When helmets make no sense

[Rodders[_2_]]

When helmets make no sense

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet1.jpg

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet2.jpg

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet3.jpg

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet4.jpg

Rodders

[burt]

"Rodders" > wrote in message
...
> When helmets make no sense
>
> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet1.jpg
>
> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet2.jpg
>
> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet3.jpg
>
> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet4.jpg
>
> Rodders

Great pix, but obviously the helmets are redundant in that situation, as you
point out.

No cars.
>

[Martin Dann]

Rodders wrote:
> When helmets make no sense

I would have though that is where you would want to wear a helmet,
specifically a proper mountaineering hat. This would help protect you
from rocks falling from above or wacking your head against the rock face.

Martin.

[Paul Boyd]

On 29/05/2007 21:15, Rodders said,
> When helmets make no sense

You should see the video clip, where one of the riders (must be Hans,
surely?) does an endo towards the cliff edge.

'ere y'go:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJEO89j8XsQ (about 1:10 in)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 29 May, 21:15, "Rodders" > wrote:
> When helmets make no sense
>
> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet1.jpg
>
> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet2.jpg
>
> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet3.jpg
>
> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet4.jpg
>
> Rodders

Do you think they shold have taken them off for that part of the ride?

[Marc Brett]

On 29 May 2007 23:25:52 -0700, "The other view point, there is one you
know..." > wrote:

>On 29 May, 21:15, "Rodders" > wrote:
>> When helmets make no sense
>>
>> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet1.jpg
>>
>> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet2.jpg
>>
>> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet3.jpg
>>
>> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet4.jpg
>>
>> Rodders
>
>Do you think they shold have taken them off for that part of the ride?

Do you think you could frame your thoughts as statements?

Do you think you could refrain from provoking a pointless helmet
flamefest?

Do you think you could admit you are a troll and crawl back under your
bridge?

[Trevor A Panther]

"Marc Brett" > wrote in message
...
> On 29 May 2007 23:25:52 -0700, "The other view point, there is one you
> know..." > wrote:


<snip><snip>
>
> Do you think you could refrain from provoking a pointless helmet
> flamefest?
>
> Do you think you could admit you are a troll and crawl back under your
> bridge?
>


'ere 'ere

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

[Garry from Cork]

They are the idiots who went cycling along the ledges of the Cliffs of
Moher in County Clare recently. Nothing to protect in the heads anyway!

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

Garry from Cork wrote on 31/05/2007 07:45 +0100:
> They are the idiots who went cycling along the ledges of the Cliffs of
> Moher in County Clare recently. Nothing to protect in the heads anyway!
>

Those "idiots" include Hans Rey, an individual who, over as many years
as I can remember, has been famous for extreme stunt riding on a
mountain bike for which he gets handsomely sponsored by the industry.
So not any old idiot and its part of his day job.
http://www.hansrey.com/

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 31 May, 08:02, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Garry from Cork wrote on 31/05/2007 07:45 +0100:
>
> > They are the idiots who went cycling along the ledges of the Cliffs of
> > Moher in County Clare recently. Nothing to protect in the heads anyway!
>
> Those "idiots" include Hans Rey, an individual who, over as many years
> as I can remember, has been famous for extreme stunt riding on a
> mountain bike for which he gets handsomely sponsored by the industry.
> So not any old idiot and its part of his day job.http://www.hansrey.com/
>
> --
> Tony
>
> "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
> is no good evidence either way."
> - Bertrand Russell

A professional cyclist and wearing a helmet too, sounds like he knows
what's what ;-)

http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/advice/cycling/cycling_accidents.htm

see what they say about head injuries, see what they say about helmets?

[Peter Clinch]

The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:

> A professional cyclist and wearing a helmet too, sounds like he knows
> what's what ;-)

Read the article in the June 2007 Procycling by Chris Boardman (record
breaking Olympic gold winning British pro, you might even have heard of
him). He sounds like he knows what's what, and he sounds that way
because he actually goes to the trouble of saying why he thinks what he
thinks and why he does what he does. Which is to not always wear a
helmet, and not to be concerned that his daughter doesn't always wear
one either. Read it and see for yourself, rather than jumping to
conclusions. CB also sat on the National Cycling Strategy board to
advise the government on safety matters for cyclists, including the
impact of mandating helmets, so he knows his stuff.

> http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/advice/cycling/cycling_accidents.htm
>
> see what they say about head injuries, see what they say about helmets?

http://www.cyclehelmets.org

See what they have to say about the dopey research you're assuming has
been done right, and the ridiculous degree of alarm over something
that's basically safe.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582

See what will really help cyclists be safe.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Marc Brett]

On 31 May 2007 01:23:36 -0700, "The other view point, there is one you
know..." > wrote:

>A professional cyclist and wearing a helmet too, sounds like he knows
>what's what ;-)

As a professional sportsman, he'll know how his money is earned. Since
Bell is one of his sponsors, it's a very good idea -- indeed it's
probably a contractual obligation -- to wear their product!

It says nothing about whether said product is any good.

[Brendan Halpin]

Peter Clinch > writes:

> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:

>> http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/advice/cycling/cycling_accidents.htm
>>
>> see what they say about head injuries, see what they say about helmets?
>
> http://www.cyclehelmets.org

Even the ROSPA page doesn't give much weight to helmets, mentioning
them last in a list of six ways of improving cyclist safety.

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

[Roos Eisma]

"The other view point, there is one you know..." > writes:

>A professional cyclist and wearing a helmet too, sounds like he knows
>what's what ;-)

What a professional does and wears does not always translate to people
doing the activity in a very different context and for very different
purposes. Extreme mountain biking is not the same as trundling to the
shop, like running a marathon in Nepal is not the same as a jog around the
block.

Different purposes, different criteria, different gear.

Though the outdoor shops are happy to convince their customers that they
need a jacket that can cope with extreme conditions on Everest for a walk
around the local park!

Roos

[Clive George]

"Rodders" > wrote in message
...
> When helmets make no sense
>
> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet1.jpg
>
> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet2.jpg
>
> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet3.jpg
>
> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet4.jpg

On a slightly different note, do you actually have the right to put those
pics in your album? You could always point people to Hans Rey's site
instead, which would have the advantage that you're not breaking copyright.

cheers,
clive

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 31 May, 09:39, Peter Clinch > wrote:
> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>
> > A professional cyclist and wearing a helmet too, sounds like he knows
> > what's what ;-)
>
> Read the article in the June 2007 Procycling by Chris Boardman (record
> breaking Olympic gold winning British pro, you might even have heard of
> him). He sounds like he knows what's what, and he sounds that way
> because he actually goes to the trouble of saying why he thinks what he
> thinks and why he does what he does. Which is to not always wear a
> helmet, and not to be concerned that his daughter doesn't always wear
> one either. Read it and see for yourself, rather than jumping to
> conclusions. CB also sat on the National Cycling Strategy board to
> advise the government on safety matters for cyclists, including the
> impact of mandating helmets, so he knows his stuff.
>
> >http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/advice/cycling/cycling_accidents.htm
>
> > see what they say about head injuries, see what they say about helmets?
>
> http://www.cyclehelmets.org
>
> See what they have to say about the dopey research you're assuming has
> been done right, and the ridiculous degree of alarm over something
> that's basically safe.
>
> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582
>
> See what will really help cyclists be safe.
>
> Pete.
> --

Surely the BMI is a spoof, and a very good one too

from BMJ
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/gca?allch=&SEARCHID=1&FULLTEXT=cycling+helmets&FIRSTINDEX=0&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&gca=bmj%3B308%2F6943%2F1537&gca=bmj%3B308%2F6922%2F173&allchb=
--------------------------------
Abstract

Objectives : To study circumstances of bicycle accidents and nature of
injuries sustained and to determine effect of safety helmets on
pattern of injuries.
Design : Prospective study of patients with cycle related injuries.
Setting : Accident and emergency department of teaching hospital.
Subjects : 1040 patients with complete data presenting to the
department in one year with cycle related injuries, of whom 114 had
worn cycle helmets when accident occurred.
Main outcome measures : Type of accident and nature and distribution
of injuries among patients with and without safety helmets. Results -
There were no significant differences between the two groups with
respect to type of accident or nature and distribution of injuries
other than those to the head. Head injury was sustained by 4/114 (4%)
of helmet wearers compared with 100/928 (11%) of non-wearers
(P=0.023). Significantly more children wore helmets (50/309 (16%))
than did adults (64/731 (9%)) (P<0.001). The incidence of head
injuries sustained in accidents involving motor vehicles (52/288
(18%)) was significantly higher than in those not involving motor
vehicles (52/754 (7%)) (X2=28.9, P<0.0001). Multiple logistic
regression analysis of probability of sustaining a head injury showed
that only two variables were significant: helmet use and involvement
of a motor vehicle. Mutually adjusted odds ratios showed a risk factor
of 2.95 (95% confidence interval 1.95 to 4.47, P<0.0001) for accidents
involving a motor vehicle and a protective factor of 3.25 (1.17 to
9.06, P=0.024) for wearing a helmet.
Conclusion : The findings suggest an increased risk of sustaining head
injury in a bicycle accident when a motor vehicle is involved and
confirm protective effect of helmet wearing for any bicycle accident.
--------------------

Which is the sort of statiscis I would have liked a few days ago, not
the flawed ones you quote.

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 31 May, 09:47, Roos Eisma > wrote:
> "The other view point, there is one you know..." > writes:
>
> >A professional cyclist and wearing a helmet too, sounds like he knows
> >what's what ;-)
>
> What a professional does and wears does not always translate to people
> doing the activity in a very different context and for very different
> purposes. Extreme mountain biking is not the same as trundling to the
> shop, like running a marathon in Nepal is not the same as a jog around the
> block.
>
> Different purposes, different criteria, different gear.
>
> Though the outdoor shops are happy to convince their customers that they
> need a jacket that can cope with extreme conditions on Everest for a walk
> around the local park!
>
> Roos

Sales people tut, ;-)

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, Tony Raven
') wrote:

> Garry from Cork wrote on 31/05/2007 07:45 +0100:
>> They are the idiots who went cycling along the ledges of the Cliffs of
>> Moher in County Clare recently. Nothing to protect in the heads anyway!
>
> Those "idiots" include Hans Rey, an individual who, over as many years
> as I can remember, has been famous for extreme stunt riding on a
> mountain bike for which he gets handsomely sponsored by the industry.

The other was Steve Peat, was it not? He's not exactly your average rider,
either. And riding the cliffs of Moher is a lot safer than his day job.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"The result is a language that... not even its mother could
love. Like the camel, Common Lisp is a horse designed by
committee. Camels do have their uses."
;; Scott Fahlman, 7 March 1995

[Peter Clinch]

The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:

> Surely the BMI is a spoof, and a very good one too

Read the whole thing, beyond the first section. Wardlaw asks: "You
think I am being facetious? Let us examine the facts." and then provides
plenty of them. The BMJ doesn't publish spoof articles.

> from BMJ
> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/gca?allch=&SEARCHID=1&FULLTEXT=cycling+helmets&FIRSTINDEX=0&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&gca=bmj%3B308%2F6943%2F1537&gca=bmj%3B308%2F6922%2F173&allchb=
> --------------------------------
> Abstract

<snip>

> Conclusion : The findings suggest an increased risk of sustaining head
> injury in a bicycle accident when a motor vehicle is involved and
> confirm protective effect of helmet wearing for any bicycle accident.
> --------------------
>
> Which is the sort of statiscis I would have liked a few days ago, not
> the flawed ones you quote.

What is flawed about the ones I quoted? Aside from them not confirming
your prejudices?

You might also usefully read
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7543/722-a which shows what *has
actually happened* with increasing use of helmets, and in summary that's
nothing useful at all.

It's very easy to quote selective studies that are badly designed and
where the method is a very poor fit to the data to "prove" the benefits
of helmets, but it's much harder to take several whole populations where
nothing has improved with increasing helmet use and take that as proof
that helmets are worth the time of day for day to day transport cycling.

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 31 May, 11:03, Peter Clinch > wrote:
> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>
> > Surely the BMI is a spoof, and a very good one too
>
> Read the whole thing, beyond the first section. Wardlaw asks: "You
> think I am being facetious? Let us examine the facts." and then provides
> plenty of them. The BMJ doesn't publish spoof articles.

>
> Pete.
> --

I started to read the article, I checked the date then mmmmmm
Pedestrian helmets, cabinet wearing them, then the photos of Fony
Flair and the fat fighter in helmets just confirmed it for me, so
stopped reading the rest of it.

Wardlaw = Consultant on Cycling, Health and Safety, Edinburgh,
Scotland. (I'll look him up to see what sort of professiona role he
has, should the need arise)

I'm sticking to "statistics can prove anything", plenty of them on the
WWW.

Just for the record i'm not in favour of compulsory helmets, but their
use should be encouraged.

This is not to insult you but of general interest in how statistics
can and are use for a particular reason
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/stat3.html
I didn't have a lot of time to look, off to the gym ;-) only so much
free time

Quick question for you,
Do you wear riding gloves; 1 - yes, 2 - sometimes, 3 - never.
Do you wear a helmet; 1 - yes, 2 - sometimes, 3 - never.

[David Hansen]

On 31 May 2007 02:41:54 -0700 someone who may be "The other view
point, there is one you know..." >
wrote this:-

>> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582
>>
>> See what will really help cyclists be safe.
>
>Surely the BMI is a spoof, and a very good one too

Ah, proof by assertion.

I note that you didn't counter the arguments therein.


>from BMJ
>http://www.bmj.com/cgi/gca?allch=&SEARCHID=1&FULLTEXT=cycling+helmets&FIRSTINDEX=0&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&gca=bmj%3B308%2F6943%2F1537&gca=bmj%3B308%2F6922%2F173&allchb=

An article from 1994.

Should you really be interested in the subject and not just trolling
I suggest reading Dorothy Robinson's article from 2006

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7543/722-a?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=5000&resourcetype=HWCIT



--
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

[Peter Clinch]

The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:

> I started to read the article, I checked the date then mmmmmm

Ah yes, 23rd December, that well known day for jokes...

> Pedestrian helmets, cabinet wearing them, then the photos of Fony
> Flair and the fat fighter in helmets just confirmed it for me, so
> stopped reading the rest of it.

The point is precisely that it is self-evidently ridiculous for such
measures for pedestrians, yet it's actually just as safe cycling as
walking, so it's just as ridiculous to push such measures for cyclists.

It is done to illustrate that what's being pushed for cyclists is a
ridiculous case of double standards that doesn't bear scrutiny.

Read the whole thing, it's quite instructive.

> I'm sticking to "statistics can prove anything", plenty of them on the
> WWW.

So why do you trust the ones that confirm your prejudices?

> Just for the record i'm not in favour of compulsory helmets, but their
> use should be encouraged.

Why? And why not for equally dangerous activities like being a pedestrian?

> Quick question for you,
> Do you wear riding gloves; 1 - yes, 2 - sometimes, 3 - never.

Sometimes: typically when it's cold, or I'm doing technical off-road
where I expect to fall off.

> Do you wear a helmet; 1 - yes, 2 - sometimes, 3 - never.

Sometimes, typically when I'm doing technical off-road where I expect to
fall off. Utility transport cycling, no: it's no more dangerous than
being a pedestrian, which has practically identical risks of serious
injury (basically, being hit by a motor vehicle), and nobody wears one
for that, so why for cycling?

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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Paul Boyd]

Simon Brooke said the following on 31/05/2007 10:57:

> The other was Steve Peat, was it not?

It was indeed, as mentioned in the video of this trip to which I posted
a link.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 31 May, 11:50, Peter Clinch > wrote:
> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>
> > I started to read the article, I checked the date then mmmmmm
>
> Ah yes, 23rd December, that well known day for jokes...
>
> > Pedestrian helmets, cabinet wearing them, then the photos of Fony
> > Flair and the fat fighter in helmets just confirmed it for me, so
> > stopped reading the rest of it.
>
> The point is precisely that it is self-evidently ridiculous for such
> measures for pedestrians, yet it's actually just as safe cycling as
> walking, so it's just as ridiculous to push such measures for cyclists.
>
> It is done to illustrate that what's being pushed for cyclists is a
> ridiculous case of double standards that doesn't bear scrutiny.
>
> Read the whole thing, it's quite instructive.
>
> > I'm sticking to "statistics can prove anything", plenty of them on the
> > WWW.
>
> So why do you trust the ones that confirm your prejudices?
>
> > Just for the record i'm not in favour of compulsory helmets, but their
> > use should be encouraged.
>
> Why? And why not for equally dangerous activities like being a pedestrian?
>
> > Quick question for you,
> > Do you wear riding gloves; 1 - yes, 2 - sometimes, 3 - never.
>
> Sometimes: typically when it's cold, or I'm doing technical off-road
> where I expect to fall off.
>
> > Do you wear a helmet; 1 - yes, 2 - sometimes, 3 - never.
>
> Sometimes, typically when I'm doing technical off-road where I expect to
> fall off. Utility transport cycling, no: it's no more dangerous than
> being a pedestrian, which has practically identical risks of serious
> injury (basically, being hit by a motor vehicle), and nobody wears one
> for that, so why for cycling?
>
> Pete.
> --
Thanks for the replies, i will let you have the last word on this
thread.

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

David Hansen wrote on 31/05/2007 11:46 +0100:
> On 31 May 2007 02:41:54 -0700 someone who may be "The other view
> point, there is one you know..." >
> wrote this:-
>


Seems like Troll D has found the helmet button and that pressing it gets
him the gratification he seeks. Please don't oblige him.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

Brendan Halpin wrote on 31/05/2007 09:45 +0100:
> Peter Clinch > writes:
>
>> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>
>>> http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/advice/cycling/cycling_accidents.htm
>>>
>>> see what they say about head injuries, see what they say about helmets?
>> http://www.cyclehelmets.org
>
> Even the ROSPA page doesn't give much weight to helmets, mentioning
> them last in a list of six ways of improving cyclist safety.
>

Whereas the National Children's Bureau doesn't support them at all
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2j4rug


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

[Simon Brooke]

in message m>, The other
view point, there is one you know... ')
wrote:

> Quick question for you,
> Do you wear riding gloves; 1 - yes, 2 - sometimes, 3 - never.

1: Yes. When you fall, even a minor fall, the thing that hits the ground
first is usually your hand - you instinctively put it out to save
yourself. Road rash on the hands is very painful and potentially
disabling.

> Do you wear a helmet; 1 - yes, 2 - sometimes, 3 - never.

2: Only when racing in an event where the rules require it. I've fallen of
a bike certainly more than a thousand times (almost all when mountain
biking). My head has never hit anything. Your instincts and reactions are
remarkably good at saving your head from damage.

Gloves actually protect you effectively from something that is likely to
happen. Helmets don't protect you effectively and the thing they don't
protect you from isn't likely anyway.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

my other car is #<Subr-Car: #5d480>
;; This joke is not funny in emacs.

[Rodders[_2_]]

"Clive George" > wrote in message
...
> "Rodders" > wrote in message
> ...
>> When helmets make no sense
>>
>> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet1.jpg
>>
>> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet2.jpg
>>
>> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet3.jpg
>>
>> http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t133/Rodders_album/Helmet4.jpg
>
> On a slightly different note, do you actually have the right to put those
> pics in your album? You could always point people to Hans Rey's site
> instead, which would have the advantage that you're not breaking
> copyright.
>
> cheers,
> clive

They were sent to me as an email and I thought the group may enjoy the
craziness and the views. I had no idea who was in the pictures.

Rodders

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 31 May, 19:17, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Brendan Halpin wrote on 31/05/2007 09:45 +0100:
>
> > Peter Clinch > writes:
>
> >> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/advice/cycling/cycling_accidents.htm
>
> >>> see what they say about head injuries, see what they say about helmets?
> >>http://www.cyclehelmets.org
>
> > Even the ROSPA page doesn't give much weight to helmets, mentioning
> > them last in a list of six ways of improving cyclist safety.
>
> Whereas the National Children's Bureau doesn't support them at allhttp://preview.tinyurl.com/2j4rug
>
> --
> Tony
>
> "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
> is no good evidence either way."
> - Bertrand Russell

Hmmmmm, i like this bit;

---------------------
Put simply, if riders who tend to wear helmets cycle more cautiously
than those who do not, they will have less serious crashes and sustain
less serious injuries, but this may have no direct causal link with
helmet-wearing. A recent pilot study suggests that children who wear
helmets may indeed be more cautious as a group than those who do not
(Mok and others 2004).
-----------------------

I could summarise that by saying cyclist without helmets are reckless
and don't think of the consequences, where those who wear helmets are
more aware of their vulnerability and reduce that by being more
cautious on the road, pat on back all round ;-)

[Brendan Halpin]

Tony Raven > writes:

> Whereas the National Children's Bureau doesn't support them at all
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2j4rug

I found that report almost disturbing -- far too sane and
meticulous and sensible. Something is wrong!

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

[John Kane]

On May 31, 3:18 pm, "The other view point, there is one you know..."
> wrote:
> On 31 May, 19:17, Tony Raven > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Brendan Halpin wrote on 31/05/2007 09:45 +0100:
>
> > > Peter Clinch > writes:
>
> > >> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>
> > >>>http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/advice/cycling/cycling_accidents.htm
>
> > >>> see what they say about head injuries, see what they say about helmets?
> > >>http://www.cyclehelmets.org
>
> > > Even the ROSPA page doesn't give much weight to helmets, mentioning
> > > them last in a list of six ways of improving cyclist safety.
>
> > Whereas the National Children's Bureau doesn't support them at allhttp://preview.tinyurl.com/2j4rug
>
> > --
> > Tony
>
> > "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
> > is no good evidence either way."
> > - Bertrand Russell
>
> Hmmmmm, i like this bit;
>
> ---------------------
> Put simply, if riders who tend to wear helmets cycle more cautiously
> than those who do not, they will have less serious crashes and sustain
> less serious injuries, but this may have no direct causal link with
> helmet-wearing. A recent pilot study suggests that children who wear
> helmets may indeed be more cautious as a group than those who do not
> (Mok and others 2004).
> -----------------------
>
> I could summarise that by saying cyclist without helmets are reckless
> and don't think of the consequences, where those who wear helmets are
> more aware of their vulnerability and reduce that by being more
> cautious on the road, pat on back all round ;-)

Children with head injury were significantly more likely to have made
contact with a moving vehicle than control children (19 (19%) v 12
(4%), P<0.001). Head injuries were more likely to occur on paved
surfaces than on grass, gravel, or dirt.

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

John Kane wrote on 01/06/2007 02:25 +0100:
>>
>> I could summarise that by saying cyclist without helmets are
>> reckless and don't think of the consequences, where those who wear
>> helmets are more aware of their vulnerability and reduce that by
>> being more cautious on the road, pat on back all round ;-)
>
> Children with head injury were significantly more likely to have made
> contact with a moving vehicle than control children (19 (19%) v 12
> (4%), P<0.001). Head injuries were more likely to occur on paved
> surfaces than on grass, gravel, or dirt.
>

Children wearing helmets rode faster and reported more damage to their
bicycles than those without - and that's from one of the avid pro-helmet
compulsion researchers
Mok D, Gore G, Hagel B, Mok E, Magdalinos H, Pless B., Risk compensation
in children’s activities: A pilot study; Paediatr Child Health.
2004;9(5):327-330.


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

[[email protected]]

On May 31, 7:17 pm, Tony Raven > wrote:
> Brendan Halpin wrote on 31/05/2007 09:45 +0100:
>
> > Peter Clinch > writes:
>
> >> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/advice/cycling/cycling_accidents.htm
>
> >>> see what they say about head injuries, see what they say about helmets?
> >>http://www.cyclehelmets.org
>
> > Even the ROSPA page doesn't give much weight to helmets, mentioning
> > them last in a list of six ways of improving cyclist safety.
>
> Whereas the National Children's Bureau doesn't support them at all
>
>http://preview.tinyurl.com/2j4rug
>


Interesting - but is this right or is there a typo?

"Government-funded research by the Transport Research Laboratory found
that cycle promotion campaigns were 'strongly linked to a decrease in
the number of cyclists observed'" p39

Should that be "cycle promotion" or "helmet promotion"?

Tim.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Simon Brooke >:
>Gloves actually protect you effectively from something that is likely to
>happen.

You missed a trick here; in particular, gloves delay the onset of sore or
numb hands, which is something which - unlike accidents - is jolly likely.
--
David Damerell > Kill the tomato!
Today is Wednesday, June.

[Dave Larrington]

In ,
David Damerell > tweaked the Babbage-Engine
to tell us:
> Quoting Simon Brooke >:
>> Gloves actually protect you effectively from something that is
>> likely to happen.
>
> You missed a trick here; in particular, gloves delay the onset of
> sore or numb hands, which is something which - unlike accidents - is
> jolly likely.

Two other advantages of gloves:

o they enable you to operate twist-grip shifters on a hot day, and
o they produce a deeply silly suntan :-)

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Do not top-post like a Cretinous Foul-Yob fit only for Stoning.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Dave Larrington >:
>Two other advantages of gloves:
>o they enable you to operate twist-grip shifters on a hot day, and
>o they produce a deeply silly suntan :-)

o old pairs of synthetic leather gloves make good punting gloves.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corrido r,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyak i,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose :yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!spar kle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace