Helmets a taboo?

[reohn2]

...........................What I can not understand is why so many people have decided that they must make this imposition on others in this one case while ignoring all the others. Totally unfathomable.


and Yes I am aware that it is established beyond doubt that chip pan fires DO kill people and helmets only MAY POSSIBLY help in a crash.

Yep I quite agree,if I didn't know better I say someone had it in for cyclists!

PS Maybe its chip pan makers!

[Cunobelin]

Next time you go into A/E wear one of these:

[Steady rider]

Helmets are a problem to discuss because evidence shows they may do harm.

If promoted they have to focus on serious head injury instead of people just enjoying their cycling with the freedom machine.

Australian Cyclist 1991, Helmet Law discourages cycling, Riding numbers plummet’ refer;
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/australian-cyclist.html

'Mandatory Can Have Unexpected Consequences, Civil Liberties Australia, 25 Nov. 2008
http://www.cla.asn.au/Article/081125Bik ... Policy.pdf

Erke and Elvik (Norwegian researchers) 2007 stated: "There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent."
Erke A, Elvik R, Making Vision Zero real: Preventing Pedestrian Accidents And Making Them Less Severe, Oslo June 2007. page 28
http://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasj ... 7-nett.pdf

The Case Against Bicycle Helmets and Legislation, Velocity, Munich 2007 http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuai ... helmet.pdf

Robinson 1996 report, Table 2 shows data for children in NSW. The equivalent number of injuries for pre law level of number of cyclists increased from 1310 (384 head + 926 other injuries) in 1991 to 2083 (488 head + 1595 other injuries) in 1993. For NSW the helmet laws reduced children’s safety. The increased injury rate was 59%, from 1310 to 2083.
Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accid Anal Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf

You can start to see the problem in discussing helmets. Widespread promotion without proper warning and with many reports including DfT reports covering up the issues to an extent.

UK charties promoting helmets, BRAKE, Headway, RoSPA, BHIT, all in the same boat, promoting a product without fully disclosing information or providing misleading claims.

[Si]

Yes,

As will soon be proven when this thread is dragged kicking and screaming by the moderators to that secret little space reserved for this taboo subject.

Wow, there actually is a secret little place, how nice.

There's a phrase "agree to differ". I don't talk about helmets anymore.

I know, but in effect it's been made a sacred cow. Whilst moderates will stand around "agreeing to differ", the militant will become more vociferous and legislate against our freedom to differ.

There is a helmet thread in the technical section that hasn't been moved, yet like a thief in the night, a certain mod has stolen (read: deleted) some of the posts. Helmet threads=ok, contention=bad?, It's all a little cloak and dagger, no?.

This section of the forum was created because helmet threads commonly just repeat what has already been said lots of times before, and some people seem unable to discus helmets without either getting upset or getting angry: thus making many of these repetitive threads unpleasant as they just dissolve into childish spats. Just before this section of the forum was created we had around ten helmet threads on the go at once, most saying the same things and most with some people getting abusive. Thus, it was thought best to stick all the are helmet campaign threads (i.e. that weren't technical) into one place, thus stopping the many other important issues discussed on this forum from being swamped by all of the same old helmet arguments. This has all been explained for anyone who has made the effort to read it.

As for 'secret place' - not sure why this section of the forum would be regarded as secret - anyone puts in the merest modicum of effort ought to be able to find it.

Are helmets taboo on this forum - surely the fact that you can see so many helmet threads here should answer your question. If they were taboo then they would have been removed. They have not been removed, and anyone can continue with virtually any thread, should they have anything further to add, thus, they clearly are not taboo.

What is taboo, however, is making posts that are abusive, trolling, or likely to cause fall out for no good reason. These will be probably be amended or removed. I would guess that this is what has happened to the so-called "stolen" posts. Let's face it, the fact that someone is going on about "cloak and dagger" and moderators "stealing" posts demonstrates well the problem with helmets threads - you'd be forgiven for believing that some people really do go out of their way to get offended and thus vent forth with their aspersions.

At the end of the day, discussion, debate and reasoned and respectful argument about helmets - fair enough (although, please look at the existing threads to see if someone has already made your argument rather than repeating it all again). Abuse, trolling, snide comments, points scoring, using helmets just as a conduit to complaining or stirring trouble - no thanks. If you just want to cause aggro then there are plenty of other forums that you can use.

[georgew]

Helmets are a problem to discuss because evidence shows they may do harm.

If promoted they have to focus on serious head injury instead of people just enjoying their cycling with the freedom machine.

Australian Cyclist 1991, Helmet Law discourages cycling, Riding numbers plummet’ refer;
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/australian-cyclist.html

'Mandatory Can Have Unexpected Consequences, Civil Liberties Australia, 25 Nov. 2008
http://www.cla.asn.au/Article/081125Bik ... Policy.pdf

Erke and Elvik (Norwegian researchers) 2007 stated: "There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent."
Erke A, Elvik R, Making Vision Zero real: Preventing Pedestrian Accidents And Making Them Less Severe, Oslo June 2007. page 28
http://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasj ... 7-nett.pdf



The Case Against Bicycle Helmets and Legislation, Velocity, Munich 2007 http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuai ... helmet.pdf

Robinson 1996 report, Table 2 shows data for children in NSW. The equivalent number of injuries for pre law level of number of cyclists increased from 1310 (384 head + 926 other injuries) in 1991 to 2083 (488 head + 1595 other injuries) in 1993. For NSW the helmet laws reduced children’s safety. The increased injury rate was 59%, from 1310 to 2083.
Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accid Anal Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf

You can start to see the problem in discussing helmets. Widespread promotion without proper warning and with many reports including DfT reports covering up the issues to an extent.

UK charties promoting helmets, BRAKE, Headway, RoSPA, BHIT, all in the same boat, promoting a product without fully disclosing information or providing misleading claims.

I can't really say what I mean about this post as my abuse would mean that I would be thrown out of the forum. How someone has the bare-faced nerve to bring findings of a statistical nature into this discussion is beyond me. I mean it's possible that this evidence can be tested using something not dissimilar to the "scientific method" and we can't have that.
Does this poster dare to suggest that anecdotal evidence is not enough to prove the case? Have we descended to the point where we are being asked to consider mere factual information which can be tested. Shame I say !

Disgusted of Auchtermuchty.

[Steady rider]

I better add a bit more info.

There is a web page dedicated to cyclists killed wearing a helmet.

http://members.shaw.ca/jtubman/deadhelmet.html

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/194 ... _fm-3.html

All those promoting helmets should include suitable warnings.

Perhaps every 3 or 4 years the CTC should have a conference checking out ideas to reduce deaths and injuries?

[Mike Sales]

I wanted to express my solidarity with the Stop Headway campaign. I went to the board index. No helmet forum was visible. I eventually used my brain and because I was aware of the existence of the helmet forum I found it, but it did seem to be tucked away in a corner.

[StopHeadway]

My straightforward suggestion would be to have helmets as a top-level forum, just under Campaigning & Public Policy. That way it would not dominate other important discussions, like "look what Clarkson has written now" and "people don't cycle because they think it's too dangerous shocker" but it would still be prominent when people come to see what the CTC is talking about in relation to ongoing legislation that will force them to wear a helmet even riding in their local park...

Is there a more important campaigning issue right now? If so I can't think of it, so it seems a little odd to have it effectively buried this way. It would make more sense to have a sub-forum of helmets for all discussions not related to compulsion (i.e. all the "wear a helmet because it's commonsense / no, look at the literature" treadmills).

Then again, the CTC as an organisation - not referring to the forum admins here - has clearly taken a softly-softly approach to compulsion, not even mentioning it on their campaign pages. Perhaps it's appropriate that the forums reflect these priorities.

[Edwards]

My opinion is that this is the best place for any mention of helmet at all.

It is actualy interesting to now read some of the topics as the anti seem to stick together and the pro keep to themselves. It is actualy now possible to read some of the threads and get some proper information from reliable sources. The childish and silly remarks seem to have gone.

I am no longer bothered about any form of discussion about this subject. I used to be very firmly in the personal choice camp. But with so many insults and snyde remarks from some in the anti camp has got me to the stage where I no longer care.

The last time the CTC had a campaign and petition about compulsory helmet use I signed the petition and had quite a lot of email correspondence with my MP against compulsion.
Now I would not even bother to sign the petition, if I did somebody would tell me my opinions were wrong.

The Moderators are totally correct to keep any thing to do with helmets here and remove anything that is against form rules. I think this section has been one of the best things to happen to this forum.

[irc]

Having the helmet threads in their own section is OK. Not that I saw any problem with the previous arrangement. After all, anyone who wasn't interested could just choose not to read threads with helmets in the title.

On a thread in another forum I use someone recently equated not wearing a helmet with smoking. When people have that sort of attitude I think there needs to be more campaigning. Anyone who sees any comparison between not wearing bike helmets which causes maybe a dozen deaths a year in the UK, with smoking which kills maybe 80 thousand people a year has clearly no grasp of how safe cycling is and how little protection a polystyrene hat covering part of the head gives.

[[XAP]Bob]

Having the helmet threads in their own section is OK. Not that I saw any problem with the previous arrangement. After all, anyone who wasn't interested could just choose not to read threads with helmets in the title.

On a thread in another forum I use someone recently equated not wearing a helmet with smoking. When people have that sort of attitude I think there needs to be more campaigning. Anyone who sees any comparison between not wearing bike helmets which causes maybe a dozen deaths a year in the UK, with smoking which kills maybe 80 thousand people a year has clearly no grasp of how safe cycling is and how little protection a polystyrene hat covering part of the head gives.

Nor the difference between doing something known to be dangerous (even in small quantities), and doing something which may or may not protect you against a highly unlikely event...

[StopHeadway]

Having the helmet threads in their own section is OK. Not that I saw any problem with the previous arrangement. After all, anyone who wasn't interested could just choose not to read threads with helmets in the title.

If this was true, there would have been no point creating a separate section. As we can see here, even people who self-identify as "no longer bothered about any form of discussion about this subject" will weigh in even on a meta-discussion like this, discussing where said discussions should be.

No, I agree that a separate forum makes perfect sense. It's just the odd way that it is buried layout-wise that I find regrettable (can PHPBB not display child forums underneath their parents on the main page?)

[Edwards]

The only reason I wrote anything was to support the Moderators as I said I no longer care about helmets.

[Steady rider]

Going back 20 years to Melbourne. The first annual cyclist meeting following legislation, the helmet law was raised by opposing voices in a large assembly of cyclists. The chair suggested a separate meeting to discuss the topic, this lead to a smaller group and avoided the views being heard by the larger assembly.

If let where it was it would show anyone viewing how much discussion about helmets was ongoing, proportionally reflecting the level of interest. Setting it aside does not convey this message to anyone scanning the issues in the same way. It is a disadvantage in terms of promoting discussion and a wider understanding and attracting more opinions and views.

If the helmet section had the latest 6 topic displayed on the main Campaigning & Public Policy board this would reflect a higher level of discussion without listing all 35 topics but would people be aware of the 35 topics? On reflection it was probably best left in the main discussion section, as the 35 topic could have been seen and some may have been of interest to particular viewers. The 35 topic could perhaps been colour coded to show one topic.
Bike hire in Dublin and Melbourne
Australian Wins Helmet Law Case
Car helmets...
etc