On Aug 24, 6:01*am, judith wrote:
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)

I once looked at a paper by a apparently reputable organization that
recommended wearing helmets. The paper was garbage.
http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/casm_critique.pdf

It is quite possible that the organizations you are citing have done
no more work than this group has done. Unfortunately many such
organizations seem to behave a lot like sheep.

I would be very interested in any good position papers that they do
have.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada





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.

Sounds good but probably not finanically feasible.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:59:28 +0100, Tony B
said in
:

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

no, of course you (me, anyone) would not believe that.

Indeed. Barry Pless did not believe it either, so he set out to
prove it doesn't happen. He was rather surprised when the results
of his research showed that people who perceive themselves to be
protected, take more risks. This was something he had been denying
for some time, and I believe continued to deny even after his own
research had shown it.

Of course risk compensation is only a theory, it can't be falsified
so it can't be formally proven. Just like evolution, in fact. It's
a theory which is, by now, so widely accepted as to make those who
deny it look a little odd.

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

"Ret." wrote in message
...

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


The problem is that you would never get pedal cyclists to wear full face
motorcycle crash helmets - too big, heavy, clumsy, expensive, etc.

No. The problem is that you think that full face helmets protect
motorcyclists. Please do some research.


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.

Given that no country which has introduced a helmet law, and nowhere that
has had a massive campaign to get cyclists to wear helmets has been able to
show any reduction in risk to cyclists, please clarify what you mean by "a
decent level of protection" because, from the evidence, they provide no
protection at all.


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.

Or the helmet could break your neck. The chances of it doing either appear
equal.

Many people have died following a non fatal punch when they have fallen
over backwards and hit their heads on the ground.

How many?

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),

per mile travelled, walking is slightly riskier than cycling, but you don't
advocate pedestrians wearing helmets, only cyclists. Not from planet logic
are you?

then a pedal cycle helmet *will* provide
good head protection. To argue otherwise is simply stupid - a bit akin to
the nonsense arguments made against car seat belts when they became
compulsory.

Dear Ret, may I suggest that you bother to do the tiniest little bit of
research before you post such completely unfounded opinions, which you
present as fact. You quite clearly have no understanding at all of the
subject of road safety in general, and what makes cyclists safe in
particular.

"Squashme" wrote in message
...
On 23 Aug, 19:52, John Kane wrote:
On Aug 23, 10:25 am, judith wrote:

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.

She/It has a function?

"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?

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.

I've heard dozens of those too. And if you google for them there are
thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. So how come no country that has
introduced a helmet law can show any reduction in risk to cyclists? Either
the helmet didn't save their life, or it kills an equal number of other
cyclists.

burtthebike wrote:

"Squashme" wrote in message
...
On 23 Aug, 19:52, John Kane wrote:
On Aug 23, 10:25 am, judith wrote:

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.

She/It has a function?

Yes.

Judith's root definition (1)is

A system to project "common sense" myths to the scrutiny of URC so that
those who are new and lurking, that still believe in "common sense" as
being an answer to scientific debate, can be shown the reality of the
situation and educated to think for themselves.


CATWOE

Customer. Lurkers and newbies
Actors. Judith , those that reply to her/it.
Transformation. The education of Lurkers/newbies.
Worldview. That scientific information is better than "common sense"
Owner(s). Those that reply to Her/it
Enviromental constraints. The realisation that you will never convince
a troll, time , patience of those that don't understand the purpose.


(1) soory for the goblldygook, in the middle of writing and
essay/revising for an exam , and took the opportunity to test myself.

"Marc" wrote in message
...
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.

Hey Judith, I killfiled you a long time ago, but now you've decided to
apologise for your mistakes, I look forward to you retracting your "****wit"
comment about me. Especially as you were wrong. But since that must be a
very familiar feeling to you, perhaps I'm being optimistic.

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

In addition as far as I am aware : every club which organises races
insists that members wear helmets.

CTT doesn't.

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
May the Lord have mercy on Stringy Bob.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:00:08 GMT, Peter Grange
wrote:

snip the bit about who I have called ****wits

Come to that, I'm in that club too. We must organise a name and a
constitution for this rapidly-becoming-less-exclusive association....


Now let's see - why would you qualify?

Ah - yes - you were the person who started this very thread when he'd
read that: a policeman who lost a leg in a road accident had revealed
how a cycle helmet saved his life.

You thought it would be really clever to add :

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

and then you couldn't even bring yourself to use the words Cycle
Helmet and had to put h*lm*et in the subject.

****wit - yes - definitely - you certainly qualify.

judith wrote:

****wit - yes - definitely - you certainly qualify.


You know Judith.. speaking as an Australian who rarely looks and very
rarely comments on this forum, let me just say that you are one of the
more offensive people I have ever read in the 15 odd years I have
frequented newsgroups. And hell I even get along with Ed Dolan.

Conversely you certainly aint the smartest.

When I am in England next we shall have to meet so I can see what you
are like in the flesh

Yours.. in absolutely no way

Dave