. Actually wearing it seems to be going a bit far :-)

I have thought about doing this, but to me it seems a bit duplicitous
and childish.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

After things go from bad to worse, the cycle will repeat itself.

Danny Colyer said:

Keep broaching. And I wouldn't let someone else (even my wife) tell me
to do something for my own safety when I have good reason to believe
that it won't provide any benefit.

Ah! wear her down until she gives in. Got it.

Sometimes it is less hassle to say "yes dear". Especially when
re-decorating, not that that has anything to with wearing a lid.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Invalid thought detected. Close all mental processes and restart
body.

Adrian Godwin said:

Chris Malcolm said:

We need to distinguish between the general idea of a safety helmet
for cycling, and the kind of [censored] that is currently being sold. If I
wanted to cycle at speed down a rocky slope I'd want to wear a
helmet, but the last thing I'd wear would be one of today's silly
cycle helmets. They're a triumph of marketing and fashion over
function. The latest changes in their specification made them *less*
protective. I value my brains a lot more than that.

Demand, in the interests of consumer information, that helmets are
marked with a speed rating (like the '50' etc. on caravans).

Max Speed 12mph. emblazoned on the helmet might bring some
appreciation of their usefulness.

<ancient urc history>
I thought 12mph was the most dangerous speed to drive at.
</ancient>
(forgive the abominal xml)
--
Ambrose

Don Whybrow said:

Danny Colyer said:

Keep broaching. And I wouldn't let someone else (even my wife) tell
me to do something for my own safety when I have good reason to
believe that it won't provide any benefit.

Ah! wear her down until she gives in. Got it.

Sometimes it is less hassle to say "yes dear". Especially when
re-decorating, not that that has anything to with wearing a lid.

Could be very useful when decorating. Nasty things, stepladders

--
Ambrose

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.

Good one, will include. And many thanks - many, many thanks - to
everyone above who has made constructive comments. Version 1.2 will be
online probably late Sunday.

In a similar vein, I intend to use outrider.org.uk to be a "campaign for
real cycle safety" and any submissions by mail or here are welcome..

Guy

Just zis Guy said:

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

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

Guy

Guy,
You have a typo on:

http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/law-failure-2.html

"tat" for "that"

Julesh

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:36:07 +0000, Brian G <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message 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.

Seems to be there now :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:36:07 +0000, Brian G <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message 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.

Seems to be there now :-)

Almost..
"What better example could there?" seems to be missing a be.

"Look at Holland or Denmark, tow of the safest cycling countries in the
world" - s/tow/two/
"Suddenly the "solution" turns out to e unnecessary" - e should be be..

...d

Just zis Guy said:

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:36:07 +0000, Brian G <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message 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.

Seems to be there now :-)

law-failure-2.html - link to home opens in a new window.

...d

Chief said:

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.

Me too

Its not worth the grief.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Nick Kew said:

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].

UPAPLC; see the Think! TV "advert" they have managed to get through (I
haven't, but it has been discussed elsewhere here).

R.

Chris Malcolm said:

latest changes in their specification

Do you have a reference for these changes, please? The last changes to
EN-whateveritis that I am aware of was several years ago.

R.

On 25 Mar 2006 05:33:57 -0800 someone who may be "David Martin"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

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

Have you asked her to wear a helmet in the car? In absolute and
relative terms this would do more for road safety.

--
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 Sat, 25 Mar 2006 10:31:08 +0000 someone who may be Chief
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Especially since my wife is nurse, there's just no convincing her.

Arrogance is indeed a failing of the medical mob. However, look at
the sea crashing against the shore. The obvious conclusion is that
the sea is much weaker then the shore, but time tells us a different
truth.

--
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

Richard said:

Chris Malcolm said:

latest changes in their specification

Quoted message said:

Do you have a reference for these changes, please? The last changes to
EN-whateveritis that I am aware of was several years ago.

That's what I'm referring to.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]