Parents For Helmets
John B
in our local paper.
It has BeHit stamped all over it.
I've put the articles here (temporarily), I hope they are readable.
If you want to take copies do so as I'll remove the link fairly soon.
It is interesting that Carlie Annetts is asking for examples of cycling
accidents, by e-mailing her at:
carlie....@ntlworld.com
http://www.velotree.co.uk/parentsforhelmet.html
I've informed her that my daughter broke her arm on a clubrun and badly
gouged her side at a track meet. Neither time did a helmet help.
John B
Ian Smith
>
> It is interesting that Carlie Annetts is asking for examples of cycling
> accidents, by e-mailing her at:
> carlie....@ntlworld.com
Actually, she seems to be asking about accidents parents have personal
experience of while their children were not wearing helmets.
I burnt my fingers in a coffee-roaster chamber earlier this week, and
neither of my daughters was wearing a helmet at the time.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Tony Raven
Remember when this woman is trying to force your children to wear
helmets that the Coroner said in the case of her son ""The law is very
strict when it comes to cars but there are no laws when it comes to
bikes. It is up to owners to ensure bikes are safe. The consequences at
not getting round to routine maintenance can, and in this case were,
tragic and fatal." Nothing about her not making him wear a helmet but
everything about letting him ride a defective bike that hadn't had basic
maintenance so that the brakes were not working. Parents for Mandatory
Bike Maintenance anyone?
--
Tony
"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
John B
Ian Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:22:07 +0000, John B <not...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > It is interesting that Carlie Annetts is asking for examples of cycling
> > accidents, by e-mailing her at:
> > carlie....@ntlworld.com
>
> Actually, she seems to be asking about accidents parents have personal
> experience of while their children were not wearing helmets.
Yes I miswrote my last post. In neither cases I quoted was my daughter
wearing a helmet - and in neither case would one have helped.
> I burnt my fingers in a coffee-roaster chamber earlier this week, and
> neither of my daughters was wearing a helmet at the time.
I hope you've told her.
You are a Bad Bad Man.
John B
David Martin
How about accidents when not wearing a helmet leading to children?
How about asking her about mandatory working brakes laws, or looking
where you are going and not just riding out in front of cars laws?
Colin McKenzie
> it seems this comes from the Annetts case and has been reported heavily
> in our local paper.
> It has BeHit stamped all over it.
And by a strange coincidence is promoted in BHIT's latest comic, sent
to RSOs (road safety officers) and Cycling Officers.
> ...
> It is interesting that Carlie Annetts is asking for examples of cycling
> accidents, by e-mailing her at:
> carlie....@ntlworld.com
It sounds like BHIT is collecting anecdotes.
The comic I've seen mentions two more child cycle casualties whose
parents appear to have signed up. One was a fatality hit by a car,
with no explanation of how a helmet would have helped - so it probably
wouldn't.
The other was a low-speed fall followed by undiagnosed concussion
(non-fatal). A helmet might well have helped - but the child could
have got the injury just as easily by tripping over on foot.
But if you don't think about it, it all looks quite convincing.
Colin McKenzie
Roos Eisma
>Actually, she seems to be asking about accidents parents have personal
>experience of while their children were not wearing helmets.
Maybe I should dig out my families cycling accidents history of the past
35 years. It features some damaged toes (one of us on the rear of my
mother's bike managed to stick a foot into the spokes), some bruised
crotches (my brother when he hit a car, me when I hit a grass verge), some
scraped hands, various bruised hips, elbows, knees, a sprained ankle
trying to brake with my foot, sunburn, hmmm... can't seem to remember any
head injuries....
Roos
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>Remember when this woman is trying to force your children to wear
>helmets that the Coroner said in the case of her son ""The law is very
>strict when it comes to cars but there are no laws when it comes to
>bikes. It is up to owners to ensure bikes are safe. The consequences at
>not getting round to routine maintenance can, and in this case were,
>tragic and fatal." Nothing about her not making him wear a helmet but
>everything about letting him ride a defective bike that hadn't had basic
>maintenance so that the brakes were not working. Parents for Mandatory
>Bike Maintenance anyone?
Tony,
I had eleven 8/9 year old novice cyclists in the school playground and
six (including me) National Standard instructors. There were,
perhaps, twenty crashes, mostly trivial, but at least two involving
sliding on tarmac. It is highly unlikely that the fact that all the
children were wearing helmets did a single thing to protect them on
this occasion, but the very fact that they were wearing helmets made
me feel more comfotable as the person responsible for their safety.
As you may know, a low speed fall onto a flat surface, such as a
playground, is where helmets offer most protection.
While I am against legislation compelling all, or any section of
society, to wear helmets, I am in favour of organisations, such as
schools, making an informed choice over helmet use for their charges -
this will usually mean compulsion while a novice or under instruction.
I think that such compulsion would be wrong for travel to and from
school - that is a choice to be made between the child and parent.
As a postscript, of the eleven children, 8 were cycling confidently
around the playground within the 2 hour session. A further 2 were a
bit wobbly, but making rapid progress. One was still having
difficulties, mainly due to the fact that his bike was an expensive
BMX and not really appropriate for learning to ride.
There were smiles all round!
I'll offer the three wobbly children a further hour session next week.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)
Just zis Guy, you know?
>Remember when this woman is trying to force your children to wear
>helmets that the Coroner said in the case of her son ""The law is very
>strict when it comes to cars but there are no laws when it comes to
>bikes. It is up to owners to ensure bikes are safe. The consequences at
>not getting round to routine maintenance can, and in this case were,
>tragic and fatal." Nothing about her not making him wear a helmet but
>everything about letting him ride a defective bike that hadn't had basic
>maintenance so that the brakes were not working. Parents for Mandatory
>Bike Maintenance anyone?
See http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/two-children.html :-)
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Sniper8052(L96A1)
I was not moved to anger until I read this woman's pleas! What gives
her the right to place my kids at risk because she can't be bothered to
look after her own child properly by maintaining his bike?
Children are a responsibility for which the parent has a 24hour duty of
care which includes among many other things maintaining their bikes.
Had his brake been working he may well have avoided the collision, had
it been the back brake that was faulty instead of the front he may also
avoided the collision. Had he impacted the vehicle with a cycle helmet
there is no evidence he would have survived.
Sniper8052
Tony Raven
>
> Tony,
>
> I had eleven 8/9 year old novice cyclists in the school playground and
> six (including me) National Standard instructors. There were,
> perhaps, twenty crashes, mostly trivial, but at least two involving
> sliding on tarmac. It is highly unlikely that the fact that all the
> children were wearing helmets did a single thing to protect them on
> this occasion, but the very fact that they were wearing helmets made
> me feel more comfotable as the person responsible for their safety.
>
Not sure how your comment is relevant to what I wrote but given the
choice would you rather they rode with poorly maintained bikes without
working brakes but wore a helmet or rode well maintained and working
bikes without a helmet?
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>> Tony,
>>
>> I had eleven 8/9 year old novice cyclists in the school playground and
>> six (including me) National Standard instructors. There were,
>> perhaps, twenty crashes, mostly trivial, but at least two involving
>> sliding on tarmac. It is highly unlikely that the fact that all the
>> children were wearing helmets did a single thing to protect them on
>> this occasion, but the very fact that they were wearing helmets made
>> me feel more comfotable as the person responsible for their safety.
>>
>
>Not sure how your comment is relevant to what I wrote but given the
>choice would you rather they rode with poorly maintained bikes without
>working brakes but wore a helmet or rode well maintained and working
>bikes without a helmet?
Nine of the eleven bikes were school bikes, the other two were the
children's own bikes. The other instructors and I spent some time
checking all the bikes over before the children cycled on them: we
clearly felt that a well-maintained bike was essential.
I hope you will be further satisfied to know that when the children
take part in the full six week course, the first ten minutes of each
session is spent teaching the children to check bikes over for faults,
including, but not exclusively, tyre pressures, valve position
(sticking straight out to the hub), rear brakes, seat post, bottom
bracket, lubrication, headset and handlebars. The final scheduled
2-hour lesson is bike maintenance and puncture repair, however, in the
case of very poor weather this lesson may replace any earlier lesson.
Are you in agreement that it is right for those responsible for young
children's safety to make a decision on helmet use on behalf of their
charges, usually in favour of compulsion in the case of novice
cyclists and those under instruction?
A roadworthy bike is a given necessity, so need not confuse the issue.
David Hansen
"Sniper8052(L96A1)" <snipe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote this:-
>I was not moved to anger until I read this woman's pleas! What gives
>her the right to place my kids at risk because she can't be bothered to
>look after her own child properly by maintaining his bike?
>Children are a responsibility for which the parent has a 24hour duty of
>care which includes among many other things maintaining their bikes.
>Had his brake been working he may well have avoided the collision, had
>it been the back brake that was faulty instead of the front he may also
>avoided the collision. Had he impacted the vehicle with a cycle helmet
>there is no evidence he would have survived.
I hope you will send her a suitably toned down version of this
posting. Difficult as it may be people like this need to be
challenged.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
Nick Kew
> I was not moved to anger until I read this woman's pleas! What gives
> her the right to place my kids at risk because she can't be bothered to
> look after her own child properly by maintaining his bike?
That's not so hard to see. Her negligence[1] led to the death of
her child. What a crushing burden of guilt! So when someone
seemingly-respectable offered her something else to blame, she
latched right on to it. Her mind won't let her think rationally
about it or stop campaigning: the guilt would simply overwhelm her.
(Anyone with more than beer-glass-level psychology care to comment?)
If anyone gets to debate this somewhere it matters, this is a point
that needs making. The martlecamp are cynically *exploiting* this
child's death, and so long as the mother is with them, she must
forfeit the sensitivity one would normally show.
[1] If it had been a teacher such as our Tilly/Bertie/Tom letting
his charges out with no brakes, he'd probably be out of a career
and in serious trouble with the law.
--
not me guv
Kristian Davies
against compulsary helmet wearing while on a public road?
Cheers,
Kristian
Don Whybrow
> Not sure if im getting the gist of this thread, but are you saying you are
> against compulsary helmet wearing while on a public road?
Got it in one.
It should be a matter of individual choice, not compulsion.
--
Don Whybrow
Sequi Bonum Non Time
"To communicate with Mars, converse with spirits, To report the
behaviour of the sea monster, Describe the horoscope,
haruspicate or scry, Observe disease in signatures." (T.S.Eliot)
Kristian Davies
> Got it in one.
>
> It should be a matter of individual choice, not compulsion.
Weird... I don't agree at all.
When I was a teenager, I didn't want to wear one because it was un-cool.
Now I wouldn't dream of not wearing one. Surely it's the minimum safety
precaution to take whether effective or not.
I also remember a doctor friend of mine saying his colleagues referred to us
cyclists as 'organ donors' or some such...
Erm... I think it should be compulsory for all, and not just as the article
calls for, under 14 year olds.
Cheers,
-Kristian
Pinky
news:12216iq...@news.supernews.com...
protection and for other less obvious reasons.
BUT
I am totally opposed to introduction to compulsory helmets for all the very
obvious reasons that have been raised, discussed , argued over both here and
everywhere else.
It is to be hoped that the lady referred to in the original post should
receive sufficient email response to make her understand that her sons sad
plight was directly attributable to the condition of the cycle involved and
not the lack of a helmet..
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk (Reconstructed)
Clive George
news:12216iq...@news.supernews.com...
>
>>
>> It should be a matter of individual choice, not compulsion.
>
> Weird... I don't agree at all.
>
> When I was a teenager, I didn't want to wear one because it was un-cool.
> Now I wouldn't dream of not wearing one. Surely it's the minimum safety
> precaution to take whether effective or not.
Not been here long, have you? Could you do us all a favour, and read the
archives of this NG at groups.google.com, specifically threads about
helmets. Then, and only then, come back to us and say if you still believe
that helmets should be compulsory.
At the cost of a bit of your time, it will save a hell of a lot of everybody
else's reiterating the same old arguments.
cheers,
clive
Pyromancer
Davies <Po...@to.Newsgroup!!.invalid> gently breathed:
>
>> Got it in one.
>>
>> It should be a matter of individual choice, not compulsion.
>
>Weird... I don't agree at all.
>
>When I was a teenager, I didn't want to wear one because it was un-cool.
>Now I wouldn't dream of not wearing one. Surely it's the minimum safety
>precaution to take whether effective or not.
That makes no sense - why do something that isn't effective?
>I also remember a doctor friend of mine saying his colleagues referred to us
>cyclists as 'organ donors' or some such...
Being a doctor doesn't make someone an expert on something outside their
field of expertise. Would you trust a doctor who said "this bridge is
safe" when a structural engineer had told you it was about to collapse?
>Erm... I think it should be compulsory for all, and not just as the article
>calls for, under 14 year olds.
Cycle helmets make cycling more dangerous. This may seem the opposite
of what you'd expect, but it's true and borne out by proper scientific
research.
1. Wearing a helmet makes a cyclist appear "more protected" to car
drivers. This causes some car drivers to take fewer precautions around
helmeted cyclists than non-helmeted ones. This is called "risk
compensation".
2. Wearing a helmet increases what's called the "rotational diameter" of
your head. This increases the chance of neck-twisting of the kind that
can cause paralysis or even death in the event of falling / being
knocked off the bike and sliding along the road. This works the same
way as having a larger steering wheel makes a car without power steering
easier to drive, because it takes less force to turn the wheel.
3. As you commented, helmets put people off cycling. This leads to
fewer cyclists on the road, which means motorists become less familiar
with encountering cyclists and hence more likely to make mistakes and
mis-judge speeds, overtaking, etc.
4. Other countries have introduced laws forcing cyclists to wear
helmets. In every case, the result of this has been both a decrease in
cycling in general, and an *increase* in the number of cyclists killed
or seriously injured on the roads in those countries.
It's common for medical people like paramedics, who know a lot about
medicine but rather less about materials engineering, to assume that a
broken helmet has "saved" the wearer from a head injury. This seems
obvious, "common sense" says that the force which broke the helmet has
been absorbed and thus not affected the rider's head. In fact this
isn't the case. Cycle helmets are made of a kind of polystyrene. This
is designed to absorb energy by bending - as soon as it breaks, all the
energy is delivered un-hindered to the head under the helmet. So a
broken helmet after a crash has done nothing at all to protect its
wearer.
Looking at the bigger picture, one of the major causes of premature
death is obesity and its side-effects. Encouraging people to cycle
instead of driving on local trips is a very effective way to encourage
more exercise and less obesity. That we all need to take more exercise
and use our cars less is something the vast majority of people agree on,
including the Government and the British Medical Association. Compulsory
helmet laws are bad for cycling and thus bad for the nation's health in
general. We don't need laws, we need more cyclists.
Lastly, look at countries like Holland, where thousands of people use
bikes as their normal every-day transport round town. They don't have
helmet laws and most of them don't wear helmets - indeed they cycle the
same way they drive, in their ordinary everyday clothes. These
countries have the lowest rates of cyclist injury in the world.
Helmets are bad for cycling. By all means wear one if you want to, but
please don't try and force them on the rest of us. They do *not* help
cyclist safety. Don't just take my word for it, see
<http://www.cyclehelmets.org> for lots of detailed and comprehensive
information on the subject.
--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>
Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>
Tom Crispin
<ni...@asgard.webthing.com> wrote:
>[1] If it had been a teacher such as our Tilly/Bertie/Tom letting
>his charges out with no brakes, he'd probably be out of a career
>and in serious trouble with the law.
I'm not sure about even that.
When I checked with the Education Authority's insurers, they gave a
specific example of what is covered as:
"A child is injured as a result the handle bars falling off -
covered by LBL's/School's liability policy"
They make no mention of any injury which may have been prevented by
wearing a helmet.
I also suspect that a jury would be more forgiving towards a teacher
if there was a fault with a bike that an unhelmeted child.
Tony Raven
>
>> Not sure how your comment is relevant to what I wrote but given the
>> choice would you rather they rode with poorly maintained bikes without
>> working brakes but wore a helmet or rode well maintained and working
>> bikes without a helmet?
>
> Nine of the eleven bikes were school bikes, the other two were the
> children's own bikes. The other instructors and I spent some time
> checking all the bikes over before the children cycled on them: we
> clearly felt that a well-maintained bike was essential.
>
> I hope you will be further satisfied to know that when the children
> take part in the full six week course, the first ten minutes of each
> session is spent teaching the children to check bikes over for faults,
> including, but not exclusively, tyre pressures, valve position
> (sticking straight out to the hub), rear brakes, seat post, bottom
> bracket, lubrication, headset and handlebars. The final scheduled
> 2-hour lesson is bike maintenance and puncture repair, however, in the
> case of very poor weather this lesson may replace any earlier lesson.
>
>
> Are you in agreement that it is right for those responsible for young
> children's safety to make a decision on helmet use on behalf of their
> charges, usually in favour of compulsion in the case of novice
> cyclists and those under instruction?
>
I thought you taught children to answer the question which you have just
ducked with all the skill of a Nulabur politician? Troy Arnetts rode
off the pavement into the path of a car; the brakes on this bike were
defective and the coroner thought that was central to his being killed.
It has nothing to do with you teaching children in playgrounds but all
to do with whether a mother who sent her child out on a defective bike
should be trying to force the rest of us put helmets on our children as
a result.
I have no problem with you choosing to do what you do as long as it does
not override the wishes of a parent and does not indoctrinate them about
cycling being dangerous and helmets consequently essential.
--
Tony
"Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence
of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones."
- Bertrand Russell
Tony Raven
>
> I also remember a doctor friend of mine saying his colleagues referred to us
> cyclists as 'organ donors' or some such...
>
Doctors frequently make that mistake but they are wrong. We had a good
example last week from this campaign where a Newcastle doctor said that
nine out of twelve child cyclists he saw with head injuries were not
wearing a helmet, implying that those without a helmet suffered far more
head injuries. In fact only two in ten children wear helmets so he was
seeing nothing more than a representative sample of the child cycling
population and no significant difference between helmeted and
unhelmeted. This is in line with research published last year on
nationwide police and hospital statistics that found that while girls
were twice as likely to wear a helmet as boys, they suffered exactly the
same head injury rate. A further paper looking at child and adult
cyclists stated “ The conclusion cannot be avoided that there is no
evidence from the benchmark dataset in the UK that helmets have had a
marked safety benefit at the population level for road using pedal cyclists”
You can find the rest of the arguments by Googling this group for
helmets but you will find virtually no-one here believing helmets do
anything other than reduce minor cuts and grazes and may actually
exacerbate injuries in more serious accidents.
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>I thought you taught children to answer the question which you have just
>ducked with all the skill of a Nulabur politician? Troy Arnetts rode
>off the pavement into the path of a car; the brakes on this bike were
>defective and the coroner thought that was central to his being killed.
> It has nothing to do with you teaching children in playgrounds but all
>to do with whether a mother who sent her child out on a defective bike
>should be trying to force the rest of us put helmets on our children as
>a result.
I guess I'm feeling demonised because I'm one of those people who
compel children to wear helemts. I simply want to highlight the case
for compulsion in certain circumstances. Expressing my views in reply
to your post was an unfortunate mistake, I should have done so in
response to the original poster.
I am encouraged that so far no one has challenged my postion.
>I have no problem with you choosing to do what you do as long as it does
>not override the wishes of a parent and does not indoctrinate them about
>cycling being dangerous and helmets consequently essential.
Parents do have an option to overrule the helmet rule, by speaking
with the headteacher about the issue.
Richard
>>Got it in one.
>>
>>It should be a matter of individual choice, not compulsion.
>
>
> Weird... I don't agree at all.
Why not? Have you read www.cyclehelmets.org?
> When I was a teenager, I didn't want to wear one because it was un-cool.
> Now I wouldn't dream of not wearing one. Surely it's the minimum safety
> precaution to take whether effective or not.
Ah - you believe it's effective even though it's not? I have a
rabbit's foot here for your protection.
> I also remember a doctor friend of mine saying his colleagues referred to us
> cyclists as 'organ donors' or some such...
I refer to doctors who say the above as 'ignorant'.
> Erm... I think it should be compulsory for all,
Why do you want to decrease the number of cyclists, increase the danger
to remaining cyclists and increase the chance of serious head injuries
to remaining cyclists? (Which is what compulsory helmet use would lead
to - as has been shown in many papers referenced in www.cyclehelmets.org.
Peter Clinch
> hmmm... can't seem to remember any
> head injuries....
/Obviously/ if you'd protected your heid properly you wouldn't be
suffering that dreadful forgetfulness! ;-/
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/
Alan Braggins
>Weird... I don't agree at all.
>
>When I was a teenager, I didn't want to wear one because it was un-cool.
>Now I wouldn't dream of not wearing one. Surely it's the minimum safety
>precaution to take whether effective or not.
A rabbit's foot is more convenient. Unlikely to be effective, but since
you're already saying "whether effective or not" (which really is weird),
that shouldn't matter to you.
Most people in favour of helmet compulsion at least assume they will be
effective without looking at the statistics.
Pyromancer
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> gently breathed:
>I am encouraged that so far no one has challenged my postion.
Your position re-enforces the idea that cycling is a dangerous activity
requiring safety equipment, and hence on a par with motorcycling. Most
of the children you're teaching this to will grow up, get their driving
licenses, get cars, and never cycle again, partly because they've been
taught that cycling is a risky activity.
A good many of them will die early of obesity related illnesses brought
on by lack of exercise as a result.
>>I have no problem with you choosing to do what you do as long as it does
>>not override the wishes of a parent and does not indoctrinate them about
>>cycling being dangerous and helmets consequently essential.
>Parents do have an option to overrule the helmet rule, by speaking
>with the headteacher about the issue.
Is this advertised to parents? Are they informed by letter that while
the school encourages helmet compulsion, helmets make no positive
difference to cyclist safety and can be shown to increase the risk of
injuries to the wearer?
BigRab
> cyclists as 'organ donors' or some such...
Sorry, that usually refers to motorcyclists...... probably.
BigRab
Lee
"Kristian Davies" <Post to Newsgroup!!> wrote in message
are more
of an embarassment than good, pedal cycles are capable of 40mph plus,
those helmets are a joke are a joke!!!....like horse riding caps ......
.
When they are given the same tests as for motorcycle helmets, they may,
just may survive a 20mph crash with protection to the rear of the skull and
face.....
How many people have survived head injuries wearing those useless `plastic`
cycling helmets???.
Lee.....
Honda Dylan....
Pedal cycle......
Simon Bennett
I know whose organs I'd rather have!
davek
> I guess I'm feeling demonised because I'm one of those people who
> compel children to wear helemts.
You say that "a roadworthy bike is a given necessity", but clearly many
parents are unaware of that and don't know the first thing about bike
maintenance. Why is there no government campaign to highlight the need
for routine bike maintenance?
I'm sure you would agree that making sure your bike is roadworthy is far
more important than wearing a helmet, but clearly there are many parents
who don't know the first thing about bike maintenance and are happy to
send their kids out on death-traps. So why no campaign to educate
parents so they understand the need for routine bike maintenance?
The Troy Parker case highlights this quite emphatically - if Troy had
been able to stop his bike, it is unlikely the accident would have
happened. The difference is between primary safety (preventing
accidents) and secondary safety (reducing the impact of accidents).
There is no point even bothering with the secondary safety measures if
you haven't addressed the primary safety measures.
Troy Parker's mum allowed him to go out on a bike that was categorically
unsafe. By highlighting the fact that he wasn't wearing a helmet, the
real issue is being swept under the carpet. Why does Carlie Annetts not
accept the coroner's findings and campaign to highlight the need for
routine bike maintenance?
> I am encouraged that so far no one has challenged my postion.
There's nothing wrong with being pro-helmet, but don't let it obscure
the real issue in this case.
d.
davek
> Surely it's the minimum safety
> precaution to take whether effective or not.
"Whether effective or not"? Really? Do you want to think about that a
bit more and maybe reformulate it into something that makes sense?
> I also remember a doctor friend of mine saying his colleagues referred to us
> cyclists as 'organ donors' or some such...
Doctors are experts on /healing/ injuries; they are NOT experts on
/preventing/ injuries.
d.
davek
> a Newcastle doctor said that
> nine out of twelve child cyclists he saw with head injuries were not
> wearing a helmet, implying that those without a helmet suffered far more
> head injuries. In fact only two in ten children wear helmets so he was
> seeing nothing more than a representative sample of the child cycling
> population
Statistics was never my strongest point, but isn't he in fact seeing
proportionally /more/ helmeted children?
d.
Mark Thompson
> to us cyclists as 'organ donors' or some such...
That's motorcyclists:
<http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7250.xls>
Also, compare walking and cycling.
It's also worthwhile thinking about the energies that cycle helmets are
able to absorb, and their failure mode. They're perfect for trips and
falls ;-)
Colin McKenzie
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:43:23 +0000, Tony Raven <ju...@raven-family.com>
> wrote:
>>Remember when this woman is trying to force your children to wear
>>helmets that the Coroner said in the case of her son ""The law is very
>>strict when it comes to cars but there are no laws when it comes to
>>bikes. It is up to owners to ensure bikes are safe. The consequences at
>>not getting round to routine maintenance can, and in this case were,
>>tragic and fatal." Nothing about her not making him wear a helmet but
>>everything about letting him ride a defective bike that hadn't had basic
>>maintenance so that the brakes were not working. Parents for Mandatory
>>Bike Maintenance anyone?
>
> I had eleven 8/9 year old novice cyclists in the school playground and
> six (including me) National Standard instructors. There were,
> perhaps, twenty crashes, mostly trivial, but at least two involving
> sliding on tarmac. It is highly unlikely that the fact that all the
> children were wearing helmets did a single thing to protect them on
> this occasion, but the very fact that they were wearing helmets made
> me feel more comfotable as the person responsible for their safety.
I think you're wrong, and nearly said so last night. This is why.
I think you're getting too many falls. There is a real danger that an
early fall will put a beginner off cycling completely. I would expect
about one fall per 3 beginners, up to the point where they are
learning to steer where they want to go.
You say "helmets made me feel more comfortable".
They're probably having the same effect on the trainees, making them
un-necessarily reckless, contributing to the extra falls.
If you haven't already, I strongly suggest you read the paper on
children and cycling from the National Children's Bureau (by Tim
Gill), which analyses the arguments in detail. I would also suggest
that you get the Governing Body to read it, and on the strength of
that and your lack of head impacts to remove compulsion.
None of which takes away from the fact that overall you seem to be
doing a splendid job.
Colin McKenzie
Colin McKenzie
Sample too small. He's being conservative with his figures - unlike
the pro-compulsionists, who just take the most extreme.
Colin McKenzie
Peter Clinch
> I guess I'm feeling demonised because I'm one of those people who
> compel children to wear helemts. I simply want to highlight the case
> for compulsion in certain circumstances.
There are millions of children across the world who cycle quite safely
and happily without them, so what /is/ that case? There is no good
evidence that cyclists are suffering more than pedestrians, so is that
case also applicable to pedestrian children? And if not, why not? Why
are you making cycling out to be more dangerous than it is?
Peter Keller
> Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Kristian
> Davies <Po...@to.Newsgroup!!.invalid> gently breathed:
>>
>>> Got it in one.
<snip>
>
>>I also remember a doctor friend of mine saying his colleagues referred to us
>>cyclists as 'organ donors' or some such...
>
> Being a doctor doesn't make someone an expert on something outside their
> field of expertise. Would you trust a doctor who said "this bridge is
> safe" when a structural engineer had told you it was about to collapse?
I totally agree!!
Dr Peter Keller MB ChB, FANZCA who was vaguely in favour of helmets until
he made the mistake of actually reading about them and informing himself!
--
No Microsoft involved. Certified virus free --
Matt B
>
> We had a good
> example last week from this campaign where a Newcastle doctor said that
> nine out of twelve child cyclists he saw with head injuries were not
> wearing a helmet, implying that those without a helmet suffered far more
> head injuries. In fact only two in ten children wear helmets so he was
> seeing nothing more than a representative sample of the child cycling
> population and no significant difference between helmeted and
> unhelmeted.
Like the Police's Christmas drink-drive campaign. The proportion of
those not involved in an accident who gave a positive sample was about
the same as the proportion of those who tested positive after being
involved in an accident. One might conclude that drink doesn't increase
your chances of having an 'accident'.
--
Matt B
Mark Thompson
> those not involved in an accident who gave a positive sample was about
> the same as the proportion of those who tested positive after being
> involved in an accident. One might conclude that drink doesn't
> increase your chances of having an 'accident'.
Have you got a reference for that?
Mark Thompson
> may, just may survive a 20mph crash with protection to the rear of the
> skull and face.....
>
> How many people have survived head injuries wearing those useless
> `plastic` cycling helmets???.
Just to clarify, are you meaning that the cycle helmets may just survive
(i.e be of use) in a 20mph crash?
At first I thought you meant cyclists are unlikely to survive a fall at
20mph!
Anthony Campbell
As a doctor myself, I've cycled without a helmet for the last nearly 70
years (admittedly with a 20-year gap in the middle) and have no wish to
be compelled to wear one now.
As with all such things, the statistical evidence is equivocal, with
many variables. There are some cases in which wearing a helmet would be
beneficial, and others in which it might be the reverse. It should be up
to the individual to make up his or her mind about where the balance
lies.
Anthony Campbell
--
Anthony Campbell - a...@acampbell.org.uk
Microsoft-free zone - Using Linux Gnu-Debian
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews,
on-line books and sceptical articles)
Matt B
John Hearns
>
> I guess I'm feeling demonised because I'm one of those people who compel
> children to wear helemts.
Tom, no-one here is demonising you.
You are teaching children how to ride bikes - which is great.
You and your school choose to provide helmets for the children.
I don;t think there should be a problem.
My two pence worth is that maybe you should consider sending out a form to
each child, asking the parent to sign whether they want the child to use a
helmet or not. Parent signs yes, you make sure the child uses a helmet.
I don't think anyone in this group has an issue with parents providing, or
chosing cycle helmets for children.
John Hearns
>
> I'm sure you would agree that making sure your bike is roadworthy is far
> more important than wearing a helmet, but clearly there are many parents
> who don't know the first thing about bike maintenance and are happy to
> send their kids out on death-traps. So why no campaign to educate parents
> so they understand the need for routine bike maintenance?
I agree there. Having helped on a few "Dr Bikes" you see kids bikes in
absolutely appaling states, usually the cheap end BMX types with those
circulator units on the brakes, which enable the handlebars to spin round.
They usually fall apart tout suite, and the bike is left without brakes.
Yes, a campaign to raise parents awareness of their duties of care would
be good. Also to make people aware that bike shops can fix things!
(Except those useless cheapo BMXes which are made of cheese)
davek
> Tom, no-one here is demonising you.
> You are teaching children how to ride bikes - which is great.
Oh yes, seconded, absolutely and unreservedly.
Personally, I consider this type of training infinitely more beneficial
than any helmet. If anything should be made compulsory, it is training.
d.
Lee
"Mark Thompson"
<pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote in
message news:Xns978E6A054F14Bpl...@62.253.170.163...
> > When they are given the same tests as for motorcycle helmets, they
> > may, just may survive a 20mph crash with protection to the rear of the
> > skull and face.....
> >
> > How many people have survived head injuries wearing those useless
> > `plastic` cycling helmets???.
>
> Just to clarify, are you meaning that the cycle helmets may just survive
> (i.e be of use) in a 20mph crash?
Yes, if the same design as a motorcycle `crash helmet` and `safety tests`
are applied to cycle helmets,
that`s not say they will be fully protected as no-one is guaranteed to
survive even tripping over the pavement !!!! but they will be `better`
protected than the current design of `cycle` helmets give......
>
> At first I thought you meant cyclists are unlikely to survive a fall at
> 20mph!
And then you re-read it ??
Lee....
Mark Thompson
> drive_results.pdf
>
Only for 2003/4 - for later years those caught drink-crashing is 5.8% and
1.7%, while those caught drink driving is 11% and 10.8% Cripes!
Presumably the lower rates for those in accidents is due to higher
proportions being tested, whereas during the campaigns they only test if
they have or appear to have been drinking? S'pose so anyway, or we'd have
massive campaigns to get all drivers drunk at the wheel!
Just zis Guy, you know?
Newsgroup!!> said in <12216iq...@news.supernews.com>:
>When I was a teenager, I didn't want to wear one because it was un-cool.
>Now I wouldn't dream of not wearing one. Surely it's the minimum safety
>precaution to take whether effective or not.
Especially when walking. Pedestrians have a higher proportion of head
injuries than cyclists, and there are many times more of them.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Alistair Gunn
> I also suspect that a jury would be more forgiving towards a teacher
> if there was a fault with a bike that an unhelmeted child.
Quite possibly on the grounds that it's easy to see if a child is wearing
a helmet or not (though harder to see if it's being worn properly I'll
grant you), but bicycles are "machinery" and therefore "complicated"?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
Ambrose Nankivell
> John B wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:22:07 +0000, John B <not...@nowhere.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It is interesting that Carlie Annetts is asking for examples of
>>>> cycling accidents, by e-mailing her at:
>>>> carlie....@ntlworld.com
>>>
>>> Actually, she seems to be asking about accidents parents have
>>> personal experience of while their children were not wearing
>>> helmets.
>>
>> Yes I miswrote my last post. In neither cases I quoted was my
>> daughter wearing a helmet - and in neither case would one have
>> helped.
>>
>>> I burnt my fingers in a coffee-roaster chamber earlier this week,
>>> and neither of my daughters was wearing a helmet at the time.
>>
>> I hope you've told her.
>>
>
> How about accidents when not wearing a helmet leading to children?
Accidents when not pinching your helmet leading to children?
IGMC and go and stand in the smutty corner.
--
Ambrose
Ambrose Nankivell
You'd be wanting a roadblock style breathalyser campaign, not a "stop
suspicious people" one. I think the latter is what we use.
I have seen the former in Dublin, where the police were happy to pass me
with lighting that was well below legal standard. (I'd had to take a
pragmatic point of view on it, being on a borrowed bike, and I had
reflectives and was on very well lit wide roads.)
--
Ambrose
Ambrose Nankivell
Mine are ready dosed with azathioprine (an anti rejection drug, among other
uses). Does that make them better or worse?
--
Ambrose
Simon Bennett
Oh, I don't know. Does azathioprine have any good side-effects?
Helen Deborah Vecht
Probably ineligible. Can you give blood?
Auto-immune diseases often prevent eligibility as a donor.
--
Helen D. Vecht: helen...@zetnet.co.uk
Edgware.
Helen Deborah Vecht
> IGMC and go and stand in the smutty corner.
Does 'C' mean pbaqba?
Ambrose Nankivell
> "Ambrose Nankivell" <ambr...@btinternet.com>typed
>
>> IGMC and go and stand in the smutty corner.
>
> Does 'C' mean pbaqba?
No, pbaqbz.
(On another note, I've just found out how to make Bhgybbx Rkcerff decipher
ROT13 again. (Alt+Shift+H, then Alt+M, 3))
--
Ambrose
Ambrose Nankivell
> "Ambrose Nankivell" <ambr...@btinternet.com>typed
>
>
>> Simon Bennett wrote:
>>> BigRab wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I also remember a doctor friend of mine saying his colleagues
>>>>> referred to us cyclists as 'organ donors' or some such...
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, that usually refers to motorcyclists...... probably.
>>>
>>> I know whose organs I'd rather have!
>
>> Mine are ready dosed with azathioprine (an anti rejection drug,
>> among other uses). Does that make them better or worse?
>
> Probably ineligible. Can you give blood?
Almost certainly not.
> Auto-immune diseases often prevent eligibility as a donor.
I imagine that is the case. No need to keep cycling now, if I don't need my
organs to be kept healthy for someone else :)
--
Ambrose
David Hansen
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote this:-
>I guess I'm feeling demonised because I'm one of those people who
>compel children to wear helemts.
You are being challenged. if you have a good case then you can put
it forward.
>I simply want to highlight the case
>for compulsion in certain circumstances.
You have yet to make any convincing case for such compulsion.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
dkahn400
> BigRab wrote:
>
> >> I also remember a doctor friend of mine saying his colleagues
> >> referred to us cyclists as 'organ donors' or some such...
> >
> > Sorry, that usually refers to motorcyclists...... probably.
>
> I know whose organs I'd rather have!
I think motorcyclists usually make better organ donors as they often
peg out with head and neck injuries. We OTOH are most commonly crushed
by large vehicles, which may not be good for our internal organs.
--
Dave...
Dave Larrington
> "Ambrose Nankivell" <ambr...@btinternet.com>typed
>
> > IGMC and go and stand in the smutty corner.
>
> Does 'C' mean pbaqba?
What, Sir Paul of that Ilk?
--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
I thought I saw his name on a jar of marmalade the other day, but when I
looked more closely, I saw it read 'thick cut'.
David Martin
Simon Bennett wrote:
> BigRab wrote:
>
> >> I also remember a doctor friend of mine saying his colleagues
> >> referred to us cyclists as 'organ donors' or some such...
> >
> > Sorry, that usually refers to motorcyclists...... probably.
>
> I know whose organs I'd rather have!
Same here.. I'd rather keep the ones I have.
..d
Ambrose Nankivell
> In article <3130303037363...@zetnet.co.uk>, Helen Deborah
> Vecht (helen...@zetnet.co.uk) wrote:
>> "Ambrose Nankivell" <ambr...@btinternet.com>typed
>>
>>> IGMC and go and stand in the smutty corner.
>>
>> Does 'C' mean pbaqba?
>
> What, Sir Paul of that Ilk?
Well, he's not mine to go and get, really, is he?
--
Ambrose
David Martin
davek wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
> > a Newcastle doctor said that
> > nine out of twelve child cyclists he saw with head injuries were not
> > wearing a helmet, implying that those without a helmet suffered far more
> > head injuries. In fact only two in ten children wear helmets so he was
> > seeing nothing more than a representative sample of the child cycling
> > population
>
> proportionally /more/ helmeted children?
Yes but not significantly. I could do the maths to give you the
probabilities but cannot be arsed. A study that is based on such a
limited sample size is clearly insignificant.
..d
Ambrose Nankivell
Depends. Don't motorcyclists have big willies?
--
Ambrose
David Hansen
Davies" <Post to Newsgroup!!> wrote this:-
>Not sure if im getting the gist of this thread, but are you saying you are
>against compulsary helmet wearing while on a public road?
As it says on:
http://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/helmbite.html
=================================================================
Cyclists are not alone in suffering head injury as a result of road
crashes. From 1987 to 1991 fatalities in Britain due to head
injuries were proportioned:
Car occupants 40.5%
Pedestrians 39.1%
Motorcyclists 11.9% (despite use of helmets and a lower total
distance travelled than by pedal cycle)
Cyclists 8.5%
=================================================================
I take it you are in favour of compulsory helmets for car occupants
and pedestrians, as well as research on why compulsory motorcycle
helmets are not doing a particularly good job at preventing head
injuries?
If you are not you need to convincingly explain why.
David Martin
Matt B wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
> >
> > We had a good
> > example last week from this campaign where a Newcastle doctor said that
> > nine out of twelve child cyclists he saw with head injuries were not
> > wearing a helmet, implying that those without a helmet suffered far more
> > head injuries. In fact only two in ten children wear helmets so he was
> > seeing nothing more than a representative sample of the child cycling
> > unhelmeted.
>
> Like the Police's Christmas drink-drive campaign. The proportion of
> those not involved in an accident who gave a positive sample was about
> the same as the proportion of those who tested positive after being
> involved in an accident. One might conclude that drink doesn't increase
> your chances of having an 'accident'.
One would be wrong as the selection of drivers in both cases was not
random. There is no random breath testing here so the motorists must
have been stopped for some offence.
One could just as legitimately correlate chance of causing an offence
with alcohol consumption.
..d
Tony Raven
> BigRab wrote:
>
>>> I also remember a doctor friend of mine saying his colleagues
>>> referred to us cyclists as 'organ donors' or some such...
>> Sorry, that usually refers to motorcyclists...... probably.
>
> I know whose organs I'd rather have!
>
>
Cyclists right? They are much rarer - only around 100 a year become
available - and usually in much better condition.
--
Tony
"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
Tony Raven
> In article <12216iq...@news.supernews.com>, Kristian Davies wrote:
>> Weird... I don't agree at all.
>>
>> When I was a teenager, I didn't want to wear one because it was un-cool.
>> Now I wouldn't dream of not wearing one. Surely it's the minimum safety
>> precaution to take whether effective or not.
>
> you're already saying "whether effective or not" (which really is weird),
> that shouldn't matter to you.
>
> Most people in favour of helmet compulsion at least assume they will be
> effective without looking at the statistics.
Its like the old joke
"Why are you scattering all those bits of paper over your garden?"
"It keeps the elephants away"
"But we don't have elephants around here"
"I know, effective isn't it"
Kristian Davies
> very obvious reasons that have been raised, discussed , argued over both
> here and everywhere else.
So i gather... reading it as we speak...
> It is to be hoped that the lady referred to in the original post should
> receive sufficient email response to make her understand that her sons sad
> plight was directly attributable to the condition of the cycle involved
> and not the lack of a helmet..
Agreed, but who's to say a helmet wouldnt have made a difference.
She is understandibly feeling guilty because she didnt do all she could
have.
I did start to reply to all of these posts that followed, but there are a
few too many :-)
-Kristian
Peter Clinch
> Agreed, but who's to say a helmet wouldnt have made a difference.
We can't be /sure/ of course, but the record of helmets in serious and
fatal accidents is basically no effect one way or the other. He
couldn't have been worse off, let's face it... :-(
> She is understandibly feeling guilty because she didnt do all she could
> have.
Which is fair enough, but surely it makes sense to start campaigning for
things which would far more likely make a real difference. Like the
things which help stop kids colliding with large and fast motor vehicles
in the first place. Stuff like having well maintained brakes and the
smarts to know what is and isn't dangerous when riding one's bike.
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/
Tony W
"David Martin" <martin...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1143038010.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> One would be wrong as the selection of drivers in both cases was not
> random. There is no random breath testing here so the motorists must
> have been stopped for some offence.
Just before Xmas I was stopped and breathalysed. The reason given for
stopping me was that I had been observed leaving the pub car park (driving
my car).
Is that an offence? I would suggest it is not though it might be reason for
suspicion that I had been drinking.
The pub had been closed for an hour. I 'scored' 0.0 having been drinking
water all evening.
T
Just zis Guy, you know?
Newsgroup!!> said in <1222qk8...@news.supernews.com>:
>who's to say a helmet wouldnt have made a difference.
You are rather missing the point.
To campaign for a law compelling something which *might* have made a
difference, rather than working on the things which are already
legally mandated and *would* have made a difference is perverse.
Especially since the proposed law is predicated on the assumption
that, having already ignored the laws on pavement cycling and
construction and use, the boy would have obeyed the one on helmet
wearing. This seems to me to display a fine disregard for the reality
of the teenage male psyche.
Tony Raven
>
> Auto-immune diseases often prevent eligibility as a donor.
>
No cyclist is auto-immune. We all get squashed by them just the same ;-)
Nick Kew
>> How about accidents when not wearing a helmet leading to children?
>
> Accidents when not pinching your helmet leading to children?
Shirley, that's when the helmet breaks at a critical moment?
> IGMC and go and stand in the smutty corner.
that's not smut - it's life.
--
not me guv
Kristian Davies
>
> You are rather missing the point.
I think it is you who is missing the point...
> To campaign for a law compelling something which *might* have made a
> difference, rather than working on the things which are already
> legally mandated and *would* have made a difference is perverse.
> Especially since the proposed law is predicated on the assumption
> that, having already ignored the laws on pavement cycling and
> construction and use, the boy would have obeyed the one on helmet
> wearing. This seems to me to display a fine disregard for the reality
> of the teenage male psyche.
Law and campaigning aside, the boy died. I'm sure wearing a helmet couldn't
as previously said have made it worse. In this case, had he been wearing a
helmet the outcome _may_ have been different.
In this instance that is the point im making :-)
-Kristian
Tom Crispin
<pyrom...@beeching.stormshadow.com> wrote:
>Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> gently breathed:
>
>>I am encouraged that so far no one has challenged my postion.
>
>Your position re-enforces the idea that cycling is a dangerous activity
>requiring safety equipment, and hence on a par with motorcycling. Most
>of the children you're teaching this to will grow up, get their driving
>licenses, get cars, and never cycle again, partly because they've been
>taught that cycling is a risky activity.
Does running a routine maintenance check before cycling re-enforce the
idea that cycling is a dangerous activity?
>A good many of them will die early of obesity related illnesses brought
>on by lack of exercise as a result.
>
>>>I have no problem with you choosing to do what you do as long as it does
>>>not override the wishes of a parent and does not indoctrinate them about
>>>cycling being dangerous and helmets consequently essential.
>
>>Parents do have an option to overrule the helmet rule, by speaking
>>with the headteacher about the issue.
>
>Is this advertised to parents? Are they informed by letter that while
>the school encourages helmet compulsion, helmets make no positive
>difference to cyclist safety and can be shown to increase the risk of
>injuries to the wearer?
No. The parents are told that their child must wear a correctly
fitting helmet. If any parent challenges this I will direct them to
the headteacher (HT). They are also told that their child's bike must
be roadworthy, again, a parent who challenged this would be directed
to the HT. However, there is a difference. If the HT instructed me
to accept a child who wasn't going to wear a helmet, I would follow
that instruction, but if I was instructed to accept a child whose bike
wasn't roadworthy, I'd refuse the instruction.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)
John B
Tom Crispin wrote:
> I had eleven 8/9 year old novice cyclists in the school playground and
> six (including me) National Standard instructors. There were,
> perhaps, twenty crashes, mostly trivial, but at least two involving
> sliding on tarmac.
I find that incredible. Having trained several hundred riders in the last
year I can count on one hand those who have crashed, let alone been 'sliding
on tarmac'.
I'm really shaking my head in disbelief here.
I fear the question must be raised as to why.
John B
John B
John Hearns wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:17:58 +0000, davek wrote:
>
> > So why no campaign to educate parents
> > so they understand the need for routine bike maintenance?
>
> I agree there.
> ....Also to make people aware that bike shops can fix things!
> (Except those useless cheapo BMXes which are made of cheese)
And those from H*lf*rds or T*sc*
John B
Tony Raven
>
> I'm sure wearing a helmet couldn't
> as previously said have made it worse. In this case, had he been wearing a
> helmet the outcome _may_ have been different.
>
> In this instance that is the point im making :-)
>
You cannot know that and there is evidence to suggest it may well have
made it worse. Helmets increase the mass of the head and increase the
size of the head significantly in children making head contacts more
likely and the rotational and inertial forces higher with potential for
increased neck and rotational brain injury. As has been discussed in
the literature it's rotational, not linear impact, injuries which cause
the real brain damage.
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>You say that "a roadworthy bike is a given necessity", but clearly many
>parents are unaware of that and don't know the first thing about bike
>maintenance. Why is there no government campaign to highlight the need
>for routine bike maintenance?
It's not only parents who haven't a clue about roadworthyness. I had
a child turn up for cycle training with a new bike from Halfords whose
bike was in the worst state I've ever seen. A death trap. I wrote a
stongly worded letter to the manager, copied to Halfords chairman. The
matter was dealt with.
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:20:35 +0000, Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>>
>> I guess I'm feeling demonised because I'm one of those people who compel
>> children to wear helemts.
>Tom, no-one here is demonising you.
>You are teaching children how to ride bikes - which is great.
>
>You and your school choose to provide helmets for the children.
>I don;t think there should be a problem.
>
>My two pence worth is that maybe you should consider sending out a form to
>each child, asking the parent to sign whether they want the child to use a
>helmet or not. Parent signs yes, you make sure the child uses a helmet.
>I don't think anyone in this group has an issue with parents providing, or
>chosing cycle helmets for children.
I used to do just that, possibly on your recommendation. The school
governors overruled me and insisted that children under instruction
must be compelled to wear helmets. Don't forget that it is me, not
the parent, in loco parentis.
There are enough forms to fill in already.
Below is a heavily shortened version of the two letters.
Letter A
---------
This is cycle training and this is what we do. The national standards
are...
#1 - Do you want your child to take part in cycle training?
Letter B
--------
Here's the list of dates for cycle training.
#2 - Do you give consent for your child to take part?
All bikes must be in a roadworthy condition.
#3 - Does your child need to borrow a school bike?
#4 - Does your child need to borrow a school helmet?
#5 - Do you give consent for photos to be taken of your child?
#6 - Do you want to buy a reflective tabard?
If I wasn't school based, I'd also have to ask for a list of any
medical conditions and emergency contact details.
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>John Hearns wrote:
>> Tom, no-one here is demonising you.
>> You are teaching children how to ride bikes - which is great.
>
>Oh yes, seconded, absolutely and unreservedly.
>
>Personally, I consider this type of training infinitely more beneficial
>than any helmet. If anything should be made compulsory, it is training.
Funny you should say that. The next stage in the project is to make
Level 1A and level 1B training compulsory for all children in Year 2
as appropriate.
The National Standards can be broken down as follows.
Level 1A - Novice training
Level 1B - Basic skills
Level 2 - On-road awareness
Level 3 - Negotiating busy roads and controlled juctions
Tony Raven
>
> Don't forget that it is me, not
> the parent, in loco parentis.
>
So why does the school ring me up for permission to give a painkiller
like nurofen but your school is quite happy to claim loco parentis when
they want to make other decisions on the parent's behalf?
Tom Crispin
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>>I guess I'm feeling demonised because I'm one of those people who
>>compel children to wear helemts.
>
>You are being challenged. if you have a good case then you can put
>it forward.
>
>>I simply want to highlight the case
>>for compulsion in certain circumstances.
>
>You have yet to make any convincing case for such compulsion.
1. There is a high risk of novice cyclists falling off their bikes.
2. Novice cyclists are likely to be travelling at a low speed.
3. The type of surface used for novice cyclist training is flat and
tarmac.
4. Helmets are most effective reducing the severity of a head injury
from a direct low speed impact with a flat surface.
5. Due to the low speeds there is little to suggest that hemet
wearing will cause overheating of the head and clouded judgement.
6. Risk compensation is not an issue with novice cyclists, and even
if it is, it is likely to shorten the length of time spent as a
novice.
Conclusion: those responsible for training new cyclists should
consider compelling trainees to wear helmets.
My risk assessment for trainees working towards Level 1B is very
similar. Control skills are being challenged (rapid braking, cycling
with one hand, swerving, etc.)
My risk assessment for Level 2 training is somewhat different. The
most likely place for a fall is during a stopping manoeuvre, often
near the roadside. An unprotected fall onto a kerb is most likely to
cause the most serious injury.
The risk assessment for Level 3 is different again. The case for
compulsion is, at best, vague. The greatest risk is being struck by a
vehicle, where helmets offer least protection.
Tony Raven
>
> Conclusion: those responsible for training new cyclists should
> consider compelling trainees to wear helmets.
>
On the same logic what is your conclusion for children learning to walk
or for children playing in the playground?
Tom Crispin
<ne...@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:
>I think you're getting too many falls. There is a real danger that an
>early fall will put a beginner off cycling completely. I would expect
>about one fall per 3 beginners, up to the point where they are
>learning to steer where they want to go.
As I said, all but two or three were trivial - which ties in with your
one fall per 3 beginners. And by trivial I really do mean trivial,
for example, overenthusiastic braking ending up with both feet on the
ground and bike between legs, a very low speed collision with the
playground fence with the bike remaining upright, a dropped bike, etc.
The two or three 'more serious' crashes resulted in child and bike on
the tarmac. None required as much as a plaster.
>You say "helmets made me feel more comfortable".
>They're probably having the same effect on the trainees, making them
>un-necessarily reckless, contributing to the extra falls.
>
>If you haven't already, I strongly suggest you read the paper on
>children and cycling from the National Children's Bureau (by Tim
>Gill), which analyses the arguments in detail. I would also suggest
>that you get the Governing Body to read it, and on the strength of
>that and your lack of head impacts to remove compulsion.
I'll look out for it.
>None of which takes away from the fact that overall you seem to be
>doing a splendid job.
Thanks.
Danny Colyer
> Don't motorcyclists have big willies?
I understood rather that men who drive big, powerful cars have small
willies. Those who are better endowed feel no need for such penis
extensions.
Anyway, I think I'll go out unicycling now ;-)
--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
Tony Raven
>
> The two or three 'more serious' crashes resulted in child and bike on
> the tarmac. None required as much as a plaster.
>
So let me get this right. They were falls which did no damage to their
hands, elbows, knees or any other part of their bodies but you think the
helmets might have prevented a head injury?
Right?!?
Danny Colyer
> Erm... I think it should be compulsory for all, and not just as the article
> calls for, under 14 year olds.
You may be one of those who thinks a helmet is a serious safety device.
You may even be one of those who can never be persuaded otherwise by
any amount of evidence (though from your later posts in this thread I
think not). So, let's look at it another way. Do you think that
cycling without a helmet is dangerous enough that it should be banned?
Oh, let's plug my own helmet page while I'm at it:
<URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/cycling/ghd.html>
Ambrose Nankivell
> Ambrose Nankivell wondered:
>> Don't motorcyclists have big willies?
>
> I understood rather that men who drive big, powerful cars have small
> willies. Those who are better endowed feel no need for such penis
> extensions.
>
> Anyway, I think I'll go out unicycling now ;-)
I'm off to walk to the shops myself.
In flip flops.
--
Ambrose
John_Kane
Kristian Davies wrote:
> > Got it in one.
> >
> > It should be a matter of individual choice, not compulsion.
>
> Weird... I don't agree at all.
>
> When I was a teenager, I didn't want to wear one because it was un-cool.
> Now I wouldn't dream of not wearing one. Surely it's the minimum safety
> precaution to take whether effective or not.
Well, taking a safety precaution that is not efffective is not exactly
a good idea. That rabbit's foot may not help in a collision either.
I used to wear a helmet when cycling until I decided that they were
too dangerous. Remember, that while there is no good evidence a cycling
helmet ever saved anyone's life there is documented proof that they
have killed people.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>> Don't forget that it is me, not
>> the parent, in loco parentis.
>>
>
>So why does the school ring me up for permission to give a painkiller
>like nurofen but your school is quite happy to claim loco parentis when
>they want to make other decisions on the parent's behalf?
Have you asked the school why they ask for your consent? I cannot
answer for them. Our parents do have an option. If they consider
helemted cycling to be too dangerous or inappropriate they can refuse
the training or speak with the HT.
A child in my class last year went into anaphylactic shock after being
stung by a wasp. He was having difficulty breathing, and one of the
school staff gave him an adrenaline injection using another child's
nut allergy 'pen' while waiting for the ambulance to arrive.
Our school does not give out headache tablets in school, I'd feel
happy to give a child a non-prescription painkiller or anti
inflamatory tablet when on school journey to Wales, but probably not
during a 2-hour cycle training lesson.
Now, if we want to take the argument of parents' rights further,
should I contact a parent if I want to adjust the height of the
child's saddle? Cap a handlebar end? Put lights on their bike?
Adjust the brake cable? Oil a chain? Require a child to wear a
hi-vis vest? Require them to change from a long skirt into joggers?
Suggest they change from a short skirt into joggers? I've done all
these things and more, all except one for safety considerations - and
without considering parental consent.
Ian Smith
>
> > Got it in one.
> >
> > It should be a matter of individual choice, not compulsion.
>
> Weird... I don't agree at all.
So you're saying it's a good idea to increase the rate of serious
injury suffered by cyclists on the public road? And that it is
"weird" to prefer not to increase said rate.
I think you should do some more research before sticking your
unprotected head above this particular parapet again.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Ian Smith
>
> Law and campaigning aside, the boy died. I'm sure wearing a helmet couldn't
> as previously said have made it worse. In this case, had he been wearing a
> helmet the outcome _may_ have been different.
Indeed. And numerous other cases are likely to be made worse if
helmets are mandated.
You want to make compulsory something that wouldn't have made this one
case worse, but which appears (from experience elsewhere) to make lots
of other cases worse.
Ian Smith
A good summary, but for one teensy weensy little niggle:
> Cycle helmets are made of a kind of polystyrene. This
> is designed to absorb energy by bending - as soon as it breaks, all the
> energy is delivered un-hindered to the head under the helmet.
Crushing, not bending. Within certain limits, it takes even
less energy to bend it than to fracture it.
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>> Conclusion: those responsible for training new cyclists should
>> consider compelling trainees to wear helmets.
>>
>
>On the same logic what is your conclusion for children learning to walk
>or for children playing in the playground?
Common sense prevails. Here are a few examples of safety precautions.
When playing with my young nephew at Christmas in southern China, he
held onto my fingers as he walked on grass or sand. He took a few
unsteady solo steps as he toddled between me and Marcie over the
grass.
The premises manager conducts the playground risk assessment. The
tree branches are trimmed annually and during strong winds the upper
playground is closed to children. When wet, the decked area is
out-of-bounds. The sloped areas have had anti slip tarmac laid. Under
the climbing aparatus are bark chips, and in the younger children's
playground there is 'squidgy' tarmac around the balance bars.
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>Tom Crispin wrote:
>>
>> The two or three 'more serious' crashes resulted in child and bike on
>> the tarmac. None required as much as a plaster.
>>
>
>So let me get this right. They were falls which did no damage to their
>hands, elbows, knees or any other part of their bodies but you think the
>helmets might have prevented a head injury?
That is not what I said. If implied it was unintentional.
A cursory look back at a previous message of mine reveals this, not
particularly well-phrased, perhaps:
"It is highly unlikely that the fact that all the children were
wearing helmets did a single thing to protect them on
this occasion"
The intended implication is that at some point in the future, during
another training session, a helmet may protect a child from a more
serious injury, especially as the minor crash rate - about 1 per 3
novices - is high, and trivial crash rate - about 2 per novice - is
very high.
>Right?!?
Ian Smith
>
>
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
> > I had eleven 8/9 year old novice cyclists in the school playground and
> > six (including me) National Standard instructors. There were,
> > perhaps, twenty crashes, mostly trivial, but at least two involving
> > sliding on tarmac.
>
> I find that incredible. Having trained several hundred riders in the last
> year I can count on one hand those who have crashed, let alone been 'sliding
> on tarmac'.
I guess it depends what you mean by crashed.
My daughter 'crashed' four or five times on her first outing on two
wheels, IF you define crash as somthing that doesn't happen with the
bike under full control - she lost her balance and the bike toppled.
On one of those occasions she put her hand down (at least, it touched
the ground) to steady herself. On the others nothing but the soles of
her shoes touched the ground (though the bike fell over). Are you
counting those as crashes (I suspect not)? Is Tom (I suspect he may
be)?