On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:39:19 +0100, judith wrote:

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:09:10 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

snip


That last paragraph is not one that I would dispute, but I'd go much
further and say that a better training of everyone (pedestrians,
cyclists and motorists) in the Highway Code, and also in the underlying
laws of use of PRoWs would be to the benefit of all.

Mike


Until someone produces some easy to understand explanation as to why
cycle helmets do not give you additional protection - the vast
majority of people will continue to believe that they are better than
no helmet.


Cite for this "vast majority" claim please.

In message
judith wrote:

[snip]

Until someone produces some easy to understand explanation as to why
cycle helmets do not give you additional protection - the vast
majority of people will continue to believe that they are better than
no helmet.

Yes but people continue to believe in all sorts of things for which
there is no, or contrary, evidence.

Why do you need an explanation when it is quite clear that in those
countries where compulsory cycle helmet wearing is the norm, that
cyclists still have accidents and head injuries at much the same rate
(often higher) than before the introduction of cycle helmets.


You can object all you like but : - there are plenty of authoritative
organisations who do recommend wearing cycle helmets.


Yes and like I have pointed out there are plenty of authoritive
organisations that make all kinds of claims that can be refuted by
observation.

Do you think for yourself or do you always blindly trust to authority?

Mike
--
M.R. Clark PhD, Reader in Therapeutic and Molecular Immunology
Cambridge University, Department of Pathology
Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1QP
Tel +44 (0)1223 333705 Web http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:09:10 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:


That last paragraph is not one that I would dispute, but I'd go much
further and say that a better training of everyone (pedestrians,
cyclists and motorists) in the Highway Code, and also in the underlying
laws of use of PRoWs would be to the benefit of all.

Mike

Until someone produces some easy to understand explanation as to why
cycle helmets do not give you additional protection - the vast
majority of people will continue to believe that they are better than
no helmet.

You keep dodging the points and questions. I gave you two links to the two
sides of the argument earlier.

You are someone who wants cycle helmets to be compulsory - yet you have not
offered one bit of evidence or proof that they reduce the amount of injuries
to cyclists. Why is this?

You can object all you like but : - there are plenty of authoritative
organisations who do recommend wearing cycle helmets.

And there are others that don't recommend it either way. What is your point
here?

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:01:53 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
wrote:

On 26 Aug, 18:39, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:09:10 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

snip

That last paragraph is not one that I would dispute, but I'd go much
further and say that a better training of everyone (pedestrians,
cyclists and motorists) in the Highway Code, and also in the underlying
laws of use of PRoWs would be to the benefit of all.

Mike

Until someone produces some easy to understand explanation as to why
cycle helmets do not give you additional protection - the vast
majority of people will continue to believe that they are better than
no helmet.


That may be a basis for individual choice. It is not a basis for
legislation to make wearing helmets compulsory.

Are you not worried that cyclists with helmets will be more dangerous
for pedestrians than cyclists without? Risk compensation encouraging
higher pavement speeds, for instance.


No - do you have the results of research which shows that cyclists
with helmets are more likely to break the law and cycle on pavements
and cause accidents with pedestrians than those without?


--

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 26 Aug, 21:56, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:01:53 -0700 (PDT), Squashme

Are you not worried that cyclists with helmets will be more dangerous
for pedestrians than cyclists without? Risk compensation encouraging
higher pavement speeds, for instance.

No - do you have the results of research which shows that cyclists
with helmets are more likely to break the law and cycle on pavements
and cause accidents *with pedestrians than those without?

That is not what Squashme said.

In uk.rec.cycling judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:09:10 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

That last paragraph is not one that I would dispute, but I'd go much
further and say that a better training of everyone (pedestrians,
cyclists and motorists) in the Highway Code, and also in the underlying
laws of use of PRoWs would be to the benefit of all.

Until someone produces some easy to understand explanation as to why
cycle helmets do not give you additional protection - the vast
majority of people will continue to believe that they are better than
no helmet.

Of course they do, just as the vast majority of people continue to
believe that eating fat is what makes people fat.

You can object all you like but : - there are plenty of authoritative
organisations who do recommend wearing cycle helmets.

Just as plenty of authoritative organisations recommend lower fat
diets to help people lose weight.

Meanwhile the population goes on getting fatter.

We wouldn't have had to invent science if people weren't so
silly. They even insist on there being easily understandable
explanations before they'll believe in something. What do they think,
God carefully made the universe simple enough that talking pongids
would find it easy to understand?

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On 26 Aug, 18:39, judith wrote:

Until someone produces some easy to understand explanation as to why
cycle helmets do not give you additional protection - the vast
majority of people will continue to believe that they are better than
no helmet.

1) http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf
2) http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1184.html
3) http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2024.pdf
4) http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1193.html

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:34:19 +0100, "Michael C"
wrote:

snip

Until someone produces some easy to understand explanation as to why
cycle helmets do not give you additional protection - the vast
majority of people will continue to believe that they are better than
no helmet.

You keep dodging the points and questions. I gave you two links to the two
sides of the argument earlier.


I have read some of the links - I do not have the time,the
inclination, or the ability to plough through papers where I suspect
that some of the research may have been carried out with a required
result in mind. You only have to look at cyclehelmets.org and the CTC
to see that the way that the information is presented is biased.
Indeed, Chapman brags that he is on the editorial board of
cyclehelmets.org but his unbiased view is that you can either promote
cycling or promote helmets,the two are incompatible. I have been told
that cyclehelmets.org was originally set up to give the message that
helmets were not a good thing. (I accept that they do not publicly
state this now)

Like it or not - one of the strongest arguments by the anti-helmet
brigade is that compulsory wearing of helmets will reduce the number
of cyclists - therefore, they say, compulsory helmets are a bad thing.




You are someone who wants cycle helmets to be compulsory - yet you have not
offered one bit of evidence or proof that they reduce the amount of injuries
to cyclists. Why is this?

Because I do not have the ability to plough through and digest all of
the currently available evidence - as I have said. I will therefore
rely on the advice of the DfT and RoSPA.

You can object all you like but : - there are plenty of authoritative
organisations who do recommend wearing cycle helmets.

And there are others that don't recommend it either way. What is your point
here?

That the majority of people if asked would say that cycle helmets
provide more benefit than harm; and that cycle helmet compulsion will
come.


I would be interested in the "authoritative" bodies who recommend NOT
wearing cycle helmets - are there any - can you tell me please?


--

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 26 Aug, 22:31, judith wrote:

Because I do not have the ability to plough through and digest all of
the currently available evidence - as I have said.

You insist on arguing from a state of ignorance?

*I will therefore
rely on the advice of the DfT and RoSPA.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:06:21 -0700 (PDT), Eric
wrote:

On 26 Aug, 21:56, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:01:53 -0700 (PDT), Squashme

Are you not worried that cyclists with helmets will be more dangerous
for pedestrians than cyclists without? Risk compensation encouraging
higher pavement speeds, for instance.

No - do you have the results of research which shows that cyclists
with helmets are more likely to break the law and cycle on pavements
and cause accidents *with pedestrians than those without?

That is not what Squashme said.


I'm so sorry old bean:

I am not worried that cyclists with helmets will be more dangerous for
pedestrians than cyclists without. Do you have any evidence that I
ought to be?

Is that better? (Ignore my earlier questions if they are too hard)


--

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)