"Michael C" wrote in message
...
"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?

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

Not a must, but a strong recommendation nonetheless. Also, I have lost count
of the number of "a helmet saved my life" stories I have heard.

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 05:32:57 -0700 (PDT)
Squashme wrote:

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.

It would be silly to do so - I'm sure that many more British people
are KSI on the roads at home than on postings to Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Dead Paul" wrote in message
...
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.

Cop out.........................

Ret.

"Michael C" wrote in message
...
"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?

Probably not - but most probably because they don't want to lose members and
know that there are some who would rather put their lives at risk, and
cancel membership, than look 'silly'.

Ret.

"Ret." wrote in message
...

"Michael C" wrote in message
...

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?

Probably not - but most probably because they don't want to lose members
and know that there are some who would rather put their lives at risk, and
cancel membership, than look 'silly'.

What a stupid thing to say. It has nothing to do with vanity at all - it's
not as if proper cycling gear is in any way fashionable or stylish so to say
that they are overly concerned with their appearance is nonsesence.

"Adam Lea" wrote in message
...

"Michael C" wrote in message
...

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.

Not a must, but a strong recommendation nonetheless. Also, I have lost
count of the number of "a helmet saved my life" stories I have heard.

No doubt you have - but you aren't likely to hear many "a helmet was the
cause of my accident" because it is hard to say how it caused it.

"Michael C" wrote in message
...
"Ret." wrote in message
...

"Michael C" wrote in message
...

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?

Probably not - but most probably because they don't want to lose members
and know that there are some who would rather put their lives at risk,
and cancel membership, than look 'silly'.

What a stupid thing to say. It has nothing to do with vanity at all -
it's not as if proper cycling gear is in any way fashionable or stylish so
to say that they are overly concerned with their appearance is nonsesence.

Whatever the reason - I suspect that no cycling clubs have mandatory helmet
wearing rules for their members because it is their main purpose to attract
members and not discourage them and, for whatever reasons, some members
would resign/not join if such a rule was in place. Wouldn't they?

Ret.

"Ret." wrote in message
...

"Michael C" wrote in message
...

What a stupid thing to say. It has nothing to do with vanity at all -
it's not as if proper cycling gear is in any way fashionable or stylish
so to say that they are overly concerned with their appearance is
nonsesence.

Whatever the reason - I suspect that no cycling clubs have mandatory
helmet wearing rules for their members because it is their main purpose to
attract members and not discourage them and, for whatever reasons, some
members would resign/not join if such a rule was in place. Wouldn't they?

No doubt some would. But it seems that there is enough doubt around the
effectiveness and safety of cycle helmets that means even many serious
cyclists don't want to wear them.

Ret. wrote:
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.

That sentence bears a remarkable resemblance to what one Guy Chapman
said in this group (u.r.c) some years ago.

Then he looked at the evidence, both on helmet effectiveness and cycle
safety.

I suggest you do the same.

He changed his mind. Maybe you will too.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:33:36 +0100 someone who may be Colin McKenzie
wrote this:-

Ret. wrote:
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.

That sentence bears a remarkable resemblance to what one Guy Chapman
said in this group (u.r.c) some years ago.

Then he looked at the evidence, both on helmet effectiveness and cycle
safety.

He was challenged to look at the evidence and support his assertion
with some evidence.

He was later big enough to admit his original assertions were wrong.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54