On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:29:33 +0100, Marc
wrote:

judith wrote:

Now one for you:
Why do you think that all entrants in almost all organised events or
races have to wear helmets?
Presumably for insurance reasons, and also that most organised events will
differ in circumstances to normal road riding.
In exactly the same way that the FISA insists on helmets for racing cars
but not for driving the the shops.


If you were driving an open top "racing car" on the highway then it
would be very sensible to wear a helmet.

More "common sense"?


I must assume you have probably never seen the Rijkspolitie in Holland
in their open top Porsches wearing white leather coats and bright red
crash helmets?

You are right : it is common sense - however, you do seem to be rather
short of it.

On 25 Aug, 09:59, judith wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:41:14 +0100, "Michael C"
wrote:

snip examples of clubs who insist on members wearing helmets

Why do you think that all entrants in almost all organised events or
races have to wear helmets?
Presumably for insurance reasons,

Ah - you mean that the insurance companies believe that wearing a
cycle helmet will overall reduce the risk of harm in an accident.

Yep - I think you are right.

But are they right? On what would that belief be based? Is it based on
statistics, or just on a need to have a way of rejecting some
insurance claims?


But none of this detracts from what I said earlier - given that all riders
would no doubt have a vested interest in their own safety, if so many of
them read all the available evidence on cycle helmets and come to the
conclusion that they aren't necessary I don't see why you would want to
force them to wear them.

Did people read all "the evidence" before they decided to use mobile
phones or not wear seat belts before the legislation was introduced?

No it was common sense.

Do you really think that many people are going to read "the evidence"
- as you call it.

They are not.

They will rely on advice from bodies such as RoSPA, the DfT, and cycle
clubs - who advise that helmets should be worn at all times.

Compulsory helmet wearing is on its way - just accept it.

I should not have expected you to be a "Nanny-Stater" from your
postings.

judith wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:29:33 +0100, Marc
wrote:

judith wrote:

Now one for you:
Why do you think that all entrants in almost all organised events or
races have to wear helmets?
Presumably for insurance reasons, and also that most organised events will
differ in circumstances to normal road riding.
In exactly the same way that the FISA insists on helmets for racing cars
but not for driving the the shops.

If you were driving an open top "racing car" on the highway then it
would be very sensible to wear a helmet.
More "common sense"?


I must assume you have probably never seen the Rijkspolitie in Holland
in their open top Porsches wearing white leather coats and bright red
crash helmets?

I was once stopped by the Rijkspolitie for driving 2 miles down a
cyclepath in transit van .... Long story...

You are right : it is common sense - however, you do seem to be rather
short of it.


So it seems is the majority of the world, as I can't think of a single
country that would insist that Lucy Jordan wore a crash helmet.

Squashme wrote:
On 25 Aug, 09:59, judith wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:41:14 +0100, "Michael C"
wrote:

snip examples of clubs who insist on members wearing helmets

Why do you think that all entrants in almost all organised events or
races have to wear helmets?
Presumably for insurance reasons,
Ah - you mean that the insurance companies believe that wearing a
cycle helmet will overall reduce the risk of harm in an accident.

Yep - I think you are right.

But are they right? On what would that belief be based? Is it based on
statistics, or just on a need to have a way of rejecting some
insurance claims?


Not even that, probably just based on gut instinct of "danger" The local
Social Services will pay for various individuals to indulge in leisure
activities, but would never sanction karting because it was "dangerous",
however they would pay for the individual and their employee to go horse
riding, guess which activity has more KSI ?

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:40:53 +0100, "Michael C"
wrote:

snip

Ah, that wonderful catch-all phrase that means nothing. Tell me - what does
your 'common sense' say when you are told that wearing a cycle helmet seems
to make you more likely to have an accident and actually only protects you
from quite a small number of accidents?

I would not believe that wearing a helmet makes you more likely to
have an accident.

I do believe that overall helmets would provide more protection to the
head if you were in an accident.

I believe what RoSPA and the Dft say in regards to wearing helmets.

Why do they promote helmet wearing?

Has any country or state in the US which introduced compulsory helmets
said - oh dear we got it wrong - there are many more people now being
involved in accidents just because they are wearing helmets - we'll
retract the law and ban them - we see now that they really are
dangerous?

As you do not believe in common sense - perhaps you could answer:

Did people read all "the evidence" before they decided to use mobile
phones or not wear seat belts before the legislation was introduced?

Do you really think that many people are going to read "the evidence"
- as you call it.

They are not.

They will rely on advice from bodies such as RoSPA, the DfT, and cycle
clubs - who advise that helmets should be worn at all times.

Compulsory helmet wearing is on its way - just accept it.

See, you still haven't actually answered the question. The research done so
far doesn't support that wearing a cycle helmet actually makes you any
safer, no matter what those groups might suggest. So why do you want it to
be compulsory?


For the general good.

judith wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:40:53 +0100, "Michael C"
wrote:

snip

Ah, that wonderful catch-all phrase that means nothing. Tell me - what does
your 'common sense' say when you are told that wearing a cycle helmet seems
to make you more likely to have an accident and actually only protects you
from quite a small number of accidents?

I would not believe that wearing a helmet makes you more likely to
have an accident.

You ignore risk compensation?

I do believe that overall helmets would provide more protection to the
head if you were in an accident.

I believe what RoSPA and the Dft say in regards to wearing helmets.

Do you believe in fairies?

Why do they promote helmet wearing?

They think they have to be seen to do something? Never ever forget the
first duty of any organism is self perpetuation.


Has any country or state in the US which introduced compulsory helmets
said - oh dear we got it wrong - there are many more people now being
involved in accidents just because they are wearing helmets - we'll
retract the law and ban them - we see now that they really are
dangerous?

Has any state, anywhere, ever said " Oh dear we got it wrong"?

As you do not believe in common sense - perhaps you could answer:

Did people read all "the evidence" before they decided to use mobile
phones or not wear seat belts before the legislation was introduced?

Do you really think that many people are going to read "the evidence"
- as you call it.

They are not.

They will rely on advice from bodies such as RoSPA, the DfT, and cycle
clubs - who advise that helmets should be worn at all times.

Compulsory helmet wearing is on its way - just accept it.
See, you still haven't actually answered the question. The research done so
far doesn't support that wearing a cycle helmet actually makes you any
safer, no matter what those groups might suggest. So why do you want it to
be compulsory?


For the general good.


See Australia.

Helmet wearing ( as a percentage ) UP!

Cycling down!

Head injuries ( as a percentage) UP!

General good looses out.


And that's not even allowing for the longer term health effects from
less cycling

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:40:53 +0100, "Michael C"
said in :

They will rely on advice from bodies such as RoSPA, the DfT, and cycle
clubs - who advise that helmets should be worn at all times.
Compulsory helmet wearing is on its way - just accept it.

See, you still haven't actually answered the question. The research done so
far doesn't support that wearing a cycle helmet actually makes you any
safer, no matter what those groups might suggest. So why do you want it to
be compulsory?

Of course you will recognise that judith is using the "appeal to
authority" fallacy - she lacks the detailed understanding of the
evidence base which many of us on this group has, she finds the
facts counter-intuitive, so she invokes other authorities in the
hope of obscuring that. What she probably does not realise is how
many of us know how those bodies came to their positions, namely
from the same selective interpretation of evidence. She probably
also does not know how much the DfT position, for example, has
softened in recent times, and how divided other official bodies are
(for example, doctors engaged in public health are very concerned
about the public health impact of anything that deters active
travel).

Have you also noticed how she becomes increasingly obdurate the more
it is demonstrated to her that her assertions are somewhere between
naive and outright wrong?

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

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:40:53 +0100, "Michael C"
said in :

They will rely on advice from bodies such as RoSPA, the DfT, and cycle
clubs - who advise that helmets should be worn at all times.
Compulsory helmet wearing is on its way - just accept it.

See, you still haven't actually answered the question. The research done so
far doesn't support that wearing a cycle helmet actually makes you any
safer, no matter what those groups might suggest. So why do you want it to
be compulsory?

Of course you will recognise that judith is using the "appeal to
authority" fallacy - she lacks the detailed understanding of the
evidence base which many of us on this group has, she finds the
facts counter-intuitive, so she invokes other authorities in the
hope of obscuring that. What she probably does not realise is how
many of us know how those bodies came to their positions, namely
from the same selective interpretation of evidence.


From my experience ( I'm currently arguing with west mercia "safety"
partnership) there is a great deal of circular arguments they all
maintain their position quoting each other, none of them seem to know
where their position comes from and those that did are probably long
retired.

She probably
also does not know how much the DfT position, for example, has
softened in recent times, and how divided other official bodies are
(for example, doctors engaged in public health are very concerned
about the public health impact of anything that deters active
travel).

Have you also noticed how she becomes increasingly obdurate the more
it is demonstrated to her that her assertions are somewhere between
naive and outright wrong?


I don't think it ( I have doubts about it being a she) knows that an
assertion is , that opinion is not evidence or that facts are only facts
for a moment in time.
It knows so little about science, and glories in the fact so much, that
it could even become a politician.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:20:21 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

snip

Have you also noticed how she becomes increasingly obdurate the more
it is demonstrated to her that her assertions are somewhere between
naive and outright wrong?

Guy

Thanks for your contribution - Guy - always happy to hear from you.

Yes - but I am honest in what I believe - and will accept corrections
when proven wrong - and apologise if necessary. I don't think that
you could say the same.



Have you found those snide comments yet?

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

judith wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:20:21 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

snip

Have you also noticed how she becomes increasingly obdurate the more
it is demonstrated to her that her assertions are somewhere between
naive and outright wrong?

Guy

Thanks for your contribution - Guy - always happy to hear from you.

Yes - but I am honest in what I believe - and will accept corrections
when proven wrong - and apologise if necessary. I don't think that
you could say the same.

He already has, when he championed helmets, then went away read the info
and changed his mind. You have been told about this on more than once
occasion, yet you refuse to acknowledge it, this shows that your
assertion that you "will accept corrections
when proven wrong" is a just the prattle of a lying troll.