Audax67 wrote:.................. You'd have a very thin time arguing that wearing a helmet brought you to harm.............
I know of several people who've been advised by their doctors that the neck injuries they've suffered are the result of wearing helmets. They're just as convinced that their helmets did them harm as you seem to be that they've saved your life. Clearly you "know" that they're wrong but I can't see how.
The irritation I have with the helmet evangelists is the same I have with anyone who tries to foist their superstitious beliefs on the rest of the world. If you press then for a coherent rationale of why they think they work It usually comes down to "because I know they do and you're all stupid".
Anyway I don't need a helmet 'cos I've got a St Christopher medal, it's saved my life on numerous occasions.
I'm not a helmet evangelist. It suits me to wear one. You can do what you like.
But I'm very glad you have faith in your St. Christopher. "The German bishop and poet Walter of Speyer portrayed St. Christopher as a giant of a cynocephalic species in the land of the Chananeans (the "canines" of Canaan in the New Testament) who ate human flesh and barked." - wiki
[quote="TonyR] The helmet evangalist position though always seems to be that the natural state is wearing one and its for others to prove that wearing one will do harm.[/quote]
The danger, as far as I'm concerned, is that we are starting to approach the position where wearing a helmet 'appears' (to those who will make the decision) to be the 'natural state'. I've always thought that if helmet wearing was shown to be done by the majority of cyclists, then compulsion would come in. We are not there yet, but we are moving steadily in that direction and are not that far off. After the summer I'll post some figures on the appropriate thread about this.
[quote="Audax67........................I'm not a helmet evangelist........................... [/quote]
You insist that people wear them in events you organise and you claim that helmets have saved your life on 2 occasions. Looks like proselytising to me.
Jon Lucas wrote: The danger, as far as I'm concerned, is that we are starting to approach the position where wearing a helmet 'appears' (to those who will make the decision) to be the 'natural state'. I've always thought that if helmet wearing was shown to be done by the majority of cyclists, then compulsion would come in. We are not there yet, but we are moving steadily in that direction and are not that far off. After the summer I'll post some figures on the appropriate thread about this.
This does seem to be the risk. This is from Eric Martlew M.P. speech in support of his helmet compulsion Bill.
The Government's March 2000 Road Safety Strategy said that the wearing rate of cycle helmets, for the population as a whole was "about 18%." It went on to say:
"At this level making helmets compulsory would cause enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have an effect on the levels of cycling. We will monitor wearing rates and review the option of compulsory wearing from time to time."
The implication is clear. If enough cyclists wear a helmet, the DfT would like to make the rest of us do so.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
"Audax67........................I'm not a helmet evangelist...........................
You insist that people wear them in events you organise and you claim that helmets have saved your life on 2 occasions. Looks like proselytising to me.
I already explained why I continue to wear one, and recounted the accidents. I explained that my insistence on wearing one in events I organize is entirely to cover my legal backside**, i.e. it's cynical. I also said I didn't give a tinker's whether you wore one or not anywhere else. Doesn't exactly sound like knocking on doors and handing out tracts, does it?
Replying to these messages is like banging one's head against a wall. Tell you what, let's both do that. I'll wear a helmet.
I'm not sure it follows that if enough people wear helmets the government will step in and make it a legal requirement. I'd go as far as to say it's the other way round.
Despite how it appears, government doesn't really like to interfere. There's little point forcing compulsion on people if enough people do it already. The danger is the mid point, i.e. now, where enough people do it to make it seem 'normal' but not enough in their opinion to have the required safety improvement. The increase in cycle fatalities will also be bearing heavily upon them and they'll be feeling the pressure to do something about it.
kwackers wrote:The increase in cycle fatalities will also be bearing heavily upon them and they'll be feeling the pressure to do something about it.
For the most recent figures, is there a breakdown of what injuries the cyclists die from? Here in London, most of the recent deaths seem to involve works lorries. This, and the fact that helmets aren't usually mentioned in the press reports, suggests that most of the casualties were wearing helmets, and that helmets would have provided no protection in any case.
To sell new legislation, they'd like to be able to point to a series of unhelmeted accidents resulting in head injuries. Unhelmeted rider aren't cooperating (by being killed) in sufficient numbers, it seems.
[Edited for typo]
Last edited by bovlomov on 27 Jul 2013, 7:20pm, edited 1 time in total.
bovlomov wrote:To sell new legislation, they'd like to be able to point to a series of unhelmeted accidents resulting in head injuries. Unhelmeted rider aren't cooperating (by being killed) in sufficient numbers, it seems.
I think that's were it all falls down, I don't think they do.
It's just political posturing, they need to be seen to be doing something and the fact it's useless doesn't matter. If people start making noise about the numbers of cyclists dying then they'll introduce a poorly thought out collection of "measures" to deal with it which could well include some popularist measures - and I suspect compulsory helmets would be seen by the general population as a good thing...
bovlomov wrote:Unhelmeted rider aren't cooperating (by being killed) in sufficient numbers, it seems.
They are being quite uncooperative it would seem. The cyclists least at risk in London are Boris Bikers of whom less than 5% wear helmets. They are much safer than the general cycling population in London of whom 70% wear helmets (although I think it has dropped considerably since that statistic was measured).
This is also an interesting article although it can't bring itself to mention one obvious reason.
Mick F wrote:I remember seeing a motoring programme - may have been Top Gear pre Clarkson - where they showed that seat-belt wearers drove faster and took more risks.
Maybe wearing a helmet makes you ride faster and take more risks?
You're referring to the Isles Report which was suppressed by the Government at the time but later leaked. What it found was more worrying. While driver injuries stayed the same, those for passengers and vulnerable road users - cyclists and pedestrians - rose when seat belts were made mandatory. http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/ ... es-report/
Risk compensation as it is known has been shown to be a factor in helmet wearing although the studies to date on it have not been of very good quality. A Canadian study found children rode faster and their bikes suffered greater damage in an accident if they wore helmets but again numbers were small and the study was not good quality.
That must have been the subject, though I can't remember the specifics about why the subject came up.
They had some drivers on a track with cones and hazards for them to negotiate. They timed them on the track and analysed their style and approach. They compared non-seatbelt wearers to seatbelt wearers and the results were amazing at the time.
Of course it all made sense really - the more secure you feel, the more insulated you feel, and the more insulated you feel, the less you think of your surroundings.
kwackers wrote:I'm not sure it follows that if enough people wear helmets the government will step in and make it a legal requirement. I'd go as far as to say it's the other way round.
Despite how it appears, government doesn't really like to interfere. There's little point forcing compulsion on people if enough people do it already. The danger is the mid point, i.e. now, where enough people do it to make it seem 'normal' but not enough in their opinion to have the required safety improvement. The increase in cycle fatalities will also be bearing heavily upon them and they'll be feeling the pressure to do something about it.
You are correct. Helmet wearing will appear to be the norm now in those places where those who will make the decision see cyclists, and the rise in cycling fatalities is just what is needed to being compulsion in. The fact that few of these fatalities will be unhelmeted riders will not be mentioned in the rush to do something.
Audax67 wrote:Replying to these messages is like banging one's head against a wall. Tell you what, let's both do that. I'll wear a helmet.
The old ones are the best ones. Tell you what, lets try swinging a baseball bat one inch above our skulls, you wear a helmet, I won't. Want to roll out any of the other tired old cliches?
I don't really care if you have blind faith in helmets - its your choice - but I do care if you proselytise them against the evidence because the two things we do know about helmets is they don't reduce the risk of injury but their promotion deters people from cycling, especially kids.
TonyR wrote:I don't really care if you have blind faith in helmets - its your choice - but I do care if you proselytise them against the evidence because the two things we do know about helmets is they don't reduce the risk of injury but their promotion deters people from cycling, especially kids.
Christ almighty, man, read what I wrote. I do not have blind faith in helmets; I consider from personal experience that they provide a limited degree of protection which I am happy to take advantage of. I don't give a hoot (to remain polite, which is extremely difficult) what you or anyone else does with their heads as long as it doesn't affect me. I do not promote the use of helmets but in the events I organize - UAF Audax, if you know what that means - I insist on helmets because in the event of - oh, for Pete's sake, away and read it and stop hanging signs round my neck.
Mike Sales wrote:This does seem to be the risk. This is from Eric Martlew M.P. speech in support of his helmet compulsion Bill.
The Government's March 2000 Road Safety Strategy said that the wearing rate of cycle helmets, for the population as a whole was "about 18%." It went on to say:
"At this level making helmets compulsory would cause enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have an effect on the levels of cycling. We will monitor wearing rates and review the option of compulsory wearing from time to time."
Politicians are masters at only quoting the figures that support their view. I suspect it's from them that we get the expression "there are lies, damned lies and statistics"
How do they calculate a figure of 18%? Sometimes I wear a helmet, sometimes I don't. It depends on the type of cycling I plan to do. I bet I'm not the the only one in this debate that does that. So are we part of the 18% or not?
The pro/anti compulsion debate is quite different from the pro/anti helmet debate.
Edit: I echo the sentiment expressed by Audax67
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled - Richard Feynman
They quoted ALL head injuries as being children and then claimed that they would ALL beprevented.
They claimed that 20,000 children a year would be saved..... when in fact the number of serious head injuries is about 400 In their claims more head injures would be prevented than were actually occurring!
Or if you believe them .... some 19,000 more head injuries would occur each year after helmets became mandatory than before!
