Cycling promotion v. helmet promotion

A bit late in the day (it was published in 2002) another report has
been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
cycling.

Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns
trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning,
Rapport 3, 2002.
(http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...er/rap0302.pdf)

This gives helmet promotion as an example of the activities that had
made parents less positive about cycling, leading to a 30% reduction
in children cycling to school.

This backs other research which has I think been discussed here
before, but it's interesting (to me, anyway) how quiet government
reports and other sources are on this subject, and how little work
they have commissioned on assessing whether there is any negative
impact from the "dangerfying" of cycling in helmet campaigns.

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

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:53:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

A bit late in the day (it was published in 2002) another report has
been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
cycling.

Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns
trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning,
Rapport 3, 2002.
(http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...er/rap0302.pdf)

This gives helmet promotion as an example of the activities that had
made parents less positive about cycling, leading to a 30% reduction
in children cycling to school.

Well we will have to take your word for that - unless you have an
English translation so that we could read for ourselves.

anyone want a pinch of salt?

I trust we can believe you - you're not prone to lying are you?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can **** right off. (Guy Chapman) -
proof to yet be provided.

.............. the driver is also responsible for the use of seat belts
of passengers. (Guy Chapman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On 7 Sep, 14:46, judith wrote:
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:53:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"

wrote:
A bit late in the day (it was published in 2002) another report has
been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
cycling.

Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns
trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning,
Rapport 3, 2002.
(http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...er/rap0302.pdf)

This gives helmet promotion as an example of the activities that had
made parents less positive about cycling, leading to a 30% reduction
in children cycling to school.

Well we will have to take your word for that - unless you have an
English translation so that we could read for ourselves.

Children's travel
The analyses show that the number of children driven in cars to and
from an
average Danish school has doubled from 1993 to 1998-2000. About 5-10%
of
this increase is due to a rise in car ownership, while 5-15% is due to
school
closures and 25-30% is due to a lower average age among children.
However,
55-60% of the increase must be a result of changed perceptions and
attitudes.
The changing attitudes seem predominantly to consist of a still less
positive
attitude towards cycling. A possibility is that parents due to
increased car traffic,
road safety campaigns and the media etc. today are more concerned on
their children’s behalf and have set new limits for the children’s
independent
mobility. Changed attitudes towards the use of cycle helmets during
the
1990s, which lead to an increase use of helmets, can also have
contributed to
a shift from cycling to walking, car and bus.
The primary trend during the past 20 years is that fewer children walk
to and
from school and instead are driven in cars. This trend is also
prevailing on
trips in the leisure time, on which 11-15-year-olds also cycle less
today.
An analysis show that age, sex, public transport supply, distance
between
home and school, car ownership and land use structures influence
children’s
transport mode choice. For example is 73% of all trips travelled by
foot and
bicycle among children with less than 1.5 km to school, while this is
only 26%
among children with more than 7.5 km to school.

anyone want a pinch of salt?

I trust we can believe you - you're not prone to lying are you?

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 07:46:23 -0700 (PDT), Eric
wrote:

On 7 Sep, 14:46, judith wrote:
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:53:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"

wrote:
A bit late in the day (it was published in 2002) another report has
been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
cycling.

Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns
trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning,
Rapport 3, 2002.
(http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...er/rap0302.pdf)

This gives helmet promotion as an example of the activities that had
made parents less positive about cycling, leading to a 30% reduction
in children cycling to school.

Well we will have to take your word for that - unless you have an
English translation so that we could read for ourselves.

Children's travel
The analyses show that the number of children driven in cars to and
from an
average Danish school has doubled from 1993 to 1998-2000. About 5-10%
of
this increase is due to a rise in car ownership, while 5-15% is due to
school
closures and 25-30% is due to a lower average age among children.
However,
55-60% of the increase must be a result of changed perceptions and
attitudes.
The changing attitudes seem predominantly to consist of a still less
positive
attitude towards cycling. A possibility is that parents due to
increased car traffic,
road safety campaigns and the media etc. today are more concerned on
their children’s behalf and have set new limits for the children’s
independent
mobility. Changed attitudes towards the use of cycle helmets during
the
1990s, which lead to an increase use of helmets, can also have
contributed to
a shift from cycling to walking, car and bus.
The primary trend during the past 20 years is that fewer children walk
to and
from school and instead are driven in cars. This trend is also
prevailing on
trips in the leisure time, on which 11-15-year-olds also cycle less
today.
An analysis show that age, sex, public transport supply, distance
between
home and school, car ownership and land use structures influence
children’s
transport mode choice. For example is 73% of all trips travelled by
foot and
bicycle among children with less than 1.5 km to school, while this is
only 26%
among children with more than 7.5 km to school.

anyone want a pinch of salt?

I trust we can believe you - you're not prone to lying are you?

Yes thanks - he was as usual putting the Chapman spin on things:

The summary doesn't actually say that "helmet promotion deters
cycling" does it?

But it does say:

Increased use of safety belts and cycle helmets can explain
approximately 30% of the fall in injuries and is the primary cause to
a significant reduction in accident severity.

I think it also shows that the Danish parents have realised that
cycling can be just too dangerous and are not allowing the
"independent mobility" of cycling:

A possibility is that parents due to increased car traffic,
road safety campaigns and the media etc. today are more concerned on
their children’s behalf and have set new limits for the children’s
independent mobility.

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:53:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

A bit late in the day (it was published in 2002) another report has
been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
cycling.

Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns
trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning,
Rapport 3, 2002.
(http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...er/rap0302.pdf)


What the ****wit hasn't made clear is that although the paper is in
Danish - it does contain a summary in English.

(and of course it doesn't support what he says in his post - no
surprise there then)


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Sep 7, 4:09*pm, judith wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 07:46:23 -0700 (PDT), Eric
wrote:



On 7 Sep, 14:46, judith wrote:
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:53:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"

wrote:
A bit late in the day (it was published in 2002) another report has
been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
cycling.

Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns
trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning,
Rapport 3, 2002.
(http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...r/rap0302..pdf)

This gives helmet promotion as an example of the activities that had
made parents less positive about cycling, leading to a 30% reduction
in children cycling to school.

Well we will have to take your word for that - unless you have an
English translation so that we could read for ourselves.

Children's travel
The analyses show that the number of children driven in cars to and
from an
average Danish school has doubled from 1993 to 1998-2000. About 5-10%
of
this increase is due to a rise in car ownership, while 5-15% is due to
school
closures and 25-30% is due to a lower average age among children.
However,
55-60% of the increase must be a result of changed perceptions and
attitudes.
The changing attitudes seem predominantly to consist of a still less
positive
attitude towards cycling. A possibility is that parents due to
increased car traffic,
road safety campaigns and the media etc. today are more concerned on
their children’s behalf and have set new limits for the children’s
independent
mobility. Changed attitudes towards the use of cycle helmets during
the
1990s, which lead to an increase use of helmets, can also have
contributed to
a shift from cycling to walking, car and bus.
The primary trend during the past 20 years is that fewer children walk
to and
from school and instead are driven in cars. This trend is also
prevailing on
trips in the leisure time, on which 11-15-year-olds also cycle less
today.
An analysis show that age, sex, public transport supply, distance
between
home and school, car ownership and land use structures influence
children’s
transport mode choice. For example is 73% of all trips travelled by
foot and
bicycle among children with less than 1.5 km to school, while this is
only 26%
among children with more than 7.5 km to school.

anyone want a pinch of salt?

I trust we can believe you - you're not prone to lying are you?

Yes thanks - he was as usual putting the Chapman spin on things:

The summary doesn't actually say that "helmet promotion deters
cycling" does it?

But it does say:

The study analyses the development in accidents and travel among 6-16-
year olds
in Denmark. The number of injuries in this age group dropped by 46% in
the period 1985-2000. About 25% of the reduction in injuries occurred
due to
decreasing child figures and average age among children.

Increased use of safety belts and cycle helmets can explain
approximately 30% of the fall in injuries and is the primary cause to
a significant reduction in accident severity.

The
number of children per school that are driven by car on school
journeys seem
to have doubled from 1993 to 1998-2000. The share of children cycling
to
school seems to have decreased almost 30%, while use of public
transport and
walking increased. The changes in travel can be explained by changes
in demography,
school closures, increased car ownership and changed attitudes among
children and parents. On the total journeys, the 6-10-year-olds have
doubled
their car trips and reduced their walking trips by 40% from 1978 to
1998-2000,
while 11-15-year-olds have tripled their car trips during the same
period.

I think it also shows that the Danish parents have realised that
cycling can be just too dangerous and are not allowing the
"independent mobility" of cycling:

Due to pressures from the safety lobby promoting helmets and the
dangerisation of cycling, just as Guy said.

Note above, it lumps seat belts and helmets together.

A possibility is that parents due to increased car traffic,
road safety campaigns and the media etc. today are more concerned on
their children’s behalf and have set new limits for the children’s
independent mobility.

-- *
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Sep 7, 4:16*pm, judith wrote:
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:53:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"

wrote:
A bit late in the day (it was published in 2002) another report has
been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
cycling.

Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns
trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning,
Rapport 3, 2002.
(http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...er/rap0302.pdf)

What the ****wit hasn't made clear is that although the paper is in
Danish - it does contain a summary in English.

Why didn't you try looking?

(and of course it doesn't support what he says in his post - no
surprise there then)

You also wrote:

I think it also shows that the Danish parents have realised that
cycling can be just too dangerous and are not allowing the
"independent mobility" of cycling:

A possibility is that parents due to increased car traffic,
road safety campaigns and the media etc. today are more concerned on
their children’s behalf and have set new limits for the children’s
independent mobility.

i.e. the dangerisation of cycling.

you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 08:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Eric
wrote:

snip



Increased use of safety belts and cycle helmets can explain
approximately 30% of the fall in injuries and is the primary cause to
a significant reduction in accident severity.
snip


Due to pressures from the safety lobby promoting helmets and the
dangerisation of cycling, just as Guy said.

Please point out where it actually mentions the promotion of helmets
as contributing to a reduction in cycling.

Cycling is dangerous - this is a good reason for not cycling in some
circumstances - on some roads

Helmets help to reduce injury - this is not a good reason for not
cycling in some circumstances or on some roads

Would you agree?


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 08:40:45 -0700 (PDT), Eric
wrote:

On Sep 7, 4:16*pm, judith wrote:
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:53:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"

wrote:
A bit late in the day (it was published in 2002) another report has
been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
cycling.

Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns
trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning,
Rapport 3, 2002.
(http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-L...er/rap0302.pdf)

What the ****wit hasn't made clear is that although the paper is in
Danish - it does contain a summary in English.

Why didn't you try looking?


I looked at the paper - there was no indication that it was in other
than Danish. A sensible person would have said something like:

"Here is a paper in Danish which also has an English summary."

The ****wit Chapman is not a sensible person.

Anyway I do like the bit where is says that cycle helmets contributed
to a decrease in injuries - so some good comes out of his post.


--

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can **** right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 08:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Eric
said in
:

Due to pressures from the safety lobby promoting helmets and the
dangerisation of cycling, just as Guy said.

See also Hillman & Whitelegg, "One False Move" and Davis' "Death on
the streets". I don't think it's especially surprising that talking
up the danger of cycling in order to promote helmets, has the effect
of deterring cycling. I only know of one study that even tries to
contradict this; that study was written by Angela Lee of BHIT and is
of no objective worth - certainly it is not widely cited (and for
good reason).

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