Times article about helmets

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...976534,00.html

It seems to me that once again non-cycling "do gooders" are being
confused with cycling campaigners.

It's ironic that they publish this on the same day that they write
about Britain's worst cycling accident (their words) in which they say
that all the cyclists involved were wearing helmets.

"Cycling campaigners" should do something useful like campaign to abolish
smoking, or obesity instead.

It's v hard to find their email address for replies, but here it is:

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 16:19:43 -0800, Simon Proven wrote:


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...976534,00.html

It seems to me that once again non-cycling "do gooders" are being
confused with cycling campaigners.

It's ironic that they publish this on the same day that they write
about Britain's worst cycling accident (their words) in which they say
that all the cyclists involved were wearing helmets.

At best this is ignorant ranting, at worst, well --
They said that all the bicyclists were wearing helmets in this unfortunate
accident. Where is the logic in demanding that bicyclists wear helmets?
What about the car driver, road conditions etc? If he had ploughed into a
similar group of pedestrians the same would probably happened.
No mention of he fact that countries which HAVE instituted compulsory
helmets have not seen a reduction in head injusries, when the decline in
bicycling is taken into account.

"A cyclist is 20 times more likely to be killed than a car occupant on an
urban road; 34 times more likely to be killed on a rural road."

This needs further clarification. On its own it doesn't mean anything.
With regard to time? distance travelled? and the baseline?

And what is it that kills bicyclists? Overwhelmingly it is impact with
motor vehicles. Presence/absence of helmet seems to play minor role.
How about the European idea, that in a collision, the parties are held
responsible according to how much damage s/he can cause to the other
party? This seems to be a factor in their low accident rate, despite very
low helmet wearing rates.

Peter

--
No Microsoft involved. Certified virus free --

Just sent this:

Sir,

Your correspondent, Lewis Smith, is right to raise the issue of the safety
of cyclists. However, he appears not to be aware of some of important facts
regarding cycle helmets, which he seems to think will solve the problem.

No cycle campaigners have been lobbying government to bring in mandatory
cycle helmets. Those who have been thus lobbying are not cyclists, they are
obsessives who refuse to look at the evidence. It is sad and an
embarrassment for the BMA, when they decided to call for mandatory helmets,
that they fell for the blandishments of these people rather than examine the
evidence themselves.

What does that evidence say? There has been no reduction in risk to
cyclists where cycle helmets have been made mandatory. The only
demonstrable effect of their imposition is to reduce the number of cyclists.
This may reduce the number of cyclists dying on the roads, but in societies
where lack of exercise kills many thousands more people than being struck by
motor vehicles when riding a bicycle, the net effect is a massive reduction
in health levels, and a correspondingly large increase in health care costs.

The problem of cyclists' safety is mostly in the hands of drivers, and
helmets are an irrelevance. As Mr Smith points out, deaths to cyclists rose
last year, but the level of helmet wearing rose also. No manufacturer
claims that a helmet will be of any use whatsoever in collision with a motor
vehicle, but the helmet campaigners claim precisely that.

If Mr Smith really wants to improve the safety of cyclists, he will be
campaigning for the media to stop promoting fast driving, speed and power.

Richard Burton

Following on from Rich's message. . .
I've just sent this to the Times


Please add my name to the letter from Richard Burton.



--
PETER FOX Not the same since the pancake business flopped

www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists

"Simon Proven" wrote in message
ups.com...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...976534,00.html

It seems to me that once again non-cycling "do gooders" are being
confused with cycling campaigners.

It's ironic that they publish this on the same day that they write
about Britain's worst cycling accident (their words) in which they say
that all the cyclists involved were wearing helmets.



My letter to the Times...

"Sir,

In the article by Lewis Smith (Helmet pressure as death toll rises: Times,
09/01/06), Smith notes the growing clamour for compulsory use of helmets
when cycling.

I am a keen cyclist and motorist. I wear a helmet when cycling, but am under
no illusions about the amount of protection it affords me. A cycling helmet
is made up of lightweight polystyrene with a very thin shell over it. It is
designed to offer limited protection from a fall of about three feet when
the wearer is stationary or travelling at very low speed. It is not designed
to offer protection when a cyclist is hit by a motor vehicle of a tonne or
more moving at speed. Even the helmet manufacturers don't make that claim
and I'm sure that if they could, they would do so.

I find it appalling when cyclists, who actually were wearing helmets, killed
and injured by a driver doing 50mph on an icy road, are being used by the
helmet compulsion lobby as an excuse to peddle their pet cause. It is a
classic case of victim-blaming that is going on here and it stinks. If
helmets are as effective as the compulsionists say, then why do they not
clamour for pedestrians to be wearing walking helmets so they are protected
if they get hit by a motor vehicle whilst walking along the street? After
all, there are pedestrians struck by motor vehicles. It is because that
would show just how silly the compulsionists are. Or perhaps they should be
campaigning for all motorists to be wearing helmets, as motorists kill and
injure more motorists each year than the number of pedestrians or cyclists
killed or injured.

If the helmet compulsion lobby was truly interested in making the roads
safer for all road users, then I'd have a lot more respect for them, but
they are intent on promoting cycling as an inherently dangerous activity,
which it is not. The best way they can promote road safety is to campaign
for the current promotion and acceptance of fast driving to be ended and for
the acceptance of death by motor vehicle as almost always being an 'accident'
and the motorists having no more than a pittance of a fine plus a few points
on the driving licence as the sanction they get to be changed. The real
danger on our roads is not cyclists; it is we motorists who kill 3500 each
year and injure tens of thousands more. It's about time the real source of
the danger was tackled and the victim blaming stopped.

Even the Times falls under the spell of victim blaming when it comes to
cycling. As regards the tragic event in Wales, it is described by the Times
as a "cycling accident" (Thrown into the air 'like skittles': Times,
09/01/06 in first paragraph). Would the phrase "walking accident" have been
used if the driver had ploughed into a group of pedestrians? Thought not. "

Cheers, helen s

in message , wafflycat
') wrote:
My letter to the Times...

[snip] and mine...

Dear sir

The four cyclists whose deaths were reported in your columns this
morning were all wearing the helmets advocated by your correspondent
Lewis Smith in the same edition. This may seem ironical, but is not
surprising. If Mr Lewis had done his research, he would be aware that
half an inch of polystyrene foam doesn't really make much difference
when human bodies are "thrown into the air 'like skittles'". Cycle
helmets are not designed to protect in impacts with motor vehicles, and
none of their manufacturers make any claims whatsoever in this regard.
Campaigning to impose mandatory 'safety' equipment which is known not
to address the problem in question is simply irresponsible.

Sincerely

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

pSchroedinger's cat is blinkstrongNOT/strong/blink dead./p

Mine:

Sir,

I know many others from Britains cycling community have also written to
you on this subject, but I'd also like to condemn the Times for printing
this article on the day that media reports tell us of the tragedy in
North Wales. Aside from the points about how ineffective helmets
actually were in this instance (compare that to the contention by BHIT,
amongst others that you can't be safe cycling on the road, UNLESS
wearing a helmet,) the timing of the report is disgusting and insensitive.

I would expect The Times, one of the most famous names in the world whwn
it comes to news media, to be a bit more reponsible when it comes to
tragedies such as the one in North Wales yesterday.


Peter White
Trowbridge.

Simon Brooke wrote:
in message , wafflycat
') wrote:
My letter to the Times...

[snip] and mine...
Here's mine..

Sir

Mandating antilock brake systems (ABS) on all cars would be more
effective in preventing situations like the weekend's tragedy than
forcing cyclists to wear helmets.

Yours, etc.