Ret. wrote:
"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!


Did you ever think of providing any evidence for any of your assertions
listed above? I ask because you seem quite resolute "Complete
nonsense","Anyone with any sense", " Cobblers!" etc... yet apart from
that fact that you seem to think that opinion ( yours) should be taken
as proof, there is a marked abscence of any real argument of why you
should be listened to.

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

"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?


I understand that they reduce the risk of head injury if you are
involved in an accident.

The Royal Society for prevention of accidents recommends that all
cyclists wear a cycle helmet that meets a recognised safety standard -
good enough for me.

Bikeability recommend that children wear helmets which fit well

The Department for Transport strongly recommends wearing a helmet at
all times.

A protective helmet is a must when cycling (Parentscentre)

Also - as far as I am concerned there should be compulsory training to
be undertaken by all - before they are allowed to ride a cycle on the
UK roads and cycle paths. There are so many cyclists on the roads
(and footpaths) who just do not understand the basics of the Highway
Code.

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 10:35:36 +0100, "Ret."
wrote:


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

Any cyclist who reads much of the available research into the
effectiveness or otherwise of bicycle helmets can come to an informed
decision. In my case that decision was not to wear one. I don't
consider that decision makes me a person with no sense. Why do you
think I have no sense?
Pete

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

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


I understand that they reduce the risk of head injury if you are
involved in an accident.

The Royal Society for prevention of accidents recommends that all
cyclists wear a cycle helmet that meets a recognised safety standard -
good enough for me.

Bikeability recommend that children wear helmets which fit well

The Department for Transport strongly recommends wearing a helmet at
all times.

A protective helmet is a must when cycling (Parentscentre)

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?

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 10:35:36 +0100, Ret. wrote:


"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.

Cycle helmets don't project 3 inches!!! lol

A carefully designed
helmet does not need to cover the entire head to provide good protection
to the entire head.

Your claim does not make any sense at all. If 3/4 of the head is not
encased at all by anything then it goes without saying that it is
unprotected.

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?

Your views are rather too simplistic. The body is where all the vital
organs are.



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!

No, I can't tolerate straps under my chin and against my neck.

Your claims are all debatable as I have shown but I can't be arsed with
debating all of them.

Ret.

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/

"Dead Paul" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 10:35:36 +0100, Ret. wrote:


"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.

Cycle helmets don't project 3 inches!!! lol

I didn't suggest that they did - I was merely attempting to demonstrate that
a helmet does not need to cover the entire head to provide protection. Tell
me - would you argue that it is a waste of time to wear a motorcycle helmet
because it doesn't cover the face?


A carefully designed
helmet does not need to cover the entire head to provide good protection
to the entire head.

Your claim does not make any sense at all. If 3/4 of the head is not
encased at all by anything then it goes without saying that it is
unprotected.

No it doesn't! If you are wearing a cycle helmet and fall over backwards -
what part of your head is going to hit the ground first? Is it going to be
the helmet which is projecting rearward beyond the widest part of your
head - or is it going to be the area of your head immediately above your
neck? You tell me.


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?

Your views are rather too simplistic. The body is where all the vital
organs are.

And the skull is where your brains are - or it is in most people............
Even wearing a scarf wrapped around the top of your head would provide more
protection than wearing nothing at all - wouldn't it? Tell me - If I was
about to bash you on the head with a brick - would you prefer to be wearing
a cycle helmet - or nothing at all? I assume that you will answer nothing
at all - because you claim that the helmet will provide no protection at
all.......

Ret.

On 24 Aug, 10:35, "Ret." wrote:

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

Wearing a cycle helmet gives an increased risk of death or serious
injury over not wearing one. The increase is only small, and it's a
very small risk in the first place. But is really sensible to incur
even that small risk for the protection against some minor injuries
that helmets offer.

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

Not deliberately, no. Risk compensation is a well-established
phenomenon. Don't forget it applies to the behaviour of motorists
around cyclists too. Look at the work of Dr. Ian Walker for example.

--
Dave...

On 24 Aug, 12:52, dkahn400 wrote:
On 24 Aug, 10:35, "Ret." wrote:

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

Wearing a cycle helmet gives an increased risk of death or serious
injury over not wearing one. The increase is only small, and it's a
very small risk in the first place. But is really sensible to incur
even that small risk for the protection against some minor injuries
that helmets offer.

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

Not deliberately, no. Risk compensation is a well-established
phenomenon. Don't forget it applies to the behaviour of motorists
around cyclists too. Look at the work of Dr. Ian Walker for example.

--

Rather a sidelight, but in a discussion elsewhere on the web on the
subject of whether the paratroops at Arnhem wore helmets or their red
berets, a correspondent wrote:-
"The helmet would reduce the casualties from shrapnel, the beret might
improve morale."

and as Napoleon said:-
"morale is to the physical as three is to one" (in war).

There are those of us who do not feel happy wearing a helmet, and our
feelings may influence our riding and our safety. We are not always
totally rational.

By the way, I am not comparing the roads to war.

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?
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1004.html

Or indeed on the "about us" page
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1121.html

The objective is actually clearly stated on the website and is:

"to undertake, encourage, and spread the scientific study of
the use of bicycle helmets, in the context of risk
compensation and sustainable transport".

In fact, a Google search for "Helmets are not beneficial to
cyclists" site:cyclehelmets.org turns up zero hits. The only hits
it turns up from any sites at all seem to be you making the
assertion that this (as quoted text) is the statement / raison
d'etre of BHRF.

While it is undoubtedly true that cycle helmet compulsion, promotion
and use has never resulted in any objectively provable benefit to
cyclists (even the Department for Transport acknowledge this), I
don't recall, as a member of the editorial board, any point at which
we have actually stated the conclusion you quote as an objective -
we tend not to state conclusions as objectives, that is more the
style of the Liddites, in my experience.

I did not write http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1004.html but it seems
to me to be very careful to avoid the kind of dogmatic statement you
seem to want everybody to make. My personal view is that this is
because we are interested in cycling and cycle safety, whereas you
are interested in having an argument, but that is just my personal
view.

Please do cite the page where BHRF state in exactly the words you
quote that "Helmets are not beneficial to cyclists" is their message
or raison d'etre. I know for certain sure that it is /not/ our
raison d'etre, so if the site says it is then the text needs
changing.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 12:03:30 +0100, Ret. wrote:


"Dead Paul" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 10:35:36 +0100, Ret. wrote:


"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.

Cycle helmets don't project 3 inches!!! lol

I didn't suggest that they did - I was merely attempting to demonstrate
that a helmet does not need to cover the entire head to provide
protection. Tell me - would you argue that it is a waste of time to wear a
motorcycle helmet because it doesn't cover the face?

You are so full of red herring




A carefully designed
helmet does not need to cover the entire head to provide good
protection to the entire head.

Your claim does not make any sense at all. If 3/4 of the head is not
encased at all by anything then it goes without saying that it is
unprotected.

No it doesn't! If you are wearing a cycle helmet and fall over backwards
- what part of your head is going to hit the ground first? Is it going to
be the helmet which is projecting rearward beyond the widest part of your
head - or is it going to be the area of your head immediately above your
neck? You tell me.

I went head over heels once. Landed on my arse.
The helmet is going to get knocked off if you hit your head as you predict
which most of the time you wont. They are like plates on your head - naff
all use.

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?

Your views are rather too simplistic. The body is where all the vital
organs are.

And the skull is where your brains are - or it is in most
people............ Even wearing a scarf wrapped around the top of your
head would provide more protection than wearing nothing at all -
wouldn't it? Tell me - If I was about to bash you on the head with a
brick - would you prefer to be wearing a cycle helmet - or nothing at
all? I assume that you will answer nothing at all - because you claim
that the helmet will provide no protection at all.......

I have never come across any brick wielding anti-cyclist nutters before.
Like I said, your arguments are far too simplistic.

Ret.

--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/