Times article about helmets

"Cycling campaigners" should do something useful like campaign to abolish
smoking, or obesity instead.

It's v hard to find their email address for replies, but here it is:
[email hidden]

Simon Proven said:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1976534,00.html

It seems to me that once again non-cycling "do gooders" are being
confused with cycling campaigners.

It's ironic that they publish this on the same day that they write
about Britain's worst cycling accident (their words) in which they say
that all the cyclists involved were wearing helmets.

At best this is ignorant ranting, at worst, well --
They said that all the bicyclists were wearing helmets in this unfortunate
accident. Where is the logic in demanding that bicyclists wear helmets?
What about the car driver, road conditions etc? If he had ploughed into a
similar group of pedestrians the same would probably happened.
No mention of he fact that countries which HAVE instituted compulsory
helmets have not seen a reduction in head injusries, when the decline in
bicycling is taken into account.

"A cyclist is 20 times more likely to be killed than a car occupant on an
urban road; 34 times more likely to be killed on a rural road."

This needs further clarification. On its own it doesn't mean anything.
With regard to time? distance travelled? and the baseline?

And what is it that kills bicyclists? Overwhelmingly it is impact with
motor vehicles. Presence/absence of helmet seems to play minor role.
How about the European idea, that in a collision, the parties are held
responsible according to how much damage s/he can cause to the other
party? This seems to be a factor in their low accident rate, despite very
low helmet wearing rates.

Peter

--
No Microsoft involved. Certified virus free --

Just sent this:

Sir,

Your correspondent, Lewis Smith, is right to raise the issue of the safety
of cyclists. However, he appears not to be aware of some of important facts
regarding cycle helmets, which he seems to think will solve the problem.

No cycle campaigners have been lobbying government to bring in mandatory
cycle helmets. Those who have been thus lobbying are not cyclists, they are
obsessives who refuse to look at the evidence. It is sad and an
embarrassment for the BMA, when they decided to call for mandatory helmets,
that they fell for the blandishments of these people rather than examine the
evidence themselves.

What does that evidence say? There has been no reduction in risk to
cyclists where cycle helmets have been made mandatory. The only
demonstrable effect of their imposition is to reduce the number of cyclists.
This may reduce the number of cyclists dying on the roads, but in societies
where lack of exercise kills many thousands more people than being struck by
motor vehicles when riding a bicycle, the net effect is a massive reduction
in health levels, and a correspondingly large increase in health care costs.

The problem of cyclists' safety is mostly in the hands of drivers, and
helmets are an irrelevance. As Mr Smith points out, deaths to cyclists rose
last year, but the level of helmet wearing rose also. No manufacturer
claims that a helmet will be of any use whatsoever in collision with a motor
vehicle, but the helmet campaigners claim precisely that.

If Mr Smith really wants to improve the safety of cyclists, he will be
campaigning for the media to stop promoting fast driving, speed and power.

Richard Burton

Following on from Rich's message. . .
I've just sent this to the Times

Please add my name to the letter from Richard Burton.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the pancake business flopped
[email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1976534,00.html

It seems to me that once again non-cycling "do gooders" are being
confused with cycling campaigners.

It's ironic that they publish this on the same day that they write
about Britain's worst cycling accident (their words) in which they say
that all the cyclists involved were wearing helmets.

My letter to the Times...

"Sir,

In the article by Lewis Smith (Helmet pressure as death toll rises: Times,
09/01/06), Smith notes the growing clamour for compulsory use of helmets
when cycling.

I am a keen cyclist and motorist. I wear a helmet when cycling, but am under
no illusions about the amount of protection it affords me. A cycling helmet
is made up of lightweight polystyrene with a very thin shell over it. It is
designed to offer limited protection from a fall of about three feet when
the wearer is stationary or travelling at very low speed. It is not designed
to offer protection when a cyclist is hit by a motor vehicle of a tonne or
more moving at speed. Even the helmet manufacturers don't make that claim
and I'm sure that if they could, they would do so.

I find it appalling when cyclists, who actually were wearing helmets, killed
and injured by a driver doing 50mph on an icy road, are being used by the
helmet compulsion lobby as an excuse to peddle their pet cause. It is a
classic case of victim-blaming that is going on here and it stinks. If
helmets are as effective as the compulsionists say, then why do they not
clamour for pedestrians to be wearing walking helmets so they are protected
if they get hit by a motor vehicle whilst walking along the street? After
all, there are pedestrians struck by motor vehicles. It is because that
would show just how silly the compulsionists are. Or perhaps they should be
campaigning for all motorists to be wearing helmets, as motorists kill and
injure more motorists each year than the number of pedestrians or cyclists
killed or injured.

If the helmet compulsion lobby was truly interested in making the roads
safer for all road users, then I'd have a lot more respect for them, but
they are intent on promoting cycling as an inherently dangerous activity,
which it is not. The best way they can promote road safety is to campaign
for the current promotion and acceptance of fast driving to be ended and for
the acceptance of death by motor vehicle as almost always being an 'accident'
and the motorists having no more than a pittance of a fine plus a few points
on the driving licence as the sanction they get to be changed. The real
danger on our roads is not cyclists; it is we motorists who kill 3500 each
year and injure tens of thousands more. It's about time the real source of
the danger was tackled and the victim blaming stopped.

Even the Times falls under the spell of victim blaming when it comes to
cycling. As regards the tragic event in Wales, it is described by the Times
as a "cycling accident" (Thrown into the air 'like skittles': Times,
09/01/06 in first paragraph). Would the phrase "walking accident" have been
used if the driver had ploughed into a group of pedestrians? Thought not. "

Cheers, helen s

in message <[email hidden]>, wafflycat

('w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com') said:

My letter to the Times...

[snip] and mine...

Dear sir

The four cyclists whose deaths were reported in your columns this
morning were all wearing the helmets advocated by your correspondent
Lewis Smith in the same edition. This may seem ironical, but is not
surprising. If Mr Lewis had done his research, he would be aware that
half an inch of polystyrene foam doesn't really make much difference
when human bodies are "thrown into the air 'like skittles'". Cycle
helmets are not designed to protect in impacts with motor vehicles, and
none of their manufacturers make any claims whatsoever in this regard.
Campaigning to impose mandatory 'safety' equipment which is known not
to address the problem in question is simply irresponsible.

Sincerely

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

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

Mine:

Sir,

I know many others from Britains cycling community have also written to
you on this subject, but I'd also like to condemn the Times for printing
this article on the day that media reports tell us of the tragedy in
North Wales. Aside from the points about how ineffective helmets
actually were in this instance (compare that to the contention by BHIT,
amongst others that you can't be safe cycling on the road, UNLESS
wearing a helmet,) the timing of the report is disgusting and insensitive.

I would expect The Times, one of the most famous names in the world whwn
it comes to news media, to be a bit more reponsible when it comes to
tragedies such as the one in North Wales yesterday.

Peter White
Trowbridge.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, wafflycat

('w*a*ff?y?cat*@?btco*nn?ect.com') said:

My letter to the Times...

[snip] and mine...

Here's mine..

Sir

Mandating antilock brake systems (ABS) on all cars would be more
effective in preventing situations like the weekend's tragedy than
forcing cyclists to wear helmets.

Yours, etc.

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

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, wafflycat

('w*a*ff?y?cat*@?btco*nn?ect.com') said:

My letter to the Times...

[snip] and mine...

Here's mine..

Sir

Mandating antilock brake systems (ABS) on all cars would be more
effective in preventing situations like the weekend's tragedy than
forcing cyclists to wear helmets.

Please don't send that one. Although true, it's not true for the 'obvious'
reasons.

The car in question will almost certainly have had ABS. (awaits correction
on this).

cheers,
clive

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

wafflycat ('w*a*ff?y?cat*@?btco*nn?ect.com') said:

My letter to the Times...

[snip] and mine...

Here's mine..

Sir

Mandating antilock brake systems (ABS) on all cars would be more
effective in preventing situations like the weekend's tragedy than
forcing cyclists to wear helmets.

Although I'm fairly sure the car would have had ABS. Maybe traction control
is more relevant.

As I write, the garage has just phoned back about fixing the ABS on my car,
(will be done on Friday) so it's possible that it wasn't functioning on the
car in question, too.
--
Ambrose

Clive George said:

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

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,
wafflycat ('w*a*ff?y?cat*@?btco*nn?ect.com'😉 wrote:
> My letter to the Times...

[snip] and mine...

Here's mine..

Sir

Mandating antilock brake systems (ABS) on all cars would be more
effective in preventing situations like the weekend's tragedy than
forcing cyclists to wear helmets.

Please don't send that one. Although true, it's not true for the
'obvious' reasons.

The car in question will almost certainly have had ABS. (awaits
correction on this).

I wrote the same post, obviously.

If anyone sees a picture where they can see the age of the car on the
registration plate, please post it.

--
Ambrose

On 8 Jan 2006 16:19:43 -0800, "Simon Proven" <[email hidden]> said
in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It seems to me that once again non-cycling "do gooders" are being
confused with cycling campaigners.

I sent a somewhat trenchant reply:

Sir,

The Times reported that in the wake of the Wales crash "cycle
campaigners" are calling for helmet compulsion and saying that the
cyclist death toll is rising.

I am greatly disappointed that The Times should have repeated Mary
Williams' crass and ill-informed statement at this sensitive
time. Perhaps Brake should have checked the facts with one of the
cycling organisations, since they actually (unlike Brake) have some
clue about cyclist safety in general and this crash in particular?  As
HL Mencken memorably put it, "For every complex problem there is a
solution which is simple, neat and wrong".

If any lesson is to be drawn from this appalling tragedy it is that
winter roads are treacherous, and the greatest caution is demanded
wherever there is snow or ice - when in doubt, slow down.  It was,
after all, not the cyclists who lost control of their machines.

Specifically with respect to the story as reported:

1. Brake are *not* cycle campaigners.  I know of no cyclists'
organisation that calls for helmet legislation, and several who are
explicitly opposed, including CTC, the largest.

2. The riders involved were reported to have been wearing helmets
anyway, and there is of course no indication at this early stage of
cause of death.

3. Helmets are intended for low speed falls with no other vehicle
involved. The absurdity of pretending that an inch of polystyrene can
protect against a tonne or more of metal moving at considerable speed
should be obvious to anybody.

4. There is no known case where cyclist safety has improved with
increasing helmet use.  Helmet compulsion has been tried in several
countries and the result has been an increase or no change in cyclist
head injury rates, see http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1096.

5. The cyclist death and injury rate has been generally declining
since the 1970s, but is subject to significant statistical "noise" due
to the very small numbers involved (172, 127, 138, 130. 114, 134 in
the last six years for which figures are available).  Anybody who
knows anything about road safety knows full well that individual years
cannot be compared.

6. More people cycling leads to fewer deaths and injuries per cyclist,
as has been shown consistently across numerous countries and
environments. Fearmongering is a great way to reduce safety.  This
collision is going to cause enough fear already without Chicken Little
jumping on the bandwagon.

My heart goes out to the families and friends of those involved.  The
news brought me to tears, and the exploitation of this horrible crash
by shroud-waving zealots is utterly contemptible.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My letter to the Times...

Well, it's heavily edited, but I am in print it seems...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1977405,00.html

Cheers, helen s

wafflycat said:

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My letter to the Times...

Well, it's heavily edited, but I am in print it seems...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1977405,00.html

Voodoo dolls of the authors of the last two letters have been prepared.
--
Ambrose

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

Quoted message said:

wafflycat said:

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My letter to the Times...

Well, it's heavily edited, but I am in print it seems...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1977405,00.html

Voodoo dolls of the authors of the last two letters have been prepared.
--
Ambrose

And I shall be dancing nekkid round the willow tree in the garden next full
moon, chanting strange chants and issuing forth curses ;-)

Cheers, helen s

wafflycat said:

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

Quoted message said:

wafflycat said:

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> My letter to the Times...

Well, it's heavily edited, but I am in print it seems...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1977405,00.html

Voodoo dolls of the authors of the last two letters have been
prepared.

And I shall be dancing nekkid round the willow tree in the garden
next full moon, chanting strange chants and issuing forth curses ;-)

Tell us something we didn't already know for a change 😉
--
Ambrose

Ambrose Nankivell said:

wafflycat wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, it's heavily edited, but I am in print it seems...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1977405,00.html

Voodoo dolls of the authors of the last two letters have been prepared.

Unbelievable that the Times would use this tragedy as an opportunity to
print a standard anti-cyclist rant from a moron moaning about red lights
on the Fulham Road. :-(

--
Dave...

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 02:48:23 GMT, Dave Kahn <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

wafflycat wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, it's heavily edited, but I am in print it seems...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1977405,00.html

Voodoo dolls of the authors of the last two letters have been prepared.

Unbelievable that the Times would use this tragedy as an opportunity to
print a standard anti-cyclist rant from a moron moaning about red lights
on the Fulham Road. :-(

He lives around the corner from me... Ho hum, perhaps I'll use his
driveway for cycle training.

The excellent Rob McIvor lives not far away too.