Lawmaking by the bereaved?

[thirdcrank]

... It was only an observation that Boardman - accused of hypocrisy for selling helmets while telling us that they aren't worth discussing as a safety aid - is, in fact, an arch pragmatist. He's interested in promoting what works, but otherwise leaving people to their own choices. Remembering your thoughts on pragmatism and, I'd say, most of your posts, it seemed obvious that you would be a Boardmanite.

That's all. Boring, isn't it!

Thanks for that clarification: the helmet connection had gone right over my head - so far over that I didn't even need anything to protect my bonce. I was unaware that CB's range of bike wares included helmets so that's perhaps worse than pragmatism. FWIW, I thought that by mentioning him on this thread I might have been going off topic, which probably shows how poorly-informed I am. If I think hard, I can remember him advocating helmets on one of the occasions when he crashed out of the TdeF.

I'm left wondering about "them." Perhaps I'm over-sensitive.

[mjr]

If I think hard, I can remember [Boardman] advocating helmets on one of the occasions when he crashed out of the TdeF.

That seems surprising. He retired before compulsion was forced upon pro racers and I think he often wore a fairing for time trials, rather than a helmet, and I don't think it would have prevented any of his crashing out: he abandoned 1994 stage 11 ([url=[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/07/98/tour_de_france/131943.stm]reported as "pulled out"[/url]), crashed out 1995 prologue (broken ankle and wrist), completed 1996, crashed out 1997 stage 13 (displaced two vertebrae, same source), crashed out 1998 stage 2 (concussion, only quoted as "very disappointed"), completed 1999, missed 2000 (sinusitis), then retired because he needed banned drugs to treat a medical problem.

[thirdcrank]

mjr

I'm not really sure what point you are making, but in making it you seem to imply that CB only ever wore a fairing and that there's some suggestion in my earlier post that he said a helmet would have prevented him "crashing out."

I'm saying that, at least on occasions, he wore a cycling helmet (I cannot think of an adjective to mean a normal road racing-type helmet) on massed start AKA en ligne stages of the TdeF. And here's a pic which is the extent of the research I currently plan to undertake:

Chris Boardman.jpg (20.23 KiB) Viewed 488 times

I'm also saying that IIRC on one of the occasions he abandoned as the result of a crash, he was wearing a helmet which, when interviewed on Ch 4 he said had saved him from worse injury. The fact that you have been unable to find a printed version of the interview doesn't affect my memory, although it's a tribute to your determination that you even bothered to look.

[Psamathe]

... It was only an observation that Boardman - accused of hypocrisy for selling helmets while telling us that they aren't worth discussing as a safety aid - is, in fact, an arch pragmatist. He's interested in promoting what works, but otherwise leaving people to their own choices. ...

I don't see selling helmets and arguing against their compulsion (or even arguing their ineffectiveness) as being hypocritical. You could say that somebody selling helmets whilst arguing about their ineffectiveness is actually being honest and in effect saying that if people really want to ignore what he is saying and buy a helmet they might as well buy a good one (from him).

I see helmet wearing (or persuading others to wear helmets) as being very different from arguing for compulsion. I wear a helmet and would argue strongly against compulsion. I don't try and persuade others to but if somebody genuinely believes in their effectiveness of helmets then good on them trying to politely persuade others to wear them (as long as they don't overdoo it). But to argue for compulsion is in effect that person saying that their arguments for wearing them are not strong enough to persuade others and thus people are not being convinced so they should be forced to do it against their will - madness.

It is a reasonable debate to be kept alive (the wear or not wear - forget the compulsion argument 'cos that's daft) as that debate helps present facts from different sides to those not aware of the case each way and thus helps them make an informed decision. And, as more experiences, reports, statistics, studies, etc. are made so the balance for or against might move.

Ian
Edit: Corrected quote reference (sorry)

[thirdcrank]

Formatting of quotes is awry. That was bovlomov's reply to me. He wrote it.

[mjr]

I'm not really sure what point you are making, but in making it you seem to imply that CB only ever wore a fairing and that there's some suggestion in my earlier post that he said a helmet would have prevented him "crashing out."

Sorry - I meant to imply that he can't have been that convinced by them even then, because he wore a fairing at a time when aero helmets were already around. The list of crash reasons was partly because I was trying to figure out when he might have said it, but it doesn't seem like any of his crashings out were particularly helmet-relevant, but once I'd figured that out, I'd gathered the info so I thought I might as well post it, in case anyone wants to take it further.

At the time he rode, some teams were sponsored some of the time by helmet manufacturers, so it's not really a surprise he ever wore one.

I'm also saying that IIRC on one of the occasions he abandoned as the result of a crash, he was wearing a helmet which, when interviewed on Ch 4 he said had saved him from worse injury. The fact that you have been unable to find a printed version of the interview doesn't affect my memory, although it's a tribute to your determination that you even bothered to look.

If I was determined, I'd go dig through the Ch 4 old tour coverage that's mostly on youtube for the actual interview... but I'm not going to.

I see helmet wearing (or persuading others to wear helmets) as being very different from arguing for compulsion. I wear a helmet and would argue strongly against compulsion.

I see helmet use as being very different from arguing for compulsion. I see it as acting to bring compulsion closer by eroding the non-helmet cycling majority, which is worse than mere words.

And persuading others to use helmets is encouraging injury, both because helmet users seem to crash more and because it seems to reduce beneficial-for-health cycling.

[Vorpal]

And persuading others to use helmets is encouraging injury, both because helmet users seem to crash more and because it seems to reduce beneficial-for-health cycling.

Is there any evidence that people wearing helmets reduces the level of cycling? Or that one persuading another to wear a helmet does so?

I know there is (limited) evidence that helmet promotion campaigns reduce the amount of of cycling, but it seems a bit of stretch to extrapolate that to Psamanthe wearing a helmet frightening away potential cyclists.

Yes, I know that it contributes to the 'dangerisation' of cycling (or whatever you want to call it), but I seriously doubt that a single individual has any significant impact on that.

[bovlomov]

Has Boardman modified his views only since leaving the sport? or after his company (with existing partnerships and deals) started selling them?

I haven't seen anything to make me think he has double standards. But it is a slightly odd position to be in, selling helmets with your name on, while going around TV studios, playing down their importance. Someone on another thread rationalised it on Boardman's behalf: If people are going to buy helmets, they might as well be good ones. (I have no idea whether Boardman's helmets are good)

[Vorpal]

Has Boardman modified his views only since leaving the sport? or after his company (with existing partnerships and deals) started selling them?

I think after leaving sport. I'm sure about his company. But he wore a helmet before they were a requirement.

[horizon]

I don't see selling helmets and arguing against their compulsion (or even arguing their ineffectiveness) as being hypocritical.

I see helmet wearing (or persuading others to wear helmets) as being very different from arguing for compulsion. I wear a helmet and would argue strongly against compulsion.

This is the bit that I find difficult (in all the helmet debates). Compulsion for me is a red herring - I cannot accept that wearing a cycle helmet is a matter of choice: they either work or they don't, you either need one or you don't. And that as far as I'm concerned must apply to everyone unless someone has an unusually strong or vulnerable head, which as far as I know they don't.

You could try and split the wearers into groups: racers versus leisure cyclists, children versus adults, people with cold heads etc. But none of that reflects current reality - what people are saying is that cycling needs a helmet. Or not.

Or you can say that the evidence is so unreliable that you might as well wear one as not or vice versa - which is where we seem to be at.

[irc]

But it is a slightly odd position to be in, selling helmets with your name on, while going around TV studios, playing down their importance.

Not really. A helmet may be a valid choice in racing where crashes are likely but not necessary for everyday cycling when crashes are both less frequent and at lower speed.

[irc]

This is the bit that I find difficult (in all the helmet debates). Compulsion for me is a red herring - I cannot accept that wearing a cycle helmet is a matter of choice: they either work or they don't, you either need one or you don't

Racing drivers wear 4 point harnesses and fireproof suits. Most drivers don't. I'd say both choices are correct. For helmets it depends. I think they offer some limited protection but that my risk of a crash while commuting or touring is so low I never wear one.

If I was a road racer doing faster speeds in close near contact with other riders increasing my crash risk I might choose to wear one.

[Psamathe]

I don't see selling helmets and arguing against their compulsion (or even arguing their ineffectiveness) as being hypocritical.

I see helmet wearing (or persuading others to wear helmets) as being very different from arguing for compulsion. I wear a helmet and would argue strongly against compulsion.

This is the bit that I find difficult (in all the helmet debates). Compulsion for me is a red herring - I cannot accept that wearing a cycle helmet is a matter of choice: they either work or they don't, you either need one or you don't. And that as far as I'm concerned must apply to everyone unless someone has an unusually strong or vulnerable head, which as far as I know they don't.

You could try and split the wearers into groups: racers versus leisure cyclists, children versus adults, people with cold heads etc. But none of that reflects current reality - what people are saying is that cycling needs a helmet. Or not.

Or you can say that the evidence is so unreliable that you might as well wear one as not or vice versa - which is where we seem to be at.

To me (personal opinion) I have heard arguments for and against and looked over a lot of referenced stuff (from this forum) and my impression is that some arguments support use of helmets (debatably weakly) and others support not wearing helmets (debatably weakly). In some types of accident a helmet might help whilst in other types of accident a helmet might make things worse - so to me more complex than "they either work or they don't". Who knows which category any accident I might have will fall. So from my perspective "the jury is out" - and for some reason at the moment I tend to be wearing one. I go through phases where I don't wear one. I don't know the answer so I make my choice (and I change my choice) and I can't argue I am right or wrong.

Ian

[bovlomov]

and I can't argue I am right or wrong.

For most other activities the question is unlikely to arise. Even for relatively dangerous activities - e.g. wild swimming, painting the ceiling, skiing - it is accepted that everyone makes their own choice. No one tells you off for deciding to do that thing, and people are not expected to declare that they belong to one side or the other. Neither do A&E staff call victims of accidents in those activities "organ donors" and "idiots".

[deliquium]

and I can't argue I am right or wrong.

For most other activities the question is unlikely to arise. Even for relatively dangerous activities - e.g. wild swimming, painting the ceiling, skiing - it is accepted that everyone makes their own choice. No one tells you off for deciding to do that thing, and people are not expected to declare that they belong to one side or the other. Neither do A&E staff call victims of accidents in those activities "organ donors" and "idiots".

+1