On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:53:20 +0100, "Adam Lea"
wrote:

snip

Could you explain why conutries that have introduced mandatory helmet laws
have not seen a corresponding decrease in cyclist head injury rates.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf


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".



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

On Aug 23, 10:25*am, judith wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:53:20 +0100, "Adam Lea"
wrote:

snip

Could you explain why conutries that have introduced mandatory helmet laws
have not seen a corresponding decrease in cyclist head injury rates.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf

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".

Feel free to publish any of your reseach that refutes their
conclusions or calls into question the interpretations of papers
discussed there.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:53:20 +0100, "Adam Lea"
wrote:

snip

Could you explain why conutries that have introduced mandatory helmet laws
have not seen a corresponding decrease in cyclist head injury rates.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf

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".

Why are so pro-helmet (fnaar) and instantly dismiss any evidence that
refutes their effectiveness?

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:49:51 +0100, "Michael C"
wrote:

"judith" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:53:20 +0100, "Adam Lea"
wrote:

snip

Could you explain why conutries that have introduced mandatory helmet laws
have not seen a corresponding decrease in cyclist head injury rates.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf

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".

Why are so pro-helmet (fnaar) and instantly dismiss any evidence that
refutes their effectiveness?



could you repeat that in English please?



--

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

On 23 Aug, 19:52, John Kane wrote:
On Aug 23, 10:25 am, judith wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:53:20 +0100, "Adam Lea"
wrote:

snip

Could you explain why conutries that have introduced mandatory helmet laws
have not seen a corresponding decrease in cyclist head injury rates.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf

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".

Feel free to publish any of your reseach that refutes their
conclusions or calls into question the interpretations of papers
discussed there.


That's not Judith's function.

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:49:51 +0100, "Michael C"
wrote:

Why are so pro-helmet (fnaar) and instantly dismiss any evidence that
refutes their effectiveness?


could you repeat that in English please?

Nice dodge. Now answer the question.

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:29:08 +0100, "Michael C"
wrote:

"judith" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:49:51 +0100, "Michael C"
wrote:

Why are so pro-helmet (fnaar) and instantly dismiss any evidence that
refutes their effectiveness?


could you repeat that in English please?

Nice dodge. Now answer the question.


Well I because they the different view from the anti-helmet
(wtfifnaar) brigade who appease to be full of .

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:29:08 +0100, "Michael C"

Nice dodge. Now answer the question.


Well I because they the different view from the anti-helmet
(wtfifnaar) brigade who appease to be full of .

How very droll. It still doesn't actually answer the question though - why
do you want cycle helmets to be cumpulsory?

"Dead Paul" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:40:06 +0100, Ret. wrote:


"Dead Paul" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:16:33 +0100, judith wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:02:37 GMT, Peter Grange
wrote:

http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270

More bull****.

But hang on, he's a policeman so it _must_ be true.

Don't BIT's stats claim they prevent leg injuries too though?

Confusing isn't it?



I didn't realise you were a witness - or perhaps the paramedic who
attended the accident - or were you the doctor who operated on him?

Oh - no - you're a ****wit cyclist who can't see that there may be some
truth in the story.

You are of course right - no-one should ever wear a cycle helmet
because they never do any good.

Roll on compulsory training for all cyclists and compulsory helmets.

(Give us a laugh - what's your view on riding on pavements and ignoring
red lights?)

Have you actually tried one of these helmets on? I must say that when
wearing one it still leaves you feeling very vulnerable as the lower 3/4
of the head is still completely exposed.

The lower 3/4 of the head may be exposed to, say, a thrown missile - but the
helmet projects out from the upper part of the head and therefore reduces
the chance of the lower part from coming into contact with the ground. A
padded steel band, an inch wide, placed around the head would appear to
offer little protection - but if it had projections sticking out three
inches all the way around, then if you tried to lie down and put your head
on the ground you would be unable to. A carefully designed helmet does not
need to cover the entire head to provide good protection to the entire head.
Also - you might just as well argue that there is little point in wearing a
stab-proof vest because the arms, neck, head, waist, legs, etc. are all
unprotected. If you were facing a knife wielding thug, however, would you
prefer to be wearing a vest or not?


I suppose they may offer some
protection in a limited number of low speed impacts but anything other
than that they would be completely useless. You'd could get the
side/front or back of your head (stoved in/whatever) as those parts are
completely unprotected. Only an idiot would feel that he had any
protection while wearing one. If anything they are a hindrance, at the
very least annoying. You should try one on.

I have done - they are lightweight, unrestrictive, and any cyclist with any
sense would wear one.


The problem is that you would never get pedal cyclists to wear full face
motorcycle crash helmets - too big, heavy, clumsy, expensive, etc. The
type of helmet made for pedal cyclists, skate-boarders, et al, is a good
compromise - it affords a decent level of protection but is lightweight,
fairly inexpensive, and leaves the ears clear so that cyclists can hear
what is going on around them.

Whilst it does leave the lower part of the head unprotected, its design
means that it will still provide good levels of protection in most pedal
cycling accidents - ie hitting a kerb and flying over the handlebars. The
way in which the head is attached to the body means that when skidding
along the ground the head will definitely be protected.

Many people have died following a non fatal punch when they have fallen
over backwards and hit their heads on the ground. A cycle helmet would
dramatically reduce the chances of head injury in such a fall. I am not
advocating that everyone should walk around wearing cycle helmets in case
they are assaulted - merely pointing out that in any scenario where the
head is likely to come into contact with the ground (and the risk is far
higher when cycling than when walking), then a pedal cycle helmet *will*
provide good head protection. To argue otherwise is simply stupid

There's nothing like logic eh? You write nonsense old boy. The helmet only
covers about 1/4 of the head. It leaves front back and sides exposed.

Exposed to what? If you fall over wearing a cycle helmet then the chances
are that it will be the helmet that first contacts the ground - not your
head. This is for the simple reason that the helmet projects *out* from the
head all the way around. It does *not* need to cover the entire head to
provide protection - in the same way that a stab-proof vest does not need to
cover the entire body to provide protection. You don't see many police
officers not wearing stab proof vests these days - and they are far far more
restrictive in use than a cycle helmet.


Thus
it only affords protection to the top of the head and then only in low
velocity impacts. I actually think it could lull some riders into a false
sense of security.

That old chestnut eh? My helmet will protect me so I'll deliberately take
chances while cycling? Cobblers!

As far as I'm concerned they are a waste of space and
inhibit natural movement. I just can't stand wearing the things, i find
them exceedingly inhibitory.

In that case - don't wear one. No one (for the present) is compelling you to
do so. I don't know whether you have children or not - but would you send
your young child out on a bike or skateboard without a helmet?

I've had a lifetime of cycling and have come
off my bike many times without any head injury.

Which proves? Nothing of course! I once, many years ago, came off a
motorbike. My helmet never even came into contact with anything during that
incident - but I would not have taken that as a reason not to wear a
motorcycle crash helmet.

It is quite easy to
protect the head when falling off your bike in most instances where the
speeds are low but of course if you are going to get hit by a car then
it's another matter entirely, those helmets will be completely useless in
such instances. I'm afraid you are pretty much at the mercy of the gods
should you get hit by a car.

No-one is pretending that cycle helmets will prevent all serious head
injuries - but they *do* provide some protection, and clearly more
protection than wearing nothing at all. Anyone with any sense would wear one
when cycling.




- a bit
akin to the nonsense arguments made against car seat belts when they
became compulsory.


Cycle helmets make riding uncomfortable. They are a liability.

Complete nonsense!

Ret.

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:29:08 +0100, "Michael C"
wrote:

"judith" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:49:51 +0100, "Michael C"
wrote:

Why are so pro-helmet (fnaar) and instantly dismiss any evidence that
refutes their effectiveness?


could you repeat that in English please?

Nice dodge. Now answer the question.


Well I because they the different view from the anti-helmet
(wtfifnaar) brigade who appease to be full of .


LOL !!!

Ret.