Bicycle helmet charity bids for share of Wish £15,000

[M Wicks]

Ridiculous, but at least some of the comments below are reassuringly
sensible (does "jeepie" post/lurk here?)

http://www.getreading.co.uk/wish/s/2120993_bicycle_helmet_charity_bids_for_share_of_wish_15000

Bicycle helmet charity bids for share of Wish £15,000

Reading charity The Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust has signed up to
the Reading Post's Wish campaign to try to get more cycle safety gear
out to the town’s more deprived areas.

The Milford Road-based trust, founded by paediatric trauma nurse
Angela Lee in 1998, initially targeted local schools but has grown to
become one of the leading organisations for child safety in the UK,
supplying schools and youth groups with teaching materials including
DVDs, helmets, puzzle books, bookmarks, leaflets and posters.

BHIT is a strong believer in prevention rather than cure and wants to
raise money from the Wish campaign to spend on its work locally.

And, according to BHIT’s Mandy Woodard, the Wish campaign has come
along at a very useful time.

She said: “What we find is a lot of kids are given bikes at Christmas
but what a lot of parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles don’t do is
buy a helmet. There is no obligation to buy a helmet and, obviously,
there has been an upsurge in cycling since the Olympics.

“A lot more kids are wanting to go out cycling and we want them to do
that, but we want to ensure as many as possible have helmets. It’s all
about being seen as well. HV jackets and bike lights are just as
important.”

In its application, the BHIT emphasised the struggle many have against
bigger charities.

It stated: “The Wish campaign must be commended for focusing on small,
local charities. Ninety per cent of all money donated to charity goes
to less than 10 per cent of charities – the biggest and most well-
known.

“Yet it is often smaller, more local charities which are the most
effective. They have lower overheads, much lower staff costs, and
really understand the needs of the people they are helping.”

[Mike Causer]

On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 20:25:14 +0100
M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ridiculous, but at least some of the comments below are reassuringly
> sensible (does "jeepie" post/lurk here?)

Enquiring minds would like to know which of the comments you find
sensible, and who "jeepie" might be.



Mike

[John Benn]

"M Wicks" wrote in message
news:e36f0e82-c30c-42d9...@c19g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

Ridiculous, but at least some of the comments below are reassuringly
sensible (does "jeepie" post/lurk here?)

http://www.getreading.co.uk/wish/s/2120993_bicycle_helmet_charity_bids_for_share_of_wish_15000

Bicycle helmet charity bids for share of Wish Ł15,000

<snipped for brevity>
=====================================================

More safety campaigns like this are needed in order to improve safety for
cyclists. I would also like to see compulsory training for all cyclists
before they can take to the road. Many of them lack essential riding skills
and have scant knowledge (or respect) of the Highway Code.

I also believe that drivers should be re-tested every 5 years (me included).

[Peter Keller]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:29:45 +0100, John Benn wrote:

> "M Wicks" wrote in message

> news:e36f0e82-c30c-42d9-
b473-209...@c19g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

>
> Ridiculous, but at least some of the comments below are reassuringly
> sensible (does "jeepie" post/lurk here?)
>
> http://www.getreading.co.uk/wish/
s/2120993_bicycle_helmet_charity_bids_for_share_of_wish_15000
>

> Bicycle helmet charity bids for share of Wish £15,000

>
> <snipped for brevity>
> =====================================================
>
> More safety campaigns like this are needed in order to improve safety
> for cyclists. I would also like to see compulsory training for all
> cyclists before they can take to the road. Many of them lack essential
> riding skills and have scant knowledge (or respect) of the Highway Code.
>
> I also believe that drivers should be re-tested every 5 years (me
> included).

These days I drive so little that I should probably be re-tested before
any drive I might undertake!
Or perhaps stick to the bicycle ....


--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <k3l8g1$ctg$1...@dont-email.me>,

John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>More safety campaigns like this are needed in order to improve safety for
>cyclists.

Campaigns like this reduce cycling much more than they directly
increase safety (if indeed they do at all). As a result the people
targed by the campaigns will live less long, rather than longer.
Furthermore putting people off cycling makes other cyclists less safe
and cycling less pleasant.

So this is all a comprehensively bad idea. I bet it's funded by
helmet manufacturers.

> I would also like to see compulsory training for all cyclists
>before they can take to the road. Many of them lack essential riding skills
>and have scant knowledge (or respect) of the Highway Code.

This is also ridiculous. The people who need compulsory cycle
training are drivers.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Owen Dunn]

Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> [Compulsory cyclist training is] also ridiculous. The people who

> need compulsory cycle training are drivers.

While I remember, I caught this article in the Times while looking for
something else.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3531657.ece -
a poll of driving instructors saw 75% of driving instructors
supporting cycle awareness being part of the driving test. 88%
believed cyclists should have some sort of formal training too.

(S)

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <83haqnl...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

It's probably of no coincidence that in countries such as The
Netherlands and Denmark, that given that such a high percentage of the
population regularly cycle, that most of the motor vehicles are also
being driven by cyclists, or people who have close relatives who are
cyclists. That almost certainly will mean that drivers in those
countries won't generally regard cyclists as an outgroup to be
continually criticised, and they will find it easier to understand and
empathise with the requirements of cyclists.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/

[JNugent]

And the remaining few percent were no doubt of the opinion that some other
requirement or requirements should be introduced, as long as it makes work
for the working man to do.

[John Benn]

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
news:oDb*Zu...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

In article <k3l8g1$ctg$1...@dont-email.me>,
John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>More safety campaigns like this are needed in order to improve safety for
>>cyclists.

>Campaigns like this reduce cycling much more than they directly
>increase safety (if indeed they do at all). As a result the people
>targed by the campaigns will live less long, rather than longer.
>Furthermore putting people off cycling makes other cyclists less safe
>and cycling less pleasant.

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

Sorry, I disagree strongly with your opinion. Cycle helmets have been
shown to be an effective form of protection against head injury. That is
why RoSPA recommends the wearing of helmets when cycling. There is little
reputable evidence that the overall effect is to worsen the health of the
general population.

>> I would also like to see compulsory training for all cyclists
>>before they can take to the road. Many of them lack essential riding
>>skills
>>and have scant knowledge (or respect) of the Highway Code.

>This is also ridiculous. The people who need compulsory cycle
>training are drivers.

Drivers do already receive compulsory training. Without any kind of
training, it's extremely unlikely anyone would pass a driving exam. I even
suggested that drivers should be re-tested every 5 years, and that includes
me. Everyone benefits from training in how to use the roads safely,
responsibly and legally. What harm can training do? It can only be a good
thing, surely?

[Tim+]

"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Ian Jackson" wrote in message news:oDb*Zu...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
> In article <k3l8g1$ctg$1...@dont-email.me>,
> John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> More safety campaigns like this are needed in order to improve safety for
>>> cyclists.
>
>> Campaigns like this reduce cycling much more than they directly
>> increase safety (if indeed they do at all). As a result the people
>> targed by the campaigns will live less long, rather than longer.
>> Furthermore putting people off cycling makes other cyclists less safe
>> and cycling less pleasant.
> ==============================================
>
> Sorry, I disagree strongly with your opinion. Cycle helmets have been
> shown to be an effective form of protection against head injury.

Yep. And wearing an anti-stab vest will protect you against stabbing. The
question is though, how many cyclist lives would be saved by one and does
overstating the "dangers" of cycling help the population as a whole?

> That is why RoSPA recommends the wearing of helmets when cycling.

But oddly, the CTC defends riding helmetless.

Tim

[Owen Dunn]

JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> writes:

> And the remaining few percent were no doubt of the opinion that some
> other requirement or requirements should be introduced, as long as
> it makes work for the working man to do.

I suppose I should not be too surprised at `instructors in favour of
more instruction'! I bet rather fewer of them would be in favour of
mandatory Bikeability for driving instructors.

(S)

[Brendan Halpin]

On Mon, Sep 24 2012, Tim+ wrote:

> Yep. And wearing an anti-stab vest will protect you against stabbing. The
> question is though, how many cyclist lives would be saved by one and does
> overstating the "dangers" of cycling help the population as a whole?

If I recall correctly the DoT estimates that helmets would save 10-15%
of fatalities. They also estimate 20-30 million km cycled per fatality.
This suggests that if you took 1,000 cyclists like me (3-4,000 km/year,
no helmet) and persuaded them to wear helmets all the time, you could
expect to save one life about every 50 years.

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F1-009 x 3147
mailto:brendan...@ul.ie ULSociology on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/fjIK9t
http://teaching.sociology.ul.ie/bhalpin/wordpress twitter:@ULSociology

[Owen Dunn]

"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> writes:

> Drivers do already receive compulsory training. Without any kind of
> training, it's extremely unlikely anyone would pass a driving exam.
> I even suggested that drivers should be re-tested every 5 years, and
> that includes me. Everyone benefits from training in how to use the
> roads safely, responsibly and legally. What harm can training do?
> It can only be a good thing, surely?

It adds a bar to people cycling, which is something we want to
encourage as something good for their health and good for the
environment. This is the main reason I oppose most proposals of the
form `foo should be compulsory for cyclists'.

It is disproportionate to the amount of harm a cyclist can do to other
road users. We do not require mandatory training for horse riders,
pedestrians, those using mobility scooters either, but they're all
road users whose ignorance or bad behaviour can cause problems. The
difference between them and car drivers is the amount of harm failing
to control your vehicle, animal, or body correctly can cause to other
people.

(S)

[Ace]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:45:45 +0100, "John Benn"
<MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Cycle helmets have been
>shown to be an effective form of protection against head injury.

>There is little
>reputable evidence that the overall effect is to worsen the health of the
>general population.

There's equally little to support your claims, yet you seem happy to
extrapolate.

Anyway, you know full well that the topic has been so much done to
death it's just not going to make it past a couple of posts here
before the mods kick in (I hope) so I'm not sure why you want to try
and reopen old wounds.

[Tim+]

Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:

>
> Anyway, you know full well that the topic has been so much done to
> death it's just not going to make it past a couple of posts here
> before the mods kick in (I hope)

Certainly gets my vote. ;-). I not against debate but this has been done to
death. Lets leave the helmet debates to uk.rec.cycling.

Tim

[John Benn]

"Tim+" <timdow...@nospampleaseyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:601620986370216658.205880timdow...@reader80.eternal-september.org...

The CTC is hardly impartial.

[Brendan Halpin]

On Tue, Sep 25 2012, John Benn wrote:

> The CTC is hardly impartial.

Clearly yes, a shameless bias in favour of cycling!

[Peter Clinch]

It's impartiality in what it says comes from this: it is obliged to look
after the interests (one of which would be staying alive) of its paying
membership. Which is composed of cyclists, which is why it doesn't tend
to go out of its way to stand up for the safety, convenience and rights
of, say, HGV drivers on the job.

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 p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Sara]

In article
<1490917501370253816.956197timdownie2003-nospampleaseyahoo.co.uk@reader8
0.eternal-september.org>,

Which may seem a little unfair if anyone new to the group was reading
with interest.

--
Sara

cats cats cats cats cats

[David B]

"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<k3qk33$o96$1...@dont-email.me>...

> >> I would also like to see compulsory training for all cyclists
> >>before they can take to the road. Many of them lack essential riding
> >>skills
> >>and have scant knowledge (or respect) of the Highway Code.
> >

The only people they endanger is themselves, but even so they are doing
themselves much more good than harm.

> Drivers do already receive compulsory training. Without any kind of
> training, it's extremely unlikely anyone would pass a driving exam.

Extremely unlikely yes, but it does happen.
I did it. (unless you include cycling as training.)

> I even suggested that drivers should be re-tested every 5 years

I think that there are a lot of us that would agree, also have to retest
within a set period (short) of time after committing any driving offence.

> Everyone benefits from training in how to use the roads safely,
> responsibly and legally. What harm can training do? It can only be a
> good thing, surely?

Indeed, and it is out there for those that choose.

D

[D.M. Procida]

May I suggest that anyone not wanting to see discussions of helmets here
simply not take part in the discussion?

It will allow the ones who do want it to have the discussion. No-one
need or should participate who doesn't want to continue the debate.

Daniele

[Bertie Wooster]

That's a little unfair to the users of urc.

Helmets, like nuclear weapons, are hardly likely to be uninvented.
That being the case, why not freely discuss their merits and dangers.

Personally I feel that for individual users, helmets can have various
marginal benefits, but the danger in their widespread use is mainly in
making cycling appear dangerous, and thus deter new or returning
cyclists. On balance, they are likely to do more harm overall than
good. I don't wear one.

[John Benn]

"David B" <askfo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k3rul0$9di$1...@dont-email.me...

> "John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<k3qk33$o96$1...@dont-email.me>...
>> >> I would also like to see compulsory training for all cyclists
>> >>before they can take to the road. Many of them lack essential riding
>> >>skills
>> >>and have scant knowledge (or respect) of the Highway Code.
>> >
>
> The only people they endanger is themselves, but even so they are doing
> themselves much more good than harm.

I disagree. For example, a cyclist running a red light at a junction can
easily cause a vehicle or another cyclist to swerve and have an accident.
It's not only the cyclist who can end up injured.

[David B]

"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:<k3s10j$m3r$1...@dont-email.me>...

All cyclists know, as do all car drivers, that jumping a red light is
illegal and can be dangerous. Training them will not alter this knowledge
that they already have.
D

[bugbear]

I'll just point out the implicit exaggeration in "can easily" there.

"could possibly" is about the most I'll swallow.

BugBear

[Tim+]

Bertie Wooster <be...@wooster.invalid.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:19:33 +0100, Tim+
> <timdow...@nospampleaseyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Anyway, you know full well that the topic has been so much done to
>>> death it's just not going to make it past a couple of posts here
>>> before the mods kick in (I hope)
>>
>> Certainly gets my vote. ;-). I not against debate but this has been done to
>> death. Lets leave the helmet debates to uk.rec.cycling.
>
> That's a little unfair to the users of urc.
>
> Helmets, like nuclear weapons, are hardly likely to be uninvented.
> That being the case, why not freely discuss their merits and dangers.

Nothing wrong with a bit of discussion as long as it doesn't get too
repetitious (obviously I feel the helmet debate *does* get too
repetitious).

> Personally I feel that for individual users, helmets can have various
> marginal benefits, but the danger in their widespread use is mainly in
> making cycling appear dangerous, and thus deter new or returning
> cyclists. On balance, they are likely to do more harm overall than
> good. I don't wear one.

I'm neither for nor against. Sometimes I wear one, sometimes I don't. I
would be against making them compulsory though.

Tim

[Tim+]

D.M. Procida <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
> Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <1490917501370253816.956197timdownie2003-nospampleaseyahoo.co.uk@reader8
>> 0.eternal-september.org>,
>> Tim+ <timdow...@nospampleaseyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, you know full well that the topic has been so much done to
>>>> death it's just not going to make it past a couple of posts here
>>>> before the mods kick in (I hope)
>>>
>>> Certainly gets my vote. ;-). I not against debate but this has been done to
>>> death. Lets leave the helmet debates to uk.rec.cycling.
>>>
>> Which may seem a little unfair if anyone new to the group was reading
>> with interest.

True, but I think we all know how this "debate" plays out. I think anyone
new to the group interested in the pros and cons of helmets would be better
directed towards an FAQ on helmets to save us all having to read the same
comments over and over again.

> May I suggest that anyone not wanting to see discussions of helmets here
> simply not take part in the discussion?

Well that's certainly fair comment. I shall *try* and do that, soon. ;-)

Tim

[Ace]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:07:27 +0100, Tim+

>True, but I think we all know how this "debate" plays out. I think anyone
>new to the group interested in the pros and cons of helmets would be better
>directed towards an FAQ on helmets to save us all having to read the same
>comments over and over again.

I agree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet is usually a good
starting point - shows both sides in a reasonable and impartial
manner.

[Sara]

In article <3ie3681975nikt3n0...@4ax.com>,

If someone comes to a newsgroup they don't necessarily want to be told
to go and read a web page. If you've had enough of the debate (and
heaven knows I have) then don't join in, but it seems unfair to decide
that no one else should be able to continue it.

[Eleanor Blair]

David B wrote:
>
>All cyclists know, as do all car drivers, that jumping a red light is
>illegal and can be dangerous. Training them will not alter this knowledge
>that they already have.

Actually I've encountered cyclists who (apparently) genuinely didn't
believe that red lights apply to bikes. It's rare but it does happen.

--
ele...@the-blairs.co.uk http://lnr.livejournal.com/

[Ace]

I'm in no position to make any such decision. But the problem with
allowing 'debate' means that both sides need to get involved, to
ensure that the casual reader you hypothesise doesn't only see the pro
views, who, let's face it, seem to be those wanting to restart the
debate over and over.

Anyway, practically nobody 'comes to' a newsgroup nowadays, and on the
slender chance that anyone without any prior knowledge is wanting to
know if helmets are a good idea came looking here, a simple pointer at
somewhere that provided the latest information in a readable,
impartial way seems to me to be a far better approach than letting the
old arguments resurface and said new reader having to pick their way
through an acrimonious exchange of predefined opinions.

[JNugent]

I know...

I'm too cynical...

[John Benn]

"Eleanor Blair" wrote in message
news:O9*4u...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

David B wrote:
>
>All cyclists know, as do all car drivers, that jumping a red light is
>illegal and can be dangerous. Training them will not alter this knowledge
>that they already have.

Actually I've encountered cyclists who (apparently) genuinely didn't
believe that red lights apply to bikes. It's rare but it does happen.

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

It wouldn't surprise me at all. I see plenty jumping the lights. I suspect
some are foreign students who may not be familiar with the traffic laws.

[Sara]

In article <ois368lrf99kap1c3...@4ax.com>,

It smacks to me of you wanting to choose what other people can and
cannot discuss in a public newsgroup. However, this thread is getting
far too meta and I shall leave it there.

--
Armageddon can be louder than expected for such a small cat.

[D.M. Procida]

Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:26:03 +0100, Sara
> <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <3ie3681975nikt3n0...@4ax.com>,
> > Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:07:27 +0100, Tim+
> >>
> >> >True, but I think we all know how this "debate" plays out. I think
> >> >anyone new to the group interested in the pros and cons of helmets
> >> >would be better directed towards an FAQ on helmets to save us all
> >> >having to read the same comments over and over again.
> >>
> >> I agree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet is usually a good
> >> starting point - shows both sides in a reasonable and impartial
> >> manner.
> >
> >If someone comes to a newsgroup they don't necessarily want to be told
> >to go and read a web page. If you've had enough of the debate (and
> >heaven knows I have) then don't join in, but it seems unfair to decide
> >that no one else should be able to continue it.
>
> I'm in no position to make any such decision. But the problem with
> allowing 'debate' means that both sides need to get involved, to
> ensure that the casual reader you hypothesise doesn't only see the pro
> views

Let them see the pro views then. If you think that really matters, then
you'd better join the debate. If you think it matters less than the
effort is worth, don't.

> Anyway, practically nobody 'comes to' a newsgroup nowadays

I've just come back to the newsgroup. If it's the kind of place where
you can't talk or argue, even tiresomely, about cycling helmets, I'll
probably just go away again. Perhaps you won't think that's a very big
loss.

> a simple pointer at somewhere that provided the latest information in a
> readable, impartial way seems to me to be a far better approach

I don't think so. If people come here it's because they want to talk to
people, not because they want to be sent elsewhere.

Daniele

[John Benn]

"Owen Dunn" wrote in message news:836273k...@chiark.greenend.org.uk...

"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> writes:

> Drivers do already receive compulsory training. Without any kind of
> training, it's extremely unlikely anyone would pass a driving exam.
> I even suggested that drivers should be re-tested every 5 years, and
> that includes me. Everyone benefits from training in how to use the
> roads safely, responsibly and legally. What harm can training do?
> It can only be a good thing, surely?

It adds a bar to people cycling, which is something we want to
encourage as something good for their health and good for the
environment. This is the main reason I oppose most proposals of the
form `foo should be compulsory for cyclists'.

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

I have never said that wearing a helmet should be compulsory. It should
only be encouraged as a means to improve the safety of the rider.

As for it being a disincentive to cycle, that is ludicrous. I don't wear a
helmet 100% of the time - it depends on where I'm cycling. On busy roads, I
always wear a helmet.

As for being good for health, yes cycling is good for cardiovascular
fitness. But so are running, squash, mountain climbing, tennis, football,
caving and a multitude of other activities. Cycling is not unique as being
a healthy activity but some activities require personal protection. In my
list, mountain climbing and caving require the wearing to helmets to be safe
and if you're going to cycle on a busy road, you need to wear a helmet for
your own personal protection. You're a fool if you don't.

As for mandatory training for people using mobility scooters on roads,
again, I think they need some form of training and assessment.

Can you tell that I'm a big fan of training and safety? :-)

[John Benn]

"David B" wrote in message news:k3s3ci$3ti$1...@dont-email.me...

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

Sorry David, I disagree again (hope disagreeing is allowed in this group)!
Proper training can engrain correct behaviour and in the example I cited of
many cyclists jumping red lights, proper training can teach people of the
dangers of such dangerous practices and make them realise them.

[John Benn]

"Tim+" wrote in message

news:601620986370216658.205880timdow...@reader80.eternal-september.org...

"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Ian Jackson" wrote in message
> news:oDb*Zu...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
> In article <k3l8g1$ctg$1...@dont-email.me>,
> John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> More safety campaigns like this are needed in order to improve safety
>>> for
>>> cyclists.
>
>> Campaigns like this reduce cycling much more than they directly
>> increase safety (if indeed they do at all). As a result the people
>> targed by the campaigns will live less long, rather than longer.
>> Furthermore putting people off cycling makes other cyclists less safe
>> and cycling less pleasant.
> ==============================================
>
> Sorry, I disagree strongly with your opinion. Cycle helmets have been
> shown to be an effective form of protection against head injury.

Yep. And wearing an anti-stab vest will protect you against stabbing. The
question is though, how many cyclist lives would be saved by one and does
overstating the "dangers" of cycling help the population as a whole?

> That is why RoSPA recommends the wearing of helmets when cycling.

But oddly, the CTC defends riding helmetless.

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

The CTC is the cycling equivalent of the Association of British Drivers. I
don't believe a word they say either.

[John Benn]

"Brendan Halpin" wrote in message news:87zk4fr...@wivenhoe.ul.ie...

On Mon, Sep 24 2012, Tim+ wrote:

> Yep. And wearing an anti-stab vest will protect you against stabbing. The
> question is though, how many cyclist lives would be saved by one and does
> overstating the "dangers" of cycling help the population as a whole?

If I recall correctly the DoT estimates that helmets would save 10-15%
of fatalities. They also estimate 20-30 million km cycled per fatality.
This suggests that if you took 1,000 cyclists like me (3-4,000 km/year,
no helmet) and persuaded them to wear helmets all the time, you could
expect to save one life about every 50 years.
=====================================

For a sample of only 1,000 cyclists, that's a life well worth saving.

[John Benn]

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message news:acd945...@mid.individual.net...

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

The CTC is not a charity and exists to make a profit funded by its paying
members. As a result, its policies will reflect largely the wishes of its
members.

[Phil Cook]

But on a population level counterbalance that with the lives that would
be lost due to people being less fit due to not cycling because it is
"dangerous".
--
Phil Cook

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-09-26, John Benn wrote:

> The CTC is not a charity and exists to make a profit funded by its paying
> members. As a result, its policies will reflect largely the wishes of its
> members.

It's never been a "for profit" corporation, and it is now at least
partly a charity:

Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC): A company limited by guarantee,
registered in England no.25185. Registered as a charity in England
and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland No SC042541

CTC Charitable Trust: A company limited by guarantee, registered in
England no.5125969. Registered as a charity in England and Wales No
1104324 and Scotland No SC038626

according to the website.

[Phil Cook]

On 26/09/2012 10:24, John Benn wrote:

> As for being good for health, yes cycling is good for cardiovascular
> fitness. But so are running, squash, mountain climbing, tennis, football,
> caving and a multitude of other activities. Cycling is not unique as being
> a healthy activity but some activities require personal protection. In my
> list, mountain climbing and caving require the wearing to helmets to be safe

Helmets are not compulsory in caving and climbing.
--
Phil Cook

[Owen Dunn]

"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> writes:

> The CTC is not a charity and exists to make a profit funded by its
> paying members. As a result, its policies will reflect largely the
> wishes of its members.

The CTC is registered as a charity in England and Wales, number
1147607, and in Scotland, number SC042541.

(S)

[Peter Clinch]

If the CTC was like the ABD I wouldn't put much trust in them, but it
seems you have some /very/ strange misconceptions about them.

Like them not being a charity, for example.

You say you're a big fan of safety and training, but you seem to have
missed the way that CTC, in a very un-ABD-like manner, are one of the
main driving forces behind the well regarded Bikeability training programme.

You seem to think it's just about what their members want rather than
what they need, but since most of their membership are experienced
cyclists already why would their selfish wants lead to a programme of
primary-school based cycle training rolled out across the country?

Of course, your misconceptions about who CTC are and what they do would
go some way to explaining some very odd opinions you hold that seem to
be there simply because they're not what the CTC say.

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 p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Peter Clinch]

On 26/09/2012 10:30, John Benn wrote:
> "Peter Clinch" wrote in message news:acd945...@mid.individual.net...

[CTC]

> It's impartiality in what it says comes from this: it is obliged to look
> after the interests (one of which would be staying alive) of its paying
> membership. Which is composed of cyclists, which is why it doesn't tend
> to go out of its way to stand up for the safety, convenience and rights
> of, say, HGV drivers on the job.
>
> =============================
>
> The CTC is not a charity

Errr, actually it is.

Registered as a charity in England and Wales No 1147607 and in Scotland
No SC042541

[Owen Dunn]

"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> writes:

> "Owen Dunn" wrote in message news:836273k...@chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
> "John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Drivers do already receive compulsory training. Without any kind of
>> training, it's extremely unlikely anyone would pass a driving exam.
>> I even suggested that drivers should be re-tested every 5 years, and
>> that includes me. Everyone benefits from training in how to use the
>> roads safely, responsibly and legally. What harm can training do?
>> It can only be a good thing, surely?
>
> It adds a bar to people cycling, which is something we want to
> encourage as something good for their health and good for the
> environment. This is the main reason I oppose most proposals of the
> form `foo should be compulsory for cyclists'.
> =================================================
>
> I have never said that wearing a helmet should be compulsory.

We weren't talking about helmets, we were talking about compulsory
training. You seem to have replied to the wrong message or gone off
on a tangent or something.

> As for mandatory training for people using mobility scooters on roads,
> again, I think they need some form of training and assessment.

What about pedestrians and horse riders?

> Can you tell that I'm a big fan of training and safety? :-)

Not really. Of state regulation, evidently!

(S)

[Andy Leighton]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:24:28 +0100, John Benn <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As for being good for health, yes cycling is good for cardiovascular
> fitness. But so are running, squash, mountain climbing, tennis, football,
> caving and a multitude of other activities.

> Cycling is not unique as being a healthy activity

However cycling is fairly unique in that it is one of a few activities
that can fit into everyday life without having to make an event
out of the activity. For example people cycle to the shops or work
or to their mate's (in normal clothing) and they get a good chunk of
exercise by doing so. Most other activities can't be arranged into
everyday life. The only other one I can think of is walking.

> but some activities require personal protection. In my
> list, mountain climbing and caving require the wearing to helmets to be safe
> and if you're going to cycle on a busy road, you need to wear a helmet for
> your own personal protection. You're a fool if you don't.

You keep claiming that but provide no evidence. There are whole
countries where the rate of helmet wearing by cyclists is very low,
they also have much higher rate of cycling. If one was to believe you
they are all fools and there should be carnage on their roads. That
isn't the case.

--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:14:40 +0100, Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:

>I'm in no position to make any such decision. But the problem with
>allowing 'debate' means that both sides need to get involved, to
>ensure that the casual reader you hypothesise doesn't only see the pro
>views, who, let's face it, seem to be those wanting to restart the
>debate over and over.

Yes, sod that - isn't that (and rlj) exactly what .m was made to get
away from?

>Anyway, practically nobody 'comes to' a newsgroup nowadays,

*cough* Noob here!

Cheers - Jaimie (or perhaps I'm just impractical?)
--
"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament],
'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will
the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the
kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

[Peter Clinch]

But I've only ever seen one chap down a cave without one, to be fair.
And if by "mountain climbing" we're talking pitched routes then
practically everyone wears them.

But let's look closer: in caving you are frequently in places lower than
you, so stooping and crawling are common, the roof is almost always
irregular and your chances of banging your head are very, very high. So
in practice we make the chances a bit higher and wear a helmet that
makes our head bigger but means the bangs and scrapes don't hurt. With
the risks of hitting your head caving wearing a helmet makes sense
because if you balance lots of hits that hardly ever hurt against a fair
few hits that hurt a lot, on balance you're much better off with the former.

Over to the mountain, the main risk is rock and ice fall. It is most
typically triggered by the leader in a pair of climbers because there
tends to be loose rock on mountains and ice is rarely well attached and
the act of climbing it tends to dislodge some of it. Your second is
often directly below you, right in the firing line, and if it goes wrong
you're in a highly malign environment. So with the high chances and
seriousness of a hit, again it's rare not to bother.

Those are activities where the risks say "wear a helmet" far more than
active travel cycling.

And another point above is missed about active travel cycling, which is
while it is doing my heart good it is doing a useful job for me. Much
as I enjoy squash it doesn't get me where I need to go. Walking and
cycling for transport fulfil a useful function as well as getting you
exercise. Both are similarly risky and similarly productive of serious
head injuries, so each needs a safety helmet about as much as the other.

[Andy Leighton]

No that isn't true. If proper training engrained correct behaviour why
do so many drivers jump red lights, speed, use mobile phones etc.?

Not trying to rag on drivers here, but they are a group which should
have had pretty reasonable training. When everyday experiences counter
your training there is a conflict and many will err on the side of
convenience and not what they were taught. Maybe with an attitude of
"that is alright for beginners, but I'm more experienced/skilled now".

This would most likely be as true of cyclists as other groups.

[John Benn]

"Tim+" wrote in message
news:479440220370270744.558512timdow...@reader80.eternal-september.org...

D.M. Procida <real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk> wrote:
> Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article

>> <1490917501370253816.956197timdownie2003-nospampleaseyahoo.co.uk@reader8
>> 0.eternal-september.org>,
>> Tim+ <timdow...@nospampleaseyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, you know full well that the topic has been so much done to
>>>> death it's just not going to make it past a couple of posts here
>>>> before the mods kick in (I hope)
>>>
>>> Certainly gets my vote. ;-). I not against debate but this has been done
>>> to
>>> death. Lets leave the helmet debates to uk.rec.cycling.
>>>
>> Which may seem a little unfair if anyone new to the group was reading
>> with interest.

True, but I think we all know how this "debate" plays out. I think anyone
new to the group interested in the pros and cons of helmets would be better
directed towards an FAQ on helmets to save us all having to read the same
comments over and over again.

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

Tim, you are not required to read the comments. The subject of this thread
indicates that it is about cycle helmets. You are not required to read
anything in it.

[John Benn]

"D.M. Procida" wrote in message
news:1kqz5r7.4r4kql5qcs0tN%real-not-anti...@apple-juice.co.uk...

Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> In article
> <1490917501370253816.956197timdownie2003-nospampleaseyahoo.co.uk@reader8
> 0.eternal-september.org>,
> Tim+ <timdow...@nospampleaseyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Anyway, you know full well that the topic has been so much done to
> > > death it's just not going to make it past a couple of posts here
> > > before the mods kick in (I hope)
> >
> > Certainly gets my vote. ;-). I not against debate but this has been done
> > to
> > death. Lets leave the helmet debates to uk.rec.cycling.
> >
> Which may seem a little unfair if anyone new to the group was reading
> with interest.

May I suggest that anyone not wanting to see discussions of helmets here
simply not take part in the discussion?

It will allow the ones who do want it to have the discussion. No-one
need or should participate who doesn't want to continue the debate.
==============================================

Exactly Daniele, that's how discussion groups should operate. Everyone has
the choice to participate in a discussion or not.

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <k3t2tu$hd2$1...@dont-email.me>

"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Brendan Halpin" wrote in message news:87zk4fr...@wivenhoe.ul.ie...

[snip]

> If I recall correctly the DoT estimates that helmets would save 10-15%
> of fatalities. They also estimate 20-30 million km cycled per fatality.
> This suggests that if you took 1,000 cyclists like me (3-4,000 km/year,
> no helmet) and persuaded them to wear helmets all the time, you could
> expect to save one life about every 50 years.
> =====================================
>
> For a sample of only 1,000 cyclists, that's a life well worth saving.

It's a trite argument. It doesn't take into account the real costs and
benefits. For the same expenditure as would be put into purchasing all
those cycle helmets you could save very many lives through alternative
health interventions.

If the aim is simply to save as many lives as possible I could give you
very many other alternative ways to use the publics money far more
effectively.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/

[Zebee Johnstone]

In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:15:24 +0100

mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk <mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> For a sample of only 1,000 cyclists, that's a life well worth saving.
>
> It's a trite argument. It doesn't take into account the real costs and
> benefits. For the same expenditure as would be put into purchasing all
> those cycle helmets you could save very many lives through alternative
> health interventions.
>
> If the aim is simply to save as many lives as possible I could give you
> very many other alternative ways to use the publics money far more
> effectively.
>

well yes... the obvious one is to ban cycling. The deaths definitely
attributable to that are countable, ones attributable to the lack of
cycling are not.

Alternatively ban anyone under 30 from being on the road except as a
pedestrian. Road crashes are the biggest killer of the under 30s I
believe.

If saving lives is the point, then those are the sorts of
interventions needed. Once you say "neither of those are practical"
then saving lives clearly isn't the point... Saving lives within
certain constraints is, and those have to be discussed.

Zebee

[Phil Cook]

On 26/09/2012 12:00, Peter Clinch wrote:
> On 26/09/2012 11:00, Phil Cook wrote:
>> On 26/09/2012 10:24, John Benn wrote:
>>
>>> As for being good for health, yes cycling is good for cardiovascular
>>> fitness. But so are running, squash, mountain climbing, tennis,
>>> football,
>>> caving and a multitude of other activities. Cycling is not unique as
>>> being
>>> a healthy activity but some activities require personal protection.
>>> In my
>>> list, mountain climbing and caving require the wearing to helmets to
>>> be safe
>>
>> Helmets are not compulsory in caving and climbing.
>
> But I've only ever seen one chap down a cave without one, to be fair.
> And if by "mountain climbing" we're talking pitched routes then
> practically everyone wears them.
>
> But let's look closer: in caving you are frequently in places lower than
> you, so stooping and crawling are common, the roof is almost always
> irregular and your chances of banging your head are very, very high.

Yes helmets in caves are almost universal but they aren't necessarily
there to protect from K&SI type situations, more to protect you from
continually banging your bonce on the low roof.
--
Phil Cook

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <k3t27m$cgh$1...@dont-email.me>
"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]

>
> I have never said that wearing a helmet should be compulsory. It
> should only be encouraged as a means to improve the safety of the
> rider.
>
> As for it being a disincentive to cycle, that is ludicrous. I don't
> wear a helmet 100% of the time - it depends on where I'm cycling. On
> busy roads, I always wear a helmet.

But helmets aren't designed to protect you from a collision with a
motor vehicle, they're only designed to protect the head in a slow speed
fall as for example might be more often encountered when first learning
to cycle or when cycling on off-road tracks and lanes. So perhaps your
inclination is to put emphasis onto wearing a helmet at precisely the
least effective times.

>
> As for being good for health, yes cycling is good for cardiovascular
> fitness. But so are running, squash, mountain climbing, tennis,
> football, caving and a multitude of other activities.

And people get seriously injured and some of them die in all of those

activities.

> Cycling is not unique as being a healthy activity but some activities
> require personal protection. In my list, mountain climbing and
> caving require the wearing to helmets to be safe and if you're going
> to cycle on a busy road, you need to wear a helmet for your own
> personal protection. You're a fool if you don't.

As a someone who does a lot of mountaineering, caving and off-piste
skiing and ski-touring/mountaineering I have to say that your
observations above aren't also without some controversy regarding the
safety when wearing helmets. So for example the evidence that skiing
helmets save lives is about as controversial as the evidence that cycle
helmets save lives. Never-the-less the wearing of helmets for skiing and
off-piste skiing has in recent years become very fashionable and
popular. Once you move into the realms of ski-touring the wearing of
helmets is not so common, partly because it is also a game of travelling
fast and light, and regarding risks then avalanche awareness and
equipment such as transceivers, probes and shovels have a much higher
priority than wearing helmets. For steep ice-climbing or climbing routes
with lots of potential for small loose rocks to be dislodged from above,
then the wearing of helmets is agreed to be prudent, but a lot of sport
rock climbers don't usually wear helmets, particularly on bolted routes
whilst crag climbing.

>
> As for mandatory training for people using mobility scooters on roads,
> again, I think they need some form of training and assessment.

How about mandatory training and assessment before you're allowed to
walk in a public place? After all very many pedestrians are injured and
killed each year in accidents and wouldn't it be worth just saving those
lives each year?

>
> Can you tell that I'm a big fan of training and safety? :-)
>

Some people like spending their lives attending courses and reading
manuals on how it should be done, others go out and do it!

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <k3t2dh$dl0$1...@dont-email.me>

"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip]
>

> Sorry David, I disagree again (hope disagreeing is allowed in this
> group)! Proper training can engrain correct behaviour and in the
> example I cited of many cyclists jumping red lights, proper training
> can teach people of the dangers of such dangerous practices and make
> them realise them.
>

Sorry I have to disagree with the premise that for a cyclist jumping a
red light is inherently dangerous. It's certainly illegal and under some
circumstances it can be dangerous, but more often than not when I've
seen cyclists jump a red light it has been under similar circumstances
to how a pedestrian would approach the situation, and for a pedestrian
it would not be illegal to do so. In the UK it is perfectly legal and
widely practised to ignore a pedestrian red light and to cross a
junction at the first opportunity when there is suitable gap in the
traffic. Experience tells most pedestrians that this is a relatively low
risk which is why most of them do it most of the time. In this respect
many rlj cyclists are behaving just like most pedestrians behave.
Regarding traffic signals, the law treats cyclists and pedestrians
differently, but regarding the dangers at light controlled junctions and
crossings the actual physical risks for pedestrians and cyclists are not
so different.

[Peter Clinch]

Absolutely. And that's similar to one of the things for which they're
actually really useful in a cycle helmet: ride under lots of low trees
on singletrack, bashing aside branches with a cotton cap or an EN1078
lid I know which I'd prefer.

But there again not much singletrack on the morning commute, and the
council cut back the trees that will affect me there. So no need to
worry about that particular aspect of their use.

[John Benn]

"Phil Cook" <ph...@p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:acg1ve...@mid.individual.net...

Never said they were. How many cavers or climbers don't wear a helmet?

[John Benn]

"Owen Dunn" <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:83vcf1i...@chiark.greenend.org.uk...

I'm surprised that has been allowed.

[Clive George]

Why?

In response to your previous comment : It never existed to make a
profit. And which charities don't reflect largely the wishes of their
members?

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <k3uo29$vqc$1...@dont-email.me>

Nearly all cavers wear helmets but as has been pointed out minor bumps
to the head are a common occurrence on most caving trips, particularly
in confined spaces, so they're constantly protecting you from minor
scrapes and injuries. It's questionable what protection they offer to
cavers in KSI situations such as in a serious fall, or protection from
heavy rockfall.

Climbing is much more variable and whether you'll see helmets worn very
much depends on the type of rock climbing and also the age and
experience of the climber. For example take a look at the galleries on
the UK Climbing website and you'll see lots of climbers not wearing
helmets.

see http://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <k3uo7s$16m$1...@dont-email.me>

It strikes me that there is more justification in CTC being a charitable
organisation for general public benefit, than for organisations such as
BHIT which certainly end up doing a lot of promotional work that helps
sell the products of some of its major donors.

[Peter Clinch]

On 26/09/2012 14:40, Clive George wrote:
> On 26/09/2012 14:35, John Benn wrote:
>>
>> "Owen Dunn" <ow...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:83vcf1i...@chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>>> "John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> The CTC is not a charity and exists to make a profit funded by its
>>>> paying members. As a result, its policies will reflect largely the
>>>> wishes of its members.
>>>
>>> The CTC is registered as a charity in England and Wales, number
>>> 1147607, and in Scotland, number SC042541.
>>
>> I'm surprised that has been allowed.
>
> Why?

From here it looks like a further declaration of the basic hand, which
is the CTC are Bad Hats and can't be trusted. And following from that,
anyone who agrees with their statements, or any statements they agree
with, can't be trusted.

Which explains the repeated ignoring of actual evidence in a number of
threadlets and re-statement of hearsay as evidence in others. It also
exposes the basic problem of circular reasoning used. The CTC can't be
trusted because they supply bad evidence to back up their arguments; the
evidence they use is bad because it comes from the CTC.

Until that can be rectified further input might well be a descent in to
repetition.

[Ace]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:46:07 +0100, mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

>As a someone who does a lot of mountaineering, caving and off-piste
>skiing and ski-touring/mountaineering I have to say that your
>observations above aren't also without some controversy regarding the
>safety when wearing helmets. So for example the evidence that skiing
>helmets save lives is about as controversial as the evidence that cycle
>helmets save lives. Never-the-less the wearing of helmets for skiing and
>off-piste skiing has in recent years become very fashionable and
>popular.

I think there are a couple of factors behind this, in addition to the
normal 'common-sense' arguments that are as well proven (not!) for
skiing as cycling.

One major factor is that there's much less of a downside to wearing a
helmet while skiing. You're in a cold environment, so heat is much
less of an issue, plus you've already got to have a good deal of
specialist equipment, so it's not like cycling where carting a helmet
around all day is an added encumberance;

In addition, the fact is that _some_ ski helmets do indeed offer
serious levels of protection. Just as helmets worn by downhill MTB
racers are much more like motorcycle helmets, so are ski race helmets
designed to protect from much more severe impacts. So the 'cool'
factor is much more significant, and indeed the average ski helmet has
now started to be made to a much higher level than previously, and
certainly much more than 'normal' cycle helmets.

Another factor, of course, particularly wrt children learning, is that
falls are very common indeed, and many are of the type that even the
lowest level of protection is of some help in, i.e. low speed falls to
the ground, so the potential benefits are much more likely to be
realised than in cycling.

I have to wear a helmet when teaching (Ski School rule) but have not,
so far, used it for anything else, except a particularly gnarly MTB
route I did a few weeks ago, with some serious dodgy, narrow, rocky
and steep downhill sections, where I would not have been at all
surprised to have taken a tumble. Didn't, but felt that I might.

>Once you move into the realms of ski-touring the wearing of
>helmets is not so common, partly because it is also a game of travelling
>fast and light,

*ding*. And keeping cool enough is also, often, a real issue.

>Some people like spending their lives attending courses and reading
>manuals on how it should be done, others go out and do it!

Heh. As a working ski instructor I'm seeing it from the other side
now, but yes, in principle I agree.

[Syd Rumpo]

This is my mini-meta-analysis.

The fact that there are many intelligent people on both sides of the
debate interpreting statistics with differing outcomes suggests that any
effect - good or bad - attributable to helmet use must be small.

If this were not so, the effect would be very obvious and the arguments
not so balanced.

You're welcome.
--
Syd

[Ian Jackson]

In article <d31f49d552....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,

<mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Climbing is much more variable and whether you'll see helmets worn very
>much depends on the type of rock climbing and also the age and
>experience of the climber. For example take a look at the galleries on
>the UK Climbing website and you'll see lots of climbers not wearing
>helmets.

The last time I was climbing out of doors one of our party of four
wore a helmet and the other three didn't. The pitches were short
(single-pitch) and the rock pretty solid and not prone to crumbling.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <p27668p6cgtlefo8i...@4ax.com>
Ace <b.ro...@ifrance.com> wrote:

[snip]

> In addition, the fact is that _some_ ski helmets do indeed offer
> serious levels of protection. Just as helmets worn by downhill MTB
> racers are much more like motorcycle helmets, so are ski race helmets
> designed to protect from much more severe impacts. So the 'cool'
> factor is much more significant, and indeed the average ski helmet has
> now started to be made to a much higher level than previously, and
> certainly much more than 'normal' cycle helmets.
>

There is an interesting point of discussion to be had around that
observation which is that trends in cycle helmets may in fact have gone
in the other direction. You're right in that over time skiing helmets
have become much more technically advanced, and in addition the fact
that skiers are already prepared to pay a considerable amount of money
to pursue their pastime means they're also happy to pay a premium to get
the most advanced and fashionable helmet. As you rightly point out
things such as heat retention and to some extent bulk don't have such a
detrimental impact on lift assisted recreational skiers as they do on
commuting cyclists.

In contrast cycle helmets have over time become cheaper, lighter,
smaller, and have more ventilation slots. Several of the meta analyses
carried out on cycle helmet research papers have noted that the
protection offered by cycle helmets seems to have diminished over time,
and one possible contributory factor to that could be that many of the
contemporary cycle helmets are not as effective as the older models.

[snip]

>
>
>> Some people like spending their lives attending courses and reading
>> manuals on how it should be done, others go out and do it!
>
> Heh. As a working ski instructor I'm seeing it from the other side
> now, but yes, in principle I agree.
>

With regard to skiing I took it up relatively late in life (30+ years
old). What I did quite quickly was to pay for private lessons in small
groups, perhaps just one, two, or sometimes three, clients per
instructor and then to go away and practice, practice, practice, before
attempting to move to the next level. The hardest part I found was the
transition of moving from groomed piste skiing to off-piste. You never
really stop learning and there is an important role for instruction at
all levels, but ultimately all that instruction is wasted if you don't
put any effort into practising what you've learnt.

[Bertie Wooster]

While I agree that that is how discussion groups *should* operate,
that is not strictly true in this discussion group.

While you may be able to shout "Fire!" in a crowed theatre, in this
group you can be prevented from shouting in a similarly irresponsible
manner. Fortunately, we have not yet reached the stage where a shout
of "Helmet!" will be prevented.

I agree with your sentiment that people can choose what they read. And
if they don't like what they read they can always desist from reading
it.

[Ace]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:46:09 +0100, Brendan Halpin
<brendan...@ul.ie> wrote:

>If I recall correctly the DoT estimates that helmets would save 10-15%
>of fatalities.

You may well recall correctly, but who, or what, is this DoT of which
you speak?

While you're about it, can you tell us where its figures are available
and how they were collected, analysed and peer reviewed?

[bugbear]

John Benn wrote:
>
> Sorry David, I disagree again (hope disagreeing is allowed in this group)! Proper training can engrain correct behaviour and in the example I cited of many cyclists jumping red lights, proper training can teach people of the dangers of such dangerous practices and make them realise them.

I didn't see any examples "cited"

"hypothesised", I'll accept.

BugBear

[Peter Clinch]

On 27/09/2012 11:39, Ace wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:46:09 +0100, Brendan Halpin
> <brendan...@ul.ie> wrote:
>
>> If I recall correctly the DoT estimates that helmets would save 10-15%
>> of fatalities.
>
> You may well recall correctly, but who, or what, is this DoT of which
> you speak?

I suspect a typo, they're now Department /for/ Transport rather than "of".

> While you're about it, can you tell us where its figures are available
> and how they were collected, analysed and peer reviewed?

You'll find it in the Transport Research Laboratory's PPR446,
commissioned by the DfT and freely downloadable from the TRL website
(http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_the_potential_for_cycle_helmets_to_prevent_injury___a_review_of_the_evidence.htm).
My reading of Brendan's post wasn't any supposition that PPR446 can be
taken at face value but that even if this semi-official figure can be
taken at face value it boils down to a pretty bug "so what?", but of
course I can't speak for him.

PPR446 was, AIUI, originally to have included overall risk factors of
cycling to put these numbers in to context, but somehow someone "forgot"
about putting them in. Perhaps of more concern is the figure of 10-16%
fatality reduction assumes an effectiveness of between 10 and 50% for
the helmet, though it's cagey about how safe such an effectiveness
assumption is. In other words, if we assume helmets are effective, we
can go on to prove their effectiveness...

[Brendan Halpin]

On Thu, Sep 27 2012, Peter Clinch wrote:

> You'll find it in the Transport Research Laboratory's PPR446,
> commissioned by the DfT and freely downloadable from the TRL website
> (http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_the_potential_for_cycle_helmets_to_prevent_injury___a_review_of_the_evidence.htm).
> My reading of Brendan's post wasn't any supposition that PPR446 can be
> taken at face value but that even if this semi-official figure can be
> taken at face value it boils down to a pretty bug "so what?", but of
> course I can't speak for him.

Yes, that would be correct.

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F1-009 x 3147
mailto:brendan...@ul.ie ULSociology on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/fjIK9t
http://teaching.sociology.ul.ie/bhalpin/wordpress twitter:@ULSociology

[Ace]

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:04:34 +0100, Peter Clinch
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:

> In other words, if we assume helmets are effective, we
>can go on to prove their effectiveness...

Heh. Sounds scarily familiar, eh?

[Peter Clinch]

On 27/09/2012 18:32, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> considered Wed, 26 Sep 2012
> 12:29:36 +0100 the perfect time to write:

>> well yes... the obvious one is to ban cycling. The deaths definitely
>> attributable to that are countable, ones attributable to the lack of
>> cycling are not.
>
> Really?
> You think that the diabetic 35 stone 24 year old who dies of heart
> failure would still be in that state if he'd cycled to school,
> college, then work?

I think the point is that if you get run over and totalled when cycling
you have a Smoking Gun of "cycling" in your stts, where if you die of
general couch-potatoness you can cite lack of any sort of exercise but
not /specifically/ cycling.

Cycling does appear to save a lot more lives than helmets, even on
rather pessimistic assumptions, but not in a way you to point clearly to
and say "look, over there!" to someone with PPE-induced myopia. Which
is all part of the problem, of course.

[Ben C]

On 2012-09-26, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]

> well yes... the obvious one is to ban cycling. The deaths definitely
> attributable to that are countable, ones attributable to the lack of
> cycling are not.
>

> Alternatively ban anyone under 30 from being on the road except as a
> pedestrian. Road crashes are the biggest killer of the under 30s I
> believe.

Yeah but the problem might be lack of experience rather than age, so
then they'd just start driving at 30 and be as dangerous as 17 year
olds.

Also if you learn things young you do tend to learn them better and then
become more skilled and safer when you get older so it might average
out.

> If saving lives is the point, then those are the sorts of
> interventions needed. Once you say "neither of those are practical"
> then saving lives clearly isn't the point... Saving lives within
> certain constraints is, and those have to be discussed.

It's also a matter of how you die and at what age. A fatal road accident
is much more of a shock than just checking out a few years early because
you didn't get enough exercise.

[nh...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, 27 September 2012 18:31:35 UTC+1, Phil W Lee wrote:
> "John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> considered Wed, 26 Sep 2012
>
I don't wear a
>
> >helmet 100% of the time - it depends on where I'm cycling. On busy roads, I
>
> >always wear a helmet.
>
>
>
> So you wear one in the conditions where it is least likely to be any
>
> use (in collisions with motor vehicles) but not when the greatest risk
>
> is from a simple fall (which is the only situation in which it might
>
> be of some limited value).
>
> That's not very smart.
>

Well, the helmet wouldn't be very smart. Maybe it's one of the new generation of unsmart i-helmets which can suspend the laws of physics, mechanics and material science when it sees your head is about to hit a vehicle

[Scion]

Phil W Lee spake thus:

<snip>

> You don't read scientific research, do you?
> I didn't think that calling most of the other users on here "fools" was
> within the rules, but hey, if it's a free-for-all, you're the idiot for
> thinking that a foam hat will protect you from motor traffic.

If someone feels safer in motor traffic wearing a helmet to the extent
that if they didn't wear a helmet they wouldn't cycle there, and taking
your argument (with which I agree) that cycling is both safe short-term
and good for health long-term, then surely it is *better* for the PP - and
those who think likewise - to be encouraged to wear a helmet?

[Andy Leighton]

I'm not sure I would use encouraged. Allowed - absolutely. Not
mocked for their decision - absolutely. Encouraged to cycle - yep.
Encouraged to wear a helmet - maybe not (but that doesn't mean
strongly discouraged either).

Help them build up confidence in traffic, and improve road skills (positioning
etc) - maybe by riding with them or getting them on a training session - yes.

The reason why I wouldn't encourage helmet use is that it will become
normalised. Partly through enforcement of wearing through families.
Partly because a large number of people are very poor at assessing risk
and believe that both the risks and the protective ability of the helmet
are higher than they actually are. It is likely that helmets will
become the default position for the second group.

--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[nh...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, 27 September 2012 18:31:35 UTC+1, Phil W Lee wrote:

> I didn't think that calling most of the other users on here "fools"
>
> was within the rules, but hey, if it's a free-for-all, you're the
>
> idiot for thinking that a foam hat will protect you from motor
>
> traffic.
>

> It is not designed to do so and simply isn't capable of it.
>
> It is ONLY designed to protect a solid metal head-form (with no
>
> attached body) from decelerating at over 300g when dropped from about
>
> 5 feet onto a smooth anvil, with no shear forces involved.
>
> Maybe you have a solid metal head, no body, and only fall when
>
> stationary, but I reckon that's a pretty useless model of a typical
>
> injury causing bicycle accident.
>

What you describe is a standard test of the material and structural strength of a helmet, not a restriction of the circumstances in which it will operate. In circumstances other than where the limited weight and strength cannot protect against fatality, a helmet will provide some degree of protection. That will be in most head impacts and frequently to a significant extent, making the difference between fatal and severe, severe and moderate, etc. That is important in brain injury since, depending on location, even limited or moderate damage can have a serious or devastating effect on physical/cognitive/sensory/motor functioning. Unlike flesh, bone and muscle damage, which can self-repair, and can be aided by medical and surgical intervention neocortical neurons don't have these repair/replacement mechanisms, and they don't replicate. The brain recovers from significant injury to only a limited extent mainly by locational rewiring.That is why protection of the head is particularly important

> Population studies seem to agree with that analysis, as they make no
>
> discernable difference in the real world, except to depress cycling
>
> rates.
>

There are no credible population studies to show that analysis. The size, time period and control and assessment parameters for such a study would make it exceedingly large, difficult and expensive and no study of the necessary scale has been done

[Brendan Halpin]

On Fri, Sep 28 2012, nh...@hotmail.com wrote:

> That will be in most head impacts and frequently
> to a significant extent, making the difference between fatal and severe,
> severe and moderate, etc.

I'm very sympathetic to your general argument about protecting the brain
because of its particular vulnerability, but this statement is an
excellent example of "begging the question" in the classical sense,
i.e., treating an assumption as evidence.

The crux of the argument revolves precisely around the question of how
much of a difference helmets make in real-world situations.

[Ace]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:29:48 +0100, nh...@hotmail.com wrote:


>In circumstances other than where the limited weight and strength cannot protect
>against fatality, a helmet will provide some degree of protection.

Is this just a 'common-sense' assumption you're making here, or do you
actually have evidence that this is the case?

I would suggest that in many cases, a helmet pushed beyond its limits
of protection, may actually make overall injuries worse, not better.
The possible increase in rotaional forces is quite well discussed, and
the potential danger from a partially-disintegrated helmet with strap
intact must also be considered.

Note that I say 'may', 'possible' and 'potential' because I don't want
to make an assumption thet this will be the case, whereas your
statement allows no such doubt.

[Peter Clinch]

On 28/09/12 10:29, nh...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 September 2012 18:31:35 UTC+1, Phil W Lee wrote:
>
>> I didn't think that calling most of the other users on here
>> "fools" was within the rules, but hey, if it's a free-for-all,
>> you're the idiot for thinking that a foam hat will protect you from
>> motor traffic. It is not designed to do so and simply isn't capable
>> of it. It is ONLY designed to protect a solid metal head-form (with
>> no attached body) from decelerating at over 300g when dropped from
>> about 5 feet onto a smooth anvil, with no shear forces involved.
>> Maybe you have a solid metal head, no body, and only fall when
>> stationary, but I reckon that's a pretty useless model of a
>> typical injury causing bicycle accident.
>
> What you describe is a standard test of the material and structural
> strength of a helmet, not a restriction of the circumstances in which
> it will operate. In circumstances other than where the limited weight
> and strength cannot protect against fatality, a helmet will provide
> some degree of protection. That will be in most head impacts and
> frequently to a significant extent, making the difference between
> fatal and severe, severe and moderate, etc.

"Common Sense" certainly suggests that should be the case, but there is
marked lack of evidence of serious injury rates decreasing with
increased helmet use, which the same "common sense" tells us would be
happening if the above supposition were true.

What is the basis of "frequently to a significant extent"? I've seen
quite a lot of case/control work on it but the methodology is usually
farcical and there is a marked lack of agreement in the final numbers.
If work is not reproducible that's the first obvious sign it's not very
good.

>> Population studies seem to agree with that analysis, as they make
>> no discernable difference in the real world, except to depress
>> cycling rates.

> There are no credible population studies to show that analysis. The
> size, time period and control and assessment parameters for such a
> study would make it exceedingly large, difficult and expensive and no
> study of the necessary scale has been done

Of course it's "large", because it's a whole population. But for once
governments really are there to help us because they tend to collect
data in just the sorts of large sets required over long time periods.
So the difficult and expensive bit is done routinely for us in any case.
After that it's a matter of getting in to the data with suitable
application. I personally don't have the statistical chops to do that
but there's no shortage of professionals who do, and have looked at it
for many years now. Suggesting nothing of the scale has been done is
quite clearly spurious.

So there's plenty of data, and folk have spent a lot of time looking at
it in different places. Because different governments/agencies collect
slightly different things there's quite a variation in data sets and
thus in effective ways to mine them, but as yet nobody seems to have
managed to find any tangible effect from helmet wearing increases in any
of them (in other words, a reproducible result), or if they have they're
keeping it remarkably quiet. Your dismissals of all these efforts in
all the places they've been made is sweeping and not in itself credible
without a lot of further evidence.

[Rob Morley]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:29:48 +0100

nh...@hotmail.com wrote:

> What you describe is a standard test of the material and structural
> strength of a helmet, not a restriction of the circumstances in which
> it will operate. In circumstances other than where the limited weight
> and strength cannot protect against fatality, a helmet will provide
> some degree of protection. That will be in most head impacts and
> frequently to a significant extent, making the difference between
> fatal and severe, severe and moderate, etc.

You're ignoring rotational injuries caused or exacerbated by wearing a
helmet, risk compensation by both the wearer and other road users,
distraction caused by overheating or other discomfort.

> There are no credible population studies to show that analysis. The
> size, time period and control and assessment parameters for such a
> study would make it exceedingly large, difficult and expensive and no
> study of the necessary scale has been done

But the nearest thing we have shows statistically negligible
improvement.

[Scion]

Andy Leighton spake thus:

> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:12:45 +0100, Scion <a...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Phil W Lee spake thus:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> You don't read scientific research, do you?
>>> I didn't think that calling most of the other users on here "fools"
>>> was within the rules, but hey, if it's a free-for-all, you're the
>>> idiot for thinking that a foam hat will protect you from motor
>>> traffic.
>>
>> If someone feels safer in motor traffic wearing a helmet to the extent
>> that if they didn't wear a helmet they wouldn't cycle there, and taking
>> your argument (with which I agree) that cycling is both safe short-term
>> and good for health long-term, then surely it is *better* for the PP -
>> and those who think likewise - to be encouraged to wear a helmet?
>
> I'm not sure I would use encouraged. Allowed - absolutely. Not mocked
> for their decision - absolutely. Encouraged to cycle - yep. Encouraged
> to wear a helmet - maybe not (but that doesn't mean strongly discouraged
> either).

Yep, "encouraged" is the wrong word here. "Not be discouraged" would have
been better.

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <b9d00307-9bf8-447a...@googlegroups.com>
nh...@hotmail.com wrote:

[snip]

>
> What you describe is a standard test of the material and structural
> strength of a helmet, not a restriction of the circumstances in which
> it will operate. In circumstances other than where the limited weight
> and strength cannot protect against fatality, a helmet will provide
> some degree of protection. That will be in most head impacts and
> frequently to a significant extent, making the difference between
> fatal and severe, severe and moderate, etc.

What I would question in that paragraph of yours is what you mean by

"frequently to a significant extent"

Yes there is going to be a difference between head injuries sustained
with and without wearing a helmet, but the important question I would
wish to know the answer to is 'exactly what proportion of accidents
involving head injuries would benefit from the proposed protection?'
Many road accidents involve other major injuries as well, and in those
cases death might result from several different causes. I've previously
pointed out to research on the increased wearing of ski-helmets where
the frequency of fatal ski-accidents hasn't changed significantly, but
the attribution of cause of death attributed to a head injury has
reduced. Those skiers still died as a result of their injuries, but the
doctors chose to put the emphasis on other injuries as the cause of
death.

> That is important in brain injury since, depending on location, even
> limited or moderate damage can have a serious or devastating effect on
> physical/cognitive/sensory/motor functioning. Unlike flesh, bone and
> muscle damage, which can self-repair, and can be aided by medical and
> surgical intervention neocortical neurons don't have these
> repair/replacement mechanisms, and they don't replicate. The brain
> recovers from significant injury to only a limited extent mainly by
> locational rewiring.

OK I accept the biology of all of that, but it still becomes relevant at
to what frequency of cycle accidents involve such damage, where the
wearing of a helmet would offer a significant advantage to the wearer?
Clearly there are going to be some accidents where the impact is low
enough that head protection isn't necessary and other impacts that are
so high that no degree of added protection will be of value. So the
critical question is to understand how big is the window of opportunity
between those two extremes? If only a small proportion of accidents fall
into that window, then only a small proportion of cyclists involved
in accidents would be expected to benefit from wearing a helmet.

> That is why protection of the head is particularly important

The logical alternative to considering protection of the head would be
to accept the vulnerability of the brain and instead to consider if it
is possible to reduce the frequency of road accidents? After all given
the huge variation in the rates of cycling injuries experienced in
different locations within the UK, and in different countries within
Europe, isn't there much more value for individuals to be gained from
lowering the overall accident rate in the first place, than by
concentrating on trying to make accidents survivable?

>
> > Population studies seem to agree with that analysis, as they make no
> >
> > discernable difference in the real world, except to depress cycling
> >
> > rates.
> >
>
> There are no credible population studies to show that analysis. The
> size, time period and control and assessment parameters for such a
> study would make it exceedingly large, difficult and expensive and no
> study of the necessary scale has been done

On that I think we can agree, The available research data has many
flaws, both for case-controlled as well as for population studies making
it difficult to draw fine conclusions.

[Adam Funk]

On 2012-09-28, Rob Morley wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 10:29:48 +0100
> nh...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> What you describe is a standard test of the material and structural
>> strength of a helmet, not a restriction of the circumstances in which
>> it will operate. In circumstances other than where the limited weight
>> and strength cannot protect against fatality, a helmet will provide
>> some degree of protection. That will be in most head impacts and
>> frequently to a significant extent, making the difference between
>> fatal and severe, severe and moderate, etc.
>
> You're ignoring rotational injuries caused or exacerbated by wearing a
> helmet, risk compensation by both the wearer and other road users,
> distraction caused by overheating or other discomfort.

I can understand the other points, but how are injuries caused or
exacerbated by the helmet?

[Phil Cook]

Rotational injuries can be caused or increased by the fact that the
helmet is bigger than the unprotected head. Apply a force to a bigger
lever and it has more effect.
--
Phil Cook

[Clive George]

On 28/09/2012 13:47, Adam Funk wrote:

> I can understand the other points, but how are injuries caused or
> exacerbated by the helmet?

The thing is people are actually quite good at not hitting their heads.
What might seem like not much extra size can make an important difference.

I've had a crash where my head just grazed a railing on the way down.
That would have been a rather bigger bang with a helmet on.

My wife hit her helmet on me once when I braked rather sharply for a
sheep, and ended up with a sore neck. The bigger head won't have helped
there. I've done done similar other times, mostly without helmets on,
and she's not hit her head then.

These are anecdotes, but they are examples which are relevant to your
question. The hard bit is working out how many times they happen.

(as a slight aside my last head injury was while sleepwalking about 17
years ago - so based on that I ought to wear a helmet in bed :-) )

[Rob Morley]

As a cyclist flies through the air or slides along the ground his
helmet can catch against the road surface, rotating his head against
the general direction of movement. The brain is basically floating in
the skull, attached only at the brain stem/spinal cord, so if the
direction of rotation is about this axis it places a large stress on
this area, potentially tearing tissue. This is potentially more
damaging than concussion or even skull fracture, so he might well be
better off sliding bare-headed into a kerb than snagging it with a
helmet. As well as making the head larger a helmet also makes it more
massive - any whiplash type injury caused by e.g. impact from behind
by a vehicle is likely to be exacerbated by the extra mass of the
helmeted head, wrenching the neck as well as potentially concussing the
brain.
These are of course speculative scenarios, but there's no evidence to
suggest they don't occur in a proportion of helmeted casualties of the
same order as those where a helmet might be shown to be beneficial.

[Rob Morley]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:31:31 +0100
Clive George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> (as a slight aside my last head injury was while sleepwalking about
> 17 years ago - so based on that I ought to wear a helmet in bed :-) )

Drinking helmets should be pretty useful. :-)

[nh...@hotmail.com]

No, for a statistically valid and significant study, it does not have to be a 'whole' population. But it would need a very large random or stratified sample group (ie population in that sense) of cyclists to get a sufficient number of different degrees and types of cycle users, age groups, accidents and injuries, balanced with control groups of those not wearing helmets. It would need standard protocols of injury assessment and classifications, treatment protocols, and outcome assessments, and that would be a significant difficulty to achieve over a wide set of hospitals or treatment centres. We're probably talking of something larger than e.g., the Scottish Breast Cancer Screening Trials which preceded the national screening program.

Any data currently collected for us by government at present is of little use in this respect - it needs the structure and consistency of a designed and controlled trial. It simply hasn't been done and, as I say, would be a major undertaking