PDA

View Full Version : Letter in Reading Chronicle


Just zis Guy, you know?
July 18th 03, 02:49 PM
Stone me! Despite its length the Editor appears to have printed my little
missive of last week, prompted by the posting here about Angela Lee's letter
in the Sluff Express.



Putting the lid on helmet argument
==================================
Jul 18 2003


ANGELA Lee nails her colours to the mast: so will I. I am a year-round cycle
commuter, riding about 5,000 miles on the roads per year. I am conscientious
about safety and have studied the literature on bicycle helmets with great
care.

I disagree profoundly with Ms Lee's analysis of the need for compulsion in
the use of cycle helmets.

The argument for compulsion is built on very shaky ground. In particular the
claim that injuries could be reduced by up to 80% is simply not supported by
any credible evidence.
When mandatory helmet wearing was introduced in Victoria, Australia, some
years ago the principal result was a large drop in the numbers of people
cycling - the injury rate (the proportion of cyclists suffering head
injuries) remained unchanged.

So Ms Lee's assertion that "There is no long-term disadvantage in making it
compulsory to wear cycle helmets ... [t]his is borne out by countries that
have compulsory helmet laws", is a misrepresentation: there is a long-term
disadvantage, in that numbers cycling remained depressed even a decade after
the law was introduced, and, more importantly, there is no provable benefit.

This is hardly a surprise. Cycle helmets are primarily designed to protect
in loss-of-control accidents at speeds up to 12 mph. Many adult cyclists on
the road will be going faster than this, and the involvement of a motor
vehicle in any crash immediately places it outside the design parameters of
the helmet.

There is also a mechanism known as risk compensation which describes the way
in which use of protective equipment can lead to an increase in risk-taking
behaviour. The best-known example in the UK is the introduction of
compulsory seat-belts for car drivers: the rates of pedestrian, cyclist and
rear-seat passenger fatalities rose sharply, and the benefit to drivers
declined below measurable levels within two years.

Helmets do appear to provide some protection for children and I fully
endorse encouragement of children to wear helmets. But compulsion? BHITs own
figures show that 90% of child cycle accidents occur in off-road play.

They do not suggest how legislation could be extended to cover these
accidents, most of which will be on private property. And of course they
fail to establish any parallel between children playing and experienced
adult cyclists on the road.

Ms Lee mentions that helmets are now compulsory in UCI sanctioned cycle
races. Are car drivers prepared to use helmets, fireproof suits, five-point
harnesses and rollover cages, as required by the motorsport governing
bodies? Or are we perhaps prepared to accept that there is a difference in
character between competitive sport and everyday life?

Promotion of cycle helmets carries with it a serious danger. The extent of
risk compensation is dependent on the perceived value of the protective
equipment - and in this respect cycle helmets are at best unproven. One
unhelmeted rider in a cycle race was killed: helmets are now mandatory.

Less is made of the two helmeted riders who have died recently. The
countries with the lowest injury rates have the lowest helmet wearing rates,
and the countries where helmet use is most prevalent have the highest injury
rates. Nowhere in the world is there any evidence of injury reductions
anywhere close to the oftrepeated 80% level - the studies which suggest this
figure appear to produce it out of a hat.

The original study which started the ball rolling, by Thompson, Rivara and
Thompson, also demonstrates that helmet wearing reduces leg and torso
injuries. Perhaps they were using full-body helmets?

Further problems come from the way that helmet promotion portrays cycling as
a risky activity. It is not. The BMA suggests that regular cyclists live
around a decade longer than average - the danger posed by motorised traffic
is more than offset by the inherent health benefits of cycling. So
aggressive helmet promotion campaigns risk discouraging a worthwhile
activity.

Finally, the monomania about helmets draws attention away from far more
important issues.

The most survivable crash is the one which never happens in the first
place - surely we should be focusing our attention on building excellence in
cycle training to equip young people with the means to use bikes safely.
Fear of a SMIDSY (sorry, mate, I didn't see you) drives many cyclists onto
pavement cycle paths, where conflicts with motor vehicles and pedestrians
multiply to the extent that they are at least three times more dangerous
than riding on the road.

Clearly there is more benefit in preventing crashes than in mitigating their
effects, particularly if the means of mitigation may increase the chances of
the crash happening in the first place.

Cycling on the road skilfully and as part of the traffic is a safe, healthy
way to travel. The more people do it, the safer it becomes.

Polystyrene hats are largely irrelevant to this.

GUY CHAPMAN

Caversham


--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

Peter Clinch
July 18th 03, 03:20 PM
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Stone me! Despite its length the Editor appears to have printed my little
> missive of last week, prompted by the posting here about Angela Lee's letter
> in the Sluff Express.

[snip]

Nice one Guy. Wish I'd read it before I composed a letter to my MP
earlier today as he's swallowed BHIT's propaganda hook, line and sinker,
and despite the length you managed to be a fair bit more concise than I
did! Ah well, hopefully he'll take up my invitation to read the
critique of RSR 30 by John Franklin...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Tony W
July 18th 03, 05:07 PM
"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> Stone me! Despite its length the Editor appears to have printed my little
> missive of last week, prompted by the posting here about Angela Lee's
letter
> in the Sluff Express.

snip

Bloody excellent -- a cogent and very well argued case.

I hope it doesn't start another h*lm*t flame war : (

T

M Series
July 18th 03, 09:50 PM
Top letter Guy. Please make it available on your website if it isn't already
so in case I need it in the future.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> Stone me! Despite its length the Editor appears to have printed my little
> missive of last week, prompted by the posting here about Angela Lee's
letter
> in the Sluff Express.
>
>
>
> Putting the lid on helmet argument
> ==================================
> Jul 18 2003
>
>
> ANGELA Lee nails her colours to the mast: so will I. I am a year-round
cycle
> commuter, riding about 5,000 miles on the roads per year. I am
conscientious
> about safety and have studied the literature on bicycle helmets with great
> care.
>
> I disagree profoundly with Ms Lee's analysis of the need for compulsion in
> the use of cycle helmets.
>
> The argument for compulsion is built on very shaky ground. In particular
the
> claim that injuries could be reduced by up to 80% is simply not supported
by
> any credible evidence.
> When mandatory helmet wearing was introduced in Victoria, Australia, some
> years ago the principal result was a large drop in the numbers of people
> cycling - the injury rate (the proportion of cyclists suffering head
> injuries) remained unchanged.
>
> So Ms Lee's assertion that "There is no long-term disadvantage in making
it
> compulsory to wear cycle helmets ... [t]his is borne out by countries that
> have compulsory helmet laws", is a misrepresentation: there is a long-term
> disadvantage, in that numbers cycling remained depressed even a decade
after
> the law was introduced, and, more importantly, there is no provable
benefit.
>
> This is hardly a surprise. Cycle helmets are primarily designed to protect
> in loss-of-control accidents at speeds up to 12 mph. Many adult cyclists
on
> the road will be going faster than this, and the involvement of a motor
> vehicle in any crash immediately places it outside the design parameters o
f
> the helmet.
>
> There is also a mechanism known as risk compensation which describes the
way
> in which use of protective equipment can lead to an increase in
risk-taking
> behaviour. The best-known example in the UK is the introduction of
> compulsory seat-belts for car drivers: the rates of pedestrian, cyclist
and
> rear-seat passenger fatalities rose sharply, and the benefit to drivers
> declined below measurable levels within two years.
>
> Helmets do appear to provide some protection for children and I fully
> endorse encouragement of children to wear helmets. But compulsion? BHITs
own
> figures show that 90% of child cycle accidents occur in off-road play.
>
> They do not suggest how legislation could be extended to cover these
> accidents, most of which will be on private property. And of course they
> fail to establish any parallel between children playing and experienced
> adult cyclists on the road.
>
> Ms Lee mentions that helmets are now compulsory in UCI sanctioned cycle
> races. Are car drivers prepared to use helmets, fireproof suits,
five-point
> harnesses and rollover cages, as required by the motorsport governing
> bodies? Or are we perhaps prepared to accept that there is a difference in
> character between competitive sport and everyday life?
>
> Promotion of cycle helmets carries with it a serious danger. The extent of
> risk compensation is dependent on the perceived value of the protective
> equipment - and in this respect cycle helmets are at best unproven. One
> unhelmeted rider in a cycle race was killed: helmets are now mandatory.
>
> Less is made of the two helmeted riders who have died recently. The
> countries with the lowest injury rates have the lowest helmet wearing
rates,
> and the countries where helmet use is most prevalent have the highest
injury
> rates. Nowhere in the world is there any evidence of injury reductions
> anywhere close to the oftrepeated 80% level - the studies which suggest
this
> figure appear to produce it out of a hat.
>
> The original study which started the ball rolling, by Thompson, Rivara and
> Thompson, also demonstrates that helmet wearing reduces leg and torso
> injuries. Perhaps they were using full-body helmets?
>
> Further problems come from the way that helmet promotion portrays cycling
as
> a risky activity. It is not. The BMA suggests that regular cyclists live
> around a decade longer than average - the danger posed by motorised
traffic
> is more than offset by the inherent health benefits of cycling. So
> aggressive helmet promotion campaigns risk discouraging a worthwhile
> activity.
>
> Finally, the monomania about helmets draws attention away from far more
> important issues.
>
> The most survivable crash is the one which never happens in the first
> place - surely we should be focusing our attention on building excellence
in
> cycle training to equip young people with the means to use bikes safely.
> Fear of a SMIDSY (sorry, mate, I didn't see you) drives many cyclists onto
> pavement cycle paths, where conflicts with motor vehicles and pedestrians
> multiply to the extent that they are at least three times more dangerous
> than riding on the road.
>
> Clearly there is more benefit in preventing crashes than in mitigating
their
> effects, particularly if the means of mitigation may increase the chances
of
> the crash happening in the first place.
>
> Cycling on the road skilfully and as part of the traffic is a safe,
healthy
> way to travel. The more people do it, the safer it becomes.
>
> Polystyrene hats are largely irrelevant to this.
>
> GUY CHAPMAN
>
> Caversham
>
>
> --
> Guy
> ===
>
> WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.com
>
>

James Hodson
July 19th 03, 01:32 AM
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:49:20 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>Stone me! Despite its length the Editor appears to have printed my little
>missive of last week, prompted by the posting here about Angela Lee's letter
>in the Sluff Express.
>

Guy

D'you have a copy of the letter from Angela Lee that prompted your
reply?

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Larrau.jpg

Just zis Guy, you know?
July 19th 03, 06:57 AM
in article , James Hodson at
wrote on 19/7/2003 1:32 am:


> D'you have a copy of the letter from Angela Lee that prompted your
> reply?

Looking for it.

Here's another from Alan Stuart:

Helmets won't prevent accidents
===============================
Jun 5 2003
*

I HAVE got behind with my reading and have only just seen the letter from
Angela Lee regarding cycle helmets in your May 15 edition.

Ms Lee referred to the International Cycling Union (ICU) being in favour of
the compulsory wearing of helmets.

I imagine she was actually talking about the Union Cycliste Internationale
(UCI). This is an acceptable mistake for someone who knows little about
cycling organisations.

It is not however acceptable to tell the public that this organisation is in
favour of the compulsory wearing of helmets for utilitarian and leisure
cyclists. The UCI is concerned only with racing cyclists, a very different
story.

The national organisation for cycling in this country is The Cyclists
Touring Club (CTC).

The CTC is concerned with all aspects of cycling, and with its considerable
knowledge of all the ramifications of helmet wearing it is against
compulsion.

That is not to say that they do not recognise the protection that helmets
give. Indeed the majority of its members, including myself, do wear them.

The reason that compulsion is considered unwise is because of the lessons
learned in the few countries that have tried it.

Such a law deters many, other than keen cyclists, and they revert to their
cars, even for short journeys. This does not help official Government policy
of trebling cycling by 2010.

The wearing of helmets is of course desirable but it does nothing to prevent
accidents.

If Angela Lee is concerned with safety and the saving of cyclists lives, I
would respectfully suggest that she considers one of the major causes of
accidents, namely drivers not leaving sufficient room when overtaking.

When I am driving I am very aware of this need but sadly there are a number
of drivers who are not regular cyclists and do not have this understanding.
Some countries do legislate for this and insist on 1.5 to 2 metres.

If Angela Lee would direct her energies to publicising this I suspect the
results would be rather more fruitful.

ALAN STUART

The Old Stocks Inn

Beenham

Just zis Guy, you know?
July 19th 03, 07:22 AM
in article , James Hodson at
wrote on 19/7/2003 1:32 am:


> D'you have a copy of the letter from Angela Lee that prompted your
> reply?

Yer tiz:

Cost of not wearing a helmet
Jun 26 2003
*

I THINK it will be helpful if I summarise my work and that of the Bicycle
Helmet Initiative Trust in encouraging young people to wear cycle helmets.

In doing so, I hope it may stop adult cyclists with their own agendas giving
one of the most vulnerable group of cyclists further ill-thought-through
excuses not to wear one.

It is a pity such people and organisations are prepared to place their
agendas above the lives of young people.

Based on projections from the results of our campaigns (in Reading and other
sites), if all young cyclists were to wear helmets, it would reduce the
number of head injuries from a cycling accident by up to 80%.

In real terms, it equates to 20,000 young people being spared such tragedies
each year.

The savings in healthcare costs alone would approximate to £2,000,000,000
annually.

You cannot quantify discomfort and suffering, or the reaches of such human
feelings particularly among family and friends.

These are very real results which can be achieved and which we have proven
from our extensive knowledge of the UK and other countries.

There is no long-term disadvantage in making it compulsory to wear cycle
helmets with the under 16s or across the board.

This is borne out by countries that have compulsory helmet laws.

Indeed, it is possible the most effective way of curbing peer pressure and
the need to look trendy among the young.

The fact will always remain that it is not wrong to wear a helmet. The
evidence shows it is beneficial.

We have legalised seat belts (front and rear), helmets for motorcyclists,
the mandatory use of child seats - none of these laws have reduced the use
of motorised transport.

The above highlights why we are not opposed to the legalisation of helmets
for the under-16s.

In the UK, less than 2% of the injuries sustained by young people are from
accidents, but also knowledge of safe cycling, proper cycle maintenance and
training.

Children, like some adults, will only hear what they want to hear, and they
will use any excuse to defend their position.

A fundamental distinction between children and adults is their powers of
reasoning are being developed and they need to take the lead from adults in
the assessment of risks.

It is for this reason it is of value for organisations such as the Union
Cycliste Internationale, otherwise called the International Cycling Union,
to make this mandatory and other high profile cyclists to endorse and be
seen to endorse helmet use.

Indeed, it would be of enormous value if the Cycling Touring Club was to
follow suit, although I am pleased to note the majority of its members wear
helmets.

The wearing of a helmet does not stop cycling being a healthy pursuit, if
anything it is the reverse - it provides protection in an accident to an
important organ.

We do not suggest cycling is dangerous, nor does the wearing of a helmet
imply that.

Over the years, we have been successful in changing attitudes and as a
result have saved a great many young lives.

ANGELA LEE

Executive Director The Bicycle Helmet Initiative
Trust Milford Road,

Reading

Ambrose Nankivell
July 19th 03, 09:37 AM
In ,
Just zis Guy, you know? > typed:
> in article , James Hodson at
> wrote on 19/7/2003 1:32 am:
>> D'you have a copy of the letter from Angela Lee that prompted your
>> reply?
> Cost of not wearing a helmet
> Jun 26 2003
<snip>
> In real terms, it equates to 20,000 young people being spared such
tragedies
> each year.
>
> The savings in healthcare costs alone would approximate to
> 2,000,000,000 annually.

So each and every one of us are already paying more than the equivalent of a
bike helmet a year in healthcare costs caring for children who've had head
injuries from cycling. Assuming that's correct, it's quite worrying, and it
would be interesting to see an analysis of the most effective ways to solve
this problem.

Ambrose

Ian Smith
July 19th 03, 10:23 AM
On Sat, 19 Jul, Ambrose Nankivell <$FirstnameInitialofSurname$> wrote:
> In ,
> Just zis Guy, you know? > typed:
> > in article , James Hodson at
> > wrote on 19/7/2003 1:32 am:
> >> D'you have a copy of the letter from Angela Lee that prompted your
> >> reply?
> >
> > The savings in healthcare costs alone would approximate to
> > 2,000,000,000 annually.
>
> So each and every one of us are already paying more than the equivalent of a
> bike helmet a year in healthcare costs caring for children who've had head
> injuries from cycling. Assuming that's correct, it's quite worrying,

That's a pretty big assunption, however, given teh reliability of teh
other statistics she quoted.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Not me, someone else
July 19th 03, 10:26 AM
Just zis Guy, you know? deftly scribbled:

Snipped an excellent article .. ;)

I must say that although I do wear a helmet and encourage my children to
wear helmets, it is a choice we make, using the facts known to us. This has
given me added knowledge and I must say it makes an extremely good choice
for non-compulsion, certainly a better case than the pro-compulsion lobby I
feel.

> Cycling on the road skilfully and as part of the traffic is a safe,
> healthy way to travel. The more people do it, the safer it becomes.

I couldn't agree more with this.

Well said .. ;)

--
Digweed

Ian Smith
July 19th 03, 02:12 PM
On Sat, 19 Jul Michael MacClancy > wrote:
> In message >, Ian Smith
> > writes
> >That's a pretty big assunption, however, given teh reliability of teh
> >other statistics she quoted.
>
> I've often read your posts and wondered why you frequently write 'teh'
> instead of 'the'. Is this simply a typo or are there other reasons?

Habit & idleness. That's teh way it comes out, and I'm too idle to
fix it. Through long exposure, I often don't spot it even when I
intend to change it.

Anyhow, at least it gives teh people that know me a way to spot
imposters!

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Just zis Guy, you know?
July 19th 03, 02:42 PM
in article , Tony W at
wrote on 19/7/2003 1:49 pm:

>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Assuming that the 80% saving estimate is accurate, which is clearly a very
>> big assumption given that it appears to originate from messrs. Thompson,
>> Rivara and Thompson.
>>
>> It is also the case that some of the "head injuries" logged are
> superficial.
>> And even a scalp wound requiring treatment at A&E is unlikely to cost
>> £100,000. In fact the £2bn figure has the whiff of Complete ********
> about
>> it. As does the 20,000 injuries figure, to be honest. Do we really
> believe
>> that roughly one in a thousand children will suffer bicycle-related head
>> injuries of a potentially life-threatening nature every year?
>
> There were 11.85 million 0-15 year olds in 2001 (census data)
>
> A 0.2% per annum chance of 'severe' head injury -- higher if you eliminate
> all those who are too young or have never ridden a bike -- (or a 1:40
> chance by the time you reach 15) sounds like we should all personally know
> several kids who are badly brain damaged due to cycling accidents.
>
> Definite whiff of Complete Bolox [tm] and statistical inflation.

Excellent point.

"In real terms, [an 80% reduction in head injuries] equates to 20,000 young
people being spared such tragedies each year. The savings in healthcare
costs alone would approximate to £2,000,000,000 annually."

There are you say 11.85 million children under 18 in the UK. Assuming they
start to ride at the age of five, that means the chances of suffering a
serious head injury by the age of 18 are around 1 in 26 by my calculations -
does that sound right? That's assuming every single child cycles.

Put another way, one child in every primary school class will, according to
Angela Lee's figures, suffer a head injury costing the NHS an average of
£100,000. And helmets will prevent 4 out of 5 of these.

Anyone who wants to write to the editor of the Reading Chronic to point out
the absurdity of Angela Lee's statistics can find him at
www.icberkshire.com.

We wouldn't want dodgy statistics to go unchallenged, would we ;-)

Guy

Tony W
July 19th 03, 04:30 PM
"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
>
> Excellent point.
>
> "In real terms, [an 80% reduction in head injuries] equates to 20,000
young
> people being spared such tragedies each year. The savings in healthcare
> costs alone would approximate to £2,000,000,000 annually."
>
> There are you say 11.85 million children under 18 in the UK.

Under 16 (0-15 in the census stats)

> Assuming they
> start to ride at the age of five, that means the chances of suffering a
> serious head injury by the age of 18 are around 1 in 26 by my
calculations -
> does that sound right? That's assuming every single child cycles.

About 1 in 27 to 28 but there's enough rounding and assumption error not to
get too jumpy.
>
> Put another way, one child in every primary school class will, according
to
> Angela Lee's figures, suffer a head injury costing the NHS an average of
> £100,000. And helmets will prevent 4 out of 5 of these.
>
> Anyone who wants to write to the editor of the Reading Chronic to point
out
> the absurdity of Angela Lee's statistics can find him at
> www.icberkshire.com.

A local would be good.

>
> We wouldn't want dodgy statistics to go unchallenged, would we ;-)

No. Its our civic & democratic duty to eliminate spin.

T

Hywel & Ros
July 19th 03, 09:02 PM
I'd be interested to know who the "bicycle helmet initiative trust" are
exactly ?
Wouldn't by chance be a trade organisation would they ?

(Excellent letter from Guy "just zis Guy" Chapman by the way)

On another matter, is there some kind of "must have a bell", or even "must
have a bell with bike when sold" rule these days ?

For what it's worth I almost always do wear a helmet but strongly object to
compulsion - not least because the Joe Brown climbing helmet I wear would
not comply with the cycle helmet standards and would thus be forced to wear
a "less-safe" piece of equipment. It even has a (caving) lamp-bracket on the
front, though I've yet to use this feature on the bike

Hywel

Just zis Guy, you know?
July 19th 03, 09:17 PM
in article , Hywel & Ros at
wrote on 19/7/2003 9:02 pm:

> It even has a (caving) lamp-bracket on the
> front, though I've yet to use this feature on the bike

I use a Petzl headtorch in winter, so it's definitely a Great Idea to have a
bracket on your lid :-)

Guy

Just zis Guy, you know?
July 20th 03, 10:19 AM
in article , Hywel & Ros at
wrote on 19/7/2003 9:02 pm:

> It even has a (caving) lamp-bracket on the
> front, though I've yet to use this feature on the bike

I use a Petzl headtorch in winter, so it's definitely a Great Idea to have a
bracket on your lid :-)

Guy

David Hansen
July 20th 03, 12:36 PM
On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 07:22:42 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" > wrote this:-

>> D'you have a copy of the letter from Angela Lee

>Cost of not wearing a helmet
>Jun 26 2003
>*
>In doing so, I hope it may stop adult cyclists with their own agendas

Is Angela Lee not an adult non-cyclist with her own agenda? If so,
one might like to ponder on who it is best to believe.

>It is a pity such people and organisations are prepared to place their
>agendas above the lives of young people.

Ah, shroud waving. Always a good standby for those bereft of better
points.

>Based on projections from the results of our campaigns

I don't have flash, so can't see their web site. Does she place
these projections on her web site? I for one would like to see these
projections as, if they exist, they are probably as bogus as some
other "statistics" I could name.

if all young cyclists were to wear helmets, it would reduce the
>number of head injuries from a cycling accident by up to 80%.

I suspect that the 80% figure was the target (we should all know
where it comes from) and any "projections" fitted the data to the
desired outcome.

>We have legalised seat belts (front and rear),

Which led to a 40% increase in cyclist fatalities.

>helmets for motorcyclists,
>the mandatory use of child seats - none of these laws have reduced the use
>of motorised transport.

For the first and last ones those disadvantaged are largely those
outside the car, which is very different.

For the second one my recollection is that it did reduce the numbers
of people motorcycling, though not by a huge amount The reason why
cycling is different is that the disadvantages of the helmet are a
greater proportion. It's also worth noting that motorcyclists,
despite their helmets, suffer a higher proportion of head injuries
than cyclists. Angela Lee might like to try to explain that away.

>In the UK, less than 2% of the injuries sustained by young people are from
>accidents,

I find this very difficult to believe. Perhaps she means cycling
"accidents".

>Children, like some adults, will only hear what they want to hear, and they
>will use any excuse to defend their position.

One of the adults that will only hear what they want to hear and
will use any excuse to defend their position is the author of the
quoted letter.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

RobinT
July 21st 03, 12:31 AM
Have e-mailed my MP with copy of your letter (credited). Shall let you know.
Cheers,
Robin

Peter Clinch
July 21st 03, 09:02 AM
Hywel & Ros wrote:
> I'd be interested to know who the "bicycle helmet initiative trust" are
> exactly ?
> Wouldn't by chance be a trade organisation would they ?

No, they're a charity and a well meaning one at that. Unfortunately
"well meaning" does not necessarily equate to having/using brains and
AFAICT they're blinded by the light of their own "common sense" message.

The fact that their patron is, IIRC, that well known cyclist David
Coulthard says a lot about their degree of connection with Real Cyclists :-(

They sent my MP their propaganda pack, which he in turn sent to me in
the wake of a letter to the DfT about their questionable new helmet
promotion that I copied to him. I've pointed him at a few more balanced
resources and hopefully he'll realise that there's more to being benign
and improving safety than meaning well.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Paul Kelly
July 21st 03, 10:36 AM
I'm increasingly facinated by teh recurring debates on Helmet wearing esp
wrt compulsion. I've moved from agnostic to agreeing that compulsion would
be a backward step. Franklin's review of RSR30 is as imprssive as it is
comprehensive.

But one aspect of the data that I can't find anywhere that nags away att he
back of my mind relates to the statement: <<Most noticeable in this context
is the lack of any
reference to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission announcement12 that
an increase in helmet
wearing from 18% to 50% between 1991 and 2001 was associated with a 40% rise
in risk of head
injury>>

This bald statement begs questions about any concommitant change in cycling
behaviour over the same period and whether like is being coampared with
like. Off road MTB use has risen dramatically over the same sort of period.
Is there any data that identifies the 'source' of cycling head injury eg:
On-road vs Off road mtb.

pk

David Hansen
July 21st 03, 12:44 PM
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 17:16:02 +0100 someone who may be Ben
> wrote this:-

>I think this is down to the fact that most sensible motorcyclists
>(basically anyone not in MAG) could see that helmets on bikes were a
>pretty good idea given the speed you tend to hit the ground at.

Any thoughts on why there has not been a holocaust of motorcyclists
in Florida, following the repeal of the helmet law?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen
July 21st 03, 12:54 PM
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:02:33 +0100 someone who may be Peter Clinch
> wrote this:-

>Hywel & Ros wrote:
>> I'd be interested to know who the "bicycle helmet initiative trust" are
>> exactly ?
>
>No, they're a charity and a well meaning one at that. Unfortunately
>"well meaning" does not necessarily equate to having/using brains and
>AFAICT they're blinded by the light of their own "common sense" message.

I'm sure that this (largely) one-woman operation thinks that it is
well meaning. However, that does not mean that it actually is well
meaning.

A problem with "well meaning" organisations is that they tend be
influenced by bad religion, where if you are not with us you are to
be cast into outer darkness to burn in the everlasting fires of hell
and so on. That would not be much of a problem, were it not that
party politicians and civil servants have spent a lot of my money to
prop BHIT up.

"Well meaning" people have been behind many of the most awful
mistakes. Mr Liar is an interesting example.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Just zis Guy, you know?
July 21st 03, 01:11 PM
"David Hansen" > wrote in message
...

> I'm sure that this (largely) one-woman operation thinks that it is
> well meaning

Angie Lee is a nurse - remember what happened when a couple of
paediatricians got involved in helmet advocacy. The problem is, health
professionals involved in treating head injuries are generally concerned
with P (injury | accident) and never realise that their preferred solution
may well increase P (accident) to the extent that P (injury) increases.
Also, they have a terrible tendency to believe Thompson, Rivara and
Thompson. Believing six impossible things before breakfast is not
necessarily a good starting point for road safety campaigning.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

Just zis Guy, you know?
July 21st 03, 01:12 PM
"David Hansen" > wrote in message
...

> Any thoughts on why there has not been a holocaust of motorcyclists
> in Florida, following the repeal of the helmet law?


I'm just guessing here, but it could be because the figures used to justify
the law were Complete ********.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.com

David Hansen
July 21st 03, 02:16 PM
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:11:23 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" > wrote this:-

>Angie Lee is a nurse

And bases her arguments on an emotional case she was involved in.

>Believing six impossible things before breakfast is not
>necessarily a good starting point for road safety campaigning.

The road "safety" lobby have got a lot of money out of government by
adopting this approach.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Peter B
July 21st 03, 10:28 PM
"Ben" > wrote in message
...
> I remember reading that DC does a lot of mountain biking and road
> riding as training for his F1 driving. So he may very well have a
> good idea about cycling.

I too have heard this. I also read that Colin McRae takes to a bike quite a
bit but commented that he doesn't like cycling in the UK due to the "car
culture".

Pete

Graeme Dods
July 22nd 03, 01:27 PM
David Hansen > wrote in message >...
<snip>
> A problem with "well meaning" organisations is that they tend be
> influenced by bad religion, where if you are not with us you are to
> be cast into outer darkness to burn in the everlasting fires of hell
> and so on.

Oh I don't know, it's not *that* dark out here, the fires give the
place a nice reddish glow and there's plenty of light from all these
lamps us outcasts use on our bikes :-)

I'm well used to being treated like that from different quarters by
various evangelists - helmet, car, the plain old religious kind etc.
Funnily enough I've noticed that us lot out here tend to appear a lot
more sane (but who am I to judge sanity).

Have fun!

Graeme

JohnB
July 22nd 03, 06:55 PM
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

>
>
> > I'm well used to being treated like that from different quarters by
> > various evangelists - helmet, car, the plain old religious kind etc.
>
> I think you'll find that I evangelise my Apple Mac

Huh. Bl**dy things.
Last week my Cube just did the big bang when the lecky men started digging the
road up resulting in a mega hole in the bank account.

> and my recumbent much
> more often than my religion :-)

I'll go with that.
After the bang I took the trice for a spin - excellent therapy :-)

John B

Just zis Guy, you know?
July 22nd 03, 07:55 PM
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:55:48 +0100, JohnB > wrote:

>Last week my Cube just did the big bang when the lecky men started digging the
>road up resulting in a mega hole in the bank account.

Gloom. My old beige G3 is still going fine - runs OS X, too :-)

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
[currently offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]

Graeme
July 22nd 03, 08:27 PM
"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in
:

> "Graeme Dods" > wrote

>> I'm well used to being treated like that from different quarters by
>> various evangelists - helmet, car, the plain old religious kind etc.

> I think you'll find that I evangelise my Apple Mac and my recumbent
> much more often than my religion :-)

The above wasn't a snipe at you Guy (I'm slightly worried that you hardly
*ever* say anything I disagree with, I'm sure I had a mind of my own
somewhere round here :-) I was talking more of the real hard-nosed bible
bashers out there. I once worked in a company that seemed to be run
almost totally by born again Christians (I think they let me in as part
of an equal opportunities drive - the token atheist). Many's the time I
sat there being challenged "to take God into my heart" whilst I was
trying to write a database front end. All I could think was "I challenge
you to **** off and let me work in peace". I tend to class people as
evangelical if they have a level of fervour that is more likely to put
many people off than win them over.

Mac "evangelists" are easy to ignore, they're all mad ;-)

Have fun!

Graeme

Danny Colyer
July 22nd 03, 08:51 PM
Graeme wrote:
> Mac "evangelists" are easy to ignore, they're all mad ;-)

Yeah, but then Christian evangelists ought to be pretty easy to ignore
on the same basis ;-)

This is fun:
http://www.sistertaffy.com/

--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny )
Recumbent cycle page: http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

David Hansen
July 22nd 03, 09:19 PM
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:42:24 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" > wrote this:-

>I think you'll find that I evangelise my Apple Mac and my recumbent much
>more often than my religion :-)

Perhaps they are your religion:-)

The former tend to be evangelised to outsiders. However, as someone
who has a Mac a metre away from me as I type this message I know the
reality.

I'll leave recumbents, except to say that they have many attractive
qualities.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Just zis Guy, you know?
July 22nd 03, 09:33 PM
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 19:27:47 -0000, Graeme
> wrote:

>I was talking more of the real hard-nosed bible
>bashers out there.

Ah, well, you have to realise that challenging you is their way of
avoiding challenging themselves ;-)

>I once worked in a company that seemed to be run
>almost totally by born again Christians

Careful again - I'm one too ;-)

>I tend to class people as
>evangelical if they have a level of fervour that is more likely to put
>many people off than win them over.

That makes them singularly ineffective evangelists. All the best ones
gave direct and challenging answers when asked, but mostly led by
example

>Mac "evangelists" are easy to ignore, they're all mad ;-)

As a brush. The whole lot of us :-D

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
[currently offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]

Google

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home