On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:23:06 GMT, _
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 08:46:17 +0100, judith wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:47:23 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 15:25:52 +0100, judith
said in :

This will be an objective assessment of cycle helmets from the
organisation who have stated their message as / raison d'etre :
"Helmets are not beneficial to cyclists".

Really? I wonder why this "message / raison d'etre" is not
mentioned anywhere on the policy statement?

I believe that they have stated it in the past - I am happy to accept
that they do not state it now if you say that they don't.

I am sorry if I was wrong.

(This - by the way is termed an apology - I realise it may be a word
not in your vocabulary)


And in consequence, you clearly now agree that the evidence presented IS an
objective assessment.

Thankyou.


Not at all - I was purely saying that I understand historically
cyclehelmet.org had stated that their message was to be "Helmets are
not beneficial to cyclists". (until anyone "proved" otherwise)

I now understand that they realised that this was a bit strong and
didn't give them the "objective" appearance they wanted to create - so
they dropped that message.

--

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)

"burtthebike" wrote in message
...

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...

"Michael C" wrote in message
...
"judith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 10:27:56 +0100, "Michael C"
wrote:


But they are just independent bodies who don't specialise in cycling.
Do any serious cycling clubs - who no doubt have a vested interest in
the safety of their members - have a policy that states that all members
must wear a helmet?

The club that I am a member of has a "we strongly recommend wearing a
helmet on all rides" statement in their club rules.

And on what evidence does your cycling club "strongly recommend wearing a
helmet on all rides"? Or have they just fallen for the "it must be safer"
bull**** of BHIT without bothering about inconsequential nonsense like the
facts?

I wish I knew. I am somewhat reluctant to start challenging the committee on
this issue as my lone voice is unlikely to achieve much other than annoy
them.

On 27 Aug, 22:09, judith wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:23:06 GMT, _

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 miss the point, a reduction in cycling, or indeed any form of
exercise, is a bad thing because it reduces life expectancy and places
greater strains on the health service, transport and infrastructure
whilst increasing pollution. Cycling is a useful exercise, it is a
means of transport and can be fitted into many daily schedules, it
could replace many car journeys - I believe the average car journey is
less than 5 miles? Introduction of compulsory helmet law will require
higher taxes to pay for the detrimental effects listed above and will,
in my opinion, deter many potential cyclists from using a bicycle in
preference to other transport as it will be perceived as more
dangerous than in reality it is. That is why it is a bad thing - not
because it 'reduces numbers of cyclists' as an overt statement but
because of what a 'reduction in cycling population' means in real
terms.

Sniper8052

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:43:17 +0100, "Michael C"
wrote:

snip

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

I don't think there are any but I don't see how this is relevant. They
might say that they leave the choice up to the rider, but they wouldn't say
you shouldn't actually wear one.



Of course it is relevant.

If the club believed that the wearing of cycle helmets was more likely
overall to increase your chances of head injury - then they would
recommend not wearing them.

As it is many (most?) clubs recommend wearing helmets because they
know very well that they are more likely to result in an overall
decrease in the chance of injury to the head.



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

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:47:15 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:

In ,
judith tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

No authoritative body in the UK recommends not wearing cycle helmets,
as their is no evidence that wearing them is more dangerous than not
wearing them.
Many authoritative bodies do in fact recommend wearing them.

Any body which ignores the evidence which suggests that the wearing of
helmets makes cycling /more/ dangerous has, at best, a highly dubious claim
to being "authoritative".

I note you use the word "suggests"


Are you perhaps saying that someone has looked at all of the research
which has been carried out on cycle helmets and they have concluded
that overall their is an increased risk to the cyclist if they wear a
helmet than if they don't?

Perhaps you can point at this scientific paper which is a summary of
the research.


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

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:16:54 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On 26 Aug, 23:54, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:47:00 -0700 (PDT), Squashme



wrote:
On 26 Aug, 23:32, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:21:48 -0700 (PDT), Squashme

wrote:
On 26 Aug, 23:11, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Squashme

wrote:
On 26 Aug, 22:52, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:11:32 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm

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.

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

Do they - how do you know this?

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.

and now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?

question dodge snipped

And now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?

Not interested.

Excellent - I will take that as a no then

Can you tell me why "Despite
the lack of helmets, cycling in the Netherlands is safer than in any
other country, and the Dutch have one-third the number of cycling
fatalities (per 100,000 people) that Australia has.?"

Yes - because all Dutch children and brought up as cyclists - they
know their place and cycling is a totally different way of life in
Holland - than I suspect anywhere else in the world.

I would also suspect that the miles of cycle track per head of
population in Holland is way more than that in Australia.

Can we get back to :

And now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?

May I seek your advice:

Do you think it would be true to say : "No authoritative body in the
UK recommends people do *not* wear cycle helmets because to wear them
has been proven more dangerous than to not wear them."

My advice would be to take out the negatives. They will confuse
people. Try to be positive. As to the truth of the statement, I am not
permitted to conjecture.

Thanks:

No authoritative body in the UK recommends not wearing cycle helmets,
as their is no evidence that wearing them is more dangerous than not
wearing them.
Many authoritative bodies do in fact recommend wearing them.

Is that better?



---

Excuse me...

No authoritative body in the UK recommends not wearing cycle helmets,

OK

as their is no evidence that wearing them is more dangerous than not
wearing them.

Which logically means there is no benefit in wearing a helmet as, if
your proposition is correct, they cannot either be safer than not
wearing them because that would make them less dangerous and hence
safer. The proposition as presented then becomes an oxymoron.

Rubbish - there is evidence that wearing helmets overall reduces the
risk of injury to the head.

Is there any evidence that overall the wearing of helmets increases
the risk of injury to the head?


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

On 28 Aug, 09:15, judith wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:16:54 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:
On 26 Aug, 23:54, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:47:00 -0700 (PDT), Squashme

wrote:
On 26 Aug, 23:32, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:21:48 -0700 (PDT), Squashme

wrote:
On 26 Aug, 23:11, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Squashme

wrote:
On 26 Aug, 22:52, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:11:32 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm

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.

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

Do they - how do you know this?

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.

and now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?

question dodge snipped

And now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?

Not interested.

Excellent - I will take that as a no then

Can you tell me why "Despite
the lack of helmets, cycling in the Netherlands is safer than in any
other country, and the Dutch have one-third the number of cycling
fatalities (per 100,000 people) that Australia has.?"

Yes - because all Dutch children and brought up as cyclists - they
know their place and cycling is a totally different way of life in
Holland - than I suspect anywhere else in the world.

I would also suspect that the miles of cycle track per head of
population in Holland is way more than that in Australia.

Can we get back to :

And now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?

May I seek your advice:

Do you think it would be true to say : "No authoritative body in the
UK recommends people do *not* wear cycle helmets because to wear them
has been proven more dangerous than to not wear them."

My advice would be to take out the negatives. They will confuse
people. Try to be positive. As to the truth of the statement, I am not
permitted to conjecture.

Thanks:

No authoritative body in the UK recommends not wearing cycle helmets,
as their is no evidence that wearing them is more dangerous than not
wearing them.
Many authoritative bodies do in fact recommend wearing them.

Is that better?

---

Excuse me...

No authoritative body in the UK recommends not wearing cycle helmets,

OK

as their is no evidence that wearing them is more dangerous than not
wearing them.

Which logically means there is no benefit in wearing a helmet as, if
your proposition is correct, they cannot either be safer than not
wearing them because that would make them less dangerous and hence
safer. The proposition as presented then becomes an oxymoron.

Rubbish - there is evidence that wearing helmets overall reduces the
risk of injury to the head.

Is there any evidence that overall the wearing of helmets increases
the risk of injury to the head?

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

Please cite the evidence you claim that states that it is proven that
cycling helmets reduces the risk of injury to the head in line with
the claim that it will reduce the incidence of serious head injuries.

Yes, you will no doubt have been pointed to these studies on numerous
occasions but Mr Chapman I am sure will give you the links again.

Other wise answer me this,

Which is larger a chicken coop or a barn?

Sniper8052

In article , wrote:
On 27 Aug, 22:09, judith wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:23:06 GMT, _

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 miss the point, a reduction in cycling, or indeed any form of
exercise, is a bad thing because it reduces life expectancy and places
greater strains on the health service, transport and infrastructure
whilst increasing pollution.

But they could do some sort of exercise that doesn't get in judith's way
when she is driving. When the Cochrane Collaboration was forced to admit
that helmet compulsion did reduce cycling, their researcher suggested
that maybe children might take up in-line skating instead. That would
probably suit judith even better than the mandatory-in-the-sense-that-
-cyclists-must-use-them cycle lanes she wanted to campaign for.

Assuming she has any motive other than just provoking a reaction - given
that she's a lying troll, her anti-cycling position could be fake. And
ignoring the fact that reduced cyling would lead to increased congestion,
not removal of obstacles to driving.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:35:38 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

snip

Rubbish - there is evidence that wearing helmets overall reduces the
risk of injury to the head.

Is there any evidence that overall the wearing of helmets increases
the risk of injury to the head?

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

Please cite the evidence you claim that states that it is proven that
cycling helmets reduces the risk of injury to the head in line with
the claim that it will reduce the incidence of serious head injuries.

Did I say "reduce the incidence of serious head injuries" - any reason
why you added that in?

Please see the report "Head Injuries and Helmet Laws in Australia and
New Zealand" - on cyclehelmets.org - I'm sure you've read it from
cover to cover so you should be able to find the bit you're looking
for.

You turn now : Please cite the evidence that overall the wearing of
helmets increases the risk of injury to the head.

I am not too bothered with what the ****wit Chapman says - he has been
proven to be a liar in the past.

You will of course observe that he confuses the two separate
discussion on whether cycle helmets are beneficial and whether the
enforced wearing of them is beneficial (as do many in here)

See what he says below: does he really believe that, does he really
mean that? (rhetorical)

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

On 28 Aug, 09:15, judith wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:16:54 -0700 (PDT), "



wrote:
On 26 Aug, 23:54, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:47:00 -0700 (PDT), Squashme

wrote:
On 26 Aug, 23:32, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:21:48 -0700 (PDT), Squashme

wrote:
On 26 Aug, 23:11, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Squashme

wrote:
On 26 Aug, 22:52, judith wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:11:32 +0000 (UTC), Chris Malcolm

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.

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

Do they - how do you know this?

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.

and now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?

question dodge snipped

And now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?

Not interested.

Excellent - I will take that as a no then

Can you tell me why "Despite
the lack of helmets, cycling in the Netherlands is safer than in any
other country, and the Dutch have one-third the number of cycling
fatalities (per 100,000 people) that Australia has.?"

Yes - because all Dutch children and brought up as cyclists - they
know their place and cycling is a totally different way of life in
Holland - than I suspect anywhere else in the world.

I would also suspect that the miles of cycle track per head of
population in Holland is way more than that in Australia.

Can we get back to :

And now can you list for me the authoritative organisations who
recommend *not* wearing cycle helmets?

May I seek your advice:

Do you think it would be true to say : "No authoritative body in the
UK recommends people do *not* wear cycle helmets because to wear them
has been proven more dangerous than to not wear them."

My advice would be to take out the negatives. They will confuse
people. Try to be positive. As to the truth of the statement, I am not
permitted to conjecture.

Thanks:

No authoritative body in the UK recommends not wearing cycle helmets,
as their is no evidence that wearing them is more dangerous than not
wearing them.
Many authoritative bodies do in fact recommend wearing them.

Is that better?

---

Excuse me...

No authoritative body in the UK recommends not wearing cycle helmets,

OK

as their is no evidence that wearing them is more dangerous than not
wearing them.

Which logically means there is no benefit in wearing a helmet as, if
your proposition is correct, they cannot either be safer than not
wearing them because that would make them less dangerous and hence
safer. The proposition as presented then becomes an oxymoron.

Rubbish - there is evidence that wearing helmets overall reduces the
risk of injury to the head.

Is there any evidence that overall the wearing of helmets increases
the risk of injury to the head?

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

Any way your reply is not the point I raised, you cannot advocate the
wearing of something by saying it is no more dangerous than not
wearing it... the converse is then also true, if it is no more
dangerous then it cannot be safer because the act of wearing or not
wearing makes no difference to the risk.

Your statement is an oxymoron.

Sniper8052