"Cycle safety called for"

On 1 Aug, 15:13, judith wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 06:47:45 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Judith wrote:
snip

I like the argument that compulsory wearing of helmets will reduce the
number of cyclists - therefore this must be a bad thing - it must be a
base herd sort of thing.

Could you clarify this in less ambiguous language please.

Some people argue that forcing people to wear cycle helmets would
reduce the number of cyclists.
Reducing the number of cyclists would be a bad thing.
Therefore forcing people to wear cycle helmets is a bad thing as we
must mot finish up with fewer cyclists.

I can't understand this argument - it must be some sort of inherent
"survival of the cyclist herd instinct" which I don't have.

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible.

Forcing people to wear helmets is a bad thing because,

a) It has no demonstrable benefit to the wearer
b) It may cause more serious harm to the wearer in a collision than
not wearing one
c) It promotes cycling as being dangerous which it is not, in relation
to walking
d) It has been shown to reduce the cycling population
e) reductions in cycling populations lead to
1) Reduced population exercise
2) Increased obesity
3) Increased deaths through poor health
4) Increased pressure on the health services
5) Increased taxes to pay for health and care demands
6) Increased use of public transport
7) Increased pollution

I am sure you can think of other negative effects that may help you
understand this argument.

Sniper8052

On Aug 1, 6:59*am, judith wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 11:27:48 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:





In message
* * * * *spindrift wrote:

[snip]
Coulthard also has a company selling Facesaver cycle helmets, designed
by one of the McLaren engineers.

[snip]

David Coulthard is inflating the danger and has a financial interest
in doing so.

Just taken a look at one of those "Facesaver" helmets. It's a full face
helmet for young children. It's the type of helmet if worn by older kids
and adults which you might advocate for serious down hill mountain
biking but certainly way over the top for everyday road use.

Mike

Perhaps the firm that designed the helmet don't know as much about it
as you do. *Why not write and tell them where they're going wrong?

They may not. Have you ever head of Shimano and the oval chainwheel
fiasco?

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

John Kane writes:

They may not. Have you ever head of Shimano and the oval chainwheel
fiasco?

Heard of? I've got one. Well, two, actually, somewhere at the bottom
of my bits box.

To be honest, it was difficult to tell what difference it made except
for making it harder to get a clean shift on the front mech


-dan

judith wrote:

I despair over the rabid anti-helmet rants that there are in here.

I don't see any. I see a pro-helmet lobby trying to force their beliefs on others and a
pro-choice body of opinion asserting the right to decide for themselves. I don't see an
anti-helmet lobby saying helmets should be banned.

I believe that this is a public newsgroup and I am entitled to voice
my opinion.

No-one is saying you haven't, I'm just surprised that you feel so strongly about helmets
and trying to find out why.

Please learn how to use your kill-file if you do not wish to read what
I say.

See above.

Alan

On Aug 1, 1:21 pm, Peter Clinch wrote:
Tony wrote:
The bicycled plod in these parts wear cycle helmets (black of course - LOL)
so what's with that then if they are a known hazard (rotation injuries)
and almost universally disdained by the knowledgeable?

The extent to which they're a "known hazard" is, at best, limited.

Why would someone specifying personal cycling gear for a policeman be
especially knowledgeable? Entirely likely they start with the DfT line,
as per the Highway Code, "you should wear a cycling helmet", and as per
RSR30 which concludes there are clear safety benefits. I don't think
it's entirely reasonable to expect our unifrom designer to go into
whether there are critiques of RSR30 and what they say, especially since
the general perception is that they are positive.


Additionally, I think the police have a little camera in their
helmets. If you think of them as a camera mounting point rather than a
crash helmet then they probably do make some sense.

Although I'm a little surprised they're allowed at all. AIUI, normal
police helmets do not have a strap worn around the neck at all.

Not quite the same but ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...in-straps.html

Tim.

On Aug 1, 3:49 pm, Daniel Barlow wrote:
John Kane writes:
They may not. Have you ever head of Shimano and the oval chainwheel
fiasco?

Heard of? I've got one. Well, two, actually, somewhere at the bottom
of my bits box.

To be honest, it was difficult to tell what difference it made except
for making it harder to get a clean shift on the front mech

I've got a triple in my bits box too. And I managed to do my knees in
to the point where I had to give up cycling for a year. I can't prove
it was the cause but I've never had anything more than a very minor
twinge since - but I got to the point where I'd go out cycling and do
20 miles and then, the next morning, couldn't get down the stairs at
all.

Tim.

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 13:28:44 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
wrote:


The dibbles quite often wear helmets when walking too. Do they know
something we don't, or are they just worried about being hit over the head
by Ruthless Anarchists?

IRTA Ruth Archer, AISMS.


--
Tim

In article , Roger Thorpe wrote:

You'd be a very weird sort of person if you thought that there ought to
be fewer cyclists in the world.

Lots of non-cycling motorists think of cyclists as something that holds
up traffic without considering the overall effect on congestion, and think
there ought to be fewer cyclists, at least on roads where they drive.
That makes them misguided, but not very weird.

(Nothing to do with Judith's trolling of course, I'm not suggesting that
she isn't very weird, just that not everyone who thinks there ought to
be fewer cyclists is.)

In article , judith wrote:

I despair over the rabid anti-helmet rants that there are in here.

Do you dispair over the rabid pink elephants too, since they appear
in equal numbers are and far more dangerous?

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:24:30 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

judith wrote:

You are right: it would be a very weird sort of person who thought
that there ought to be fewer cyclists in the world.

I can't see where I actually said that or implied that I thought that
- can you?

However, I think it is weird to argue against compulsory helmets on
the basis that this will reduce the number of cyclists; clutching at
straws in the extreme.

Well, I think that the arguments a

I accept that there are valid arguments - I was purely commenting on
the fact that reducing the number of people who cycle is not one.

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,
the two are incompatible.