CTC Helmet Policy

I understand that CTC's policy on helmets is to let the individual
decide; I quite agree.

However, I am surprised that they actually sit on the fence without
coming down on one side or another.

Surely they could say:

on the basis of existing scientific research we recommend that
cyclists wear helmets
or
on the basis of existing scientific research we recommend that
cyclists do not wear helmets

followed by - we will review our recommendations as additional
research results are published

Can they really not decide on the basis of current research, or is it
that it is much easier to sit on the fence and it causes less
aggravation with their members.?

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:13:28 +0100, judith
wrote:

Can they really not decide on the basis of current research, or is it
that it is much easier to sit on the fence and it causes less
aggravation with their members.?

I would prefer that they did not have a policy on it myself, and that
they allow the individual to read all of the material available on the
subject (or indeed not to do so and to just decide either way on a
whim, as is the individual's prerogative) and make their own decision
either way. Summing it up in a single policy is a bit simplistic.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

judith wrote:
I understand that CTC's policy on helmets is to let the individual
decide; I quite agree.

However, I am surprised that they actually sit on the fence without
coming down on one side or another.

Surely they could say:

on the basis of existing scientific research we recommend that
cyclists wear helmets
or
on the basis of existing scientific research we recommend that
cyclists do not wear helmets

If you look at the scientific evidence you'll find that the fence
is actually the smartest place to sit at the moment, because it
tells you that (a) the evidence itself is far from perfect, and (b)
from what we /can/ usefully say, helmets do pretty much nothing,
give or take error bars (which given (a) above are actually
non-trivial, but are not any more likley to go up than down).

And with that to back you up it's pretty daft paying any great
attention to helmets at all. There certainly isn't enough evidence
to say you /should/ wear them, and there is also certainly
insufficient evidence to say you should *not*. So it isn't
"surely" one or the other, it's "we can't tell, it could be either".

Can they really not decide on the basis of current research, or is it
that it is much easier to sit on the fence and it causes less
aggravation with their members.?

They really *can't* decide on the basis of current research,
because the current research says they do nothing give or take
error bars which could go either way.

It's actually the honest thing to do. I'll grant you it probably
doesn't look that way if you want it in black and white, but it
isn't black and white, it's an even grey... or perhaps a mottled
one. But not /conclusive/ either way that anyone either should or
should not wear one.

You'll see other interpretations of the data to mine, of course,
and in both directions. But that's just further grist to the mill
that one can't really be sure about the benefits, be they positive
or negative.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:16:31 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:13:28 +0100, judith
wrote:

Can they really not decide on the basis of current research, or is it
that it is much easier to sit on the fence and it causes less
aggravation with their members.?

I would prefer that they did not have a policy on it myself, and that
they allow the individual to read all of the material available on the
subject (or indeed not to do so and to just decide either way on a
whim, as is the individual's prerogative) and make their own decision
either way. Summing it up in a single policy is a bit simplistic.

Neil


You could be right - however - I think it is usual that campaigning
organisations do have a clear stance on such matters. (Historical :
seat belts, breath tests, mobiles, speed cameras - I think that most
motoring organisations at least expressed a view one way or the other)

Peter Clinch wrote:
judith wrote:


Judith is a troll.

The Wikipedia definition for those who mis-use or don't undestand the
term - "An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone
who posts controversial ... messages in an online community, such as an
online discussion forum ..., with the intention of baiting other users
into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic
discussion" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) and has been
added to my kill file because this poster is intent of stirring up
trouble. First of all about using cycle paths and now helmets.

Why on earth are you lot feeding her/him the entire time? If you must
reply can you add 'Judith' to the subject so my filter will pick it up
and delete it?

Steve C

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:13:28 +0100, judith
said in :

Surely they could say:
on the basis of existing scientific research we recommend that
cyclists wear helmets
or
on the basis of existing scientific research we recommend that
cyclists do not wear helmets

Or they could say "on the basis of existing scientific research we
recommend that cyclists read the research and make up their own
mind based on their cycling,their routes, their towns and their
perception of risk."

You are, in this newsgroup, only one degree of separation from the
CTC policy makers. They read some but not all posts, and several of
us are in contact with people from CTC. In my case, pretty much
daily email contact with the campaigns team. So I can answer this
with a reasonable degree of certainty.

You're unlikely to find CTC advocating any one size fits all
solution to any supposed cycling problem.

CTC think that leaving it to the individual, recognising the vast
diversity of individual cycling experiences, is far and away the
smartest move. The pro-helmet lobby would love CTC to come down one
way or another, but CTC is more about presenting evidence, helping
people make informed choices, and supporting them in the informed
choices they make, often against quite outrageous cluelessness at
various levels of officialdom.

Do join, it is a very fine organisation.

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 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:25:41 +0100, Steve C
said in :

The Wikipedia definition for those who mis-use or don't undestand the
term

/me goes off to delete the Internet troll article

No, better not. Too much drahma on WP right now. We nuked an
article cited by an SEO as a great article he'd created which
yielded 18% better conversion rates than any other web advert. He
failed the intelligence test: spam Wikipedia if you must, but if you
crow about it in print, expect the outcome to be sub-optimal for you
and your client.

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 Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:25:01 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:13:28 +0100, judith
said in :

Surely they could say:
on the basis of existing scientific research we recommend that
cyclists wear helmets
or
on the basis of existing scientific research we recommend that
cyclists do not wear helmets

Or they could say "on the basis of existing scientific research we
recommend that cyclists read the research and make up their own
mind based on their cycling,their routes, their towns and their
perception of risk."


They could I agree. However I suspect that the vast majority of
cyclists - me included - do not have the time to read and the ability
to absorb the research and arrive at a measured opinion.


CTC think that leaving it to the individual, recognising the vast
diversity of individual cycling experiences, is far and away the
smartest move. The pro-helmet lobby would love CTC to come down one
way or another

in the same way that the anti-helmet lobby would


but CTC is more about presenting evidence, helping
people make informed choices, and supporting them in the informed
choices they make


I did however point out earlier that they do not do this on their
website. They clearly reference anti-helmet pages - but you have to
be a member to read the pro-helmet research.

This is hardly the action of presenting evidence and helping
people make informed choices.

Has there ever been a survey carried out to see what cyclists think
about the question? (and before someone suggests that I am - I am not
suggesting that this would validate or invalidate the reasons for and
against helmets)

I suspect that it would show that the vast majority of cyclists do
believe that helmets are better than no helmets.

This may not be something which the CTC would wish to acknowledge as
it may show that the vast majority are against their (unstated)
official view.

Its 21st century Labour britain. Helmets will be compulsory. The fine will
be automatic. We will soon have to register our bikes, maybe a license. Oh,
that will cost too.
Minorities, of course, will be exempt from this. Parents will be fined if
their kids whizz their BMX no cycling bits etc

Only the voters can prevent this next year.

judith wrote:
I understand that CTC's policy on helmets is to let the individual
decide; I quite agree.

However, I am surprised that they actually sit on the fence without
coming down on one side or another.

That's just as stupid as saying the AA should recommend '4x4s' or not.
But then that's how you are isn't it.

--
Peter (Prof) Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at
http://vulpeculox.net