A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Helmets



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old April 21st 04, 01:25 AM
davek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmets

I see the helmets as a protection, really.

Protection against what exactly?

I'm like you, I have always *instinctively* felt that helmets must be A Good
Thing, because it *must* be a good idea to have all that padding on your
head, right?

Since joining this newsgroup I have somewhat revised my opinion so that I
now trust my instinct less and the facts and evidence more.

I think we should trust people a bit more, that's all.


I *trust* you have some hard evidence to back up the claims you have made in
your posts - including the ones about car seatbelts and motorcycle helmets.
Yes?

d.


Ads
  #42  
Old April 21st 04, 03:03 AM
Dave Kahn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmets

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:22:21 +0100, "Vivian"
wrote:

I thought that a troll was somebody who insulted other members of the
newsgroup. Now, I haven't insulted anyone. Not yet at least! ;-)

So, I think you should take it back. Really.


Then you misunderstand what trolling is. It has nothing to do with
insulting people. Given the recent history of the group, the timing of
your post, and your provocative assertion that "Wearing a helmet will
become compulsory for under 16's", it had all the hallmarks of a
troll. It appears, however, that you are merely a top-poster.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain
  #43  
Old April 21st 04, 03:03 AM
Dave Kahn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmets

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:22:21 +0100, "Vivian"
wrote:

I thought that a troll was somebody who insulted other members of the
newsgroup. Now, I haven't insulted anyone. Not yet at least! ;-)

So, I think you should take it back. Really.


Then you misunderstand what trolling is. It has nothing to do with
insulting people. Given the recent history of the group, the timing of
your post, and your provocative assertion that "Wearing a helmet will
become compulsory for under 16's", it had all the hallmarks of a
troll. It appears, however, that you are merely a top-poster.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain
  #44  
Old April 21st 04, 03:06 AM
Dave Kahn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmets

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:20:33 +0100, "Vivian"
wrote:

I see the helmets as a protection, really.


So you wear one as a pedestrian then?

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain
  #45  
Old April 21st 04, 03:06 AM
Dave Kahn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmets

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:20:33 +0100, "Vivian"
wrote:

I see the helmets as a protection, really.


So you wear one as a pedestrian then?

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain
  #46  
Old April 21st 04, 06:21 AM
RogerDodger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmets

wrote:
posted by Vivian I see the helmets as a protection, really. When
wearing seatbelts becase compulsory, did that deter drivers from buying
and driving cars? Don't think so. All the contrary by the looks of it!!
Did the obligatory use of helmets for motorcyclist reduce their
numbers? Nope.
I think we should trust people a bit more, that's all.
Vivian



Vivian claim

"Did the obligatory use of helmets for motorcyclist reduce thei
numbers? Nope.

Are you sure about that, or is that a claim that you would prefer t
believe, and that seems credible, and is a claim that you don't expec
anyone to be able to refute

Well here's a claim that contradicts the assertion that mandator
motorcycle helmet laws reduce motorcyclist numbers

"It is also proffered that the repeal of mandatory helmet-use laws, b
offering individuals a choice in whether to wear protective helmets
increases the attractiveness and convenience of motorcycle use. Thi
in turn affects miles traveled and sales of motorcycles. For example
Kraus, Peek, and Williams (1995) reported that after an unrestricte
helmet-use law went into effect in California in 1992, there was
substantial decrease in the number of motorcycles observed travelin
on roads in various California cities." (page 132*

* “BORN TO BE WILD” The Effect of the Repeal of Florida’s Mandator
Motorcycle Helmet-Use Law on Serious Injury and Fatality Rates
Stolzenberg L.,D'Alessio S.J., Florida International University
Evaluation Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, April 2003 131-15
www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/FloridaMHL.pd

Vivian's use of analogous 'reasoning' seems silly and is hardl
relevant: "When wearing seatbelts becase compulsory, did that dete
drivers from buying and driving cars? Don't think so. All the contrar
by the looks of it!!

I've seen this type of use of analogy in many guises before -wher
you can get the sense that the person who has need to resort t
coming up with some patently silly and sneering, and irrelevan
analogy - is bereft of a good argument and the ability to reason i
through. What's more laughable about this is that Vivian i
effectively sneering - and (s)he can't see that what he's sneering a
his own pathetically silly analogy

There seems to be a very strong whiff of self assured smugness an
condescension in what Vivian writes - as if to say that we're stupid an
that he knows better

I don't think the epithet 'troll' is appropriate here - any suggestion
for alternative term of endearment - anybody

Roge


-


  #47  
Old April 21st 04, 06:21 AM
RogerDodger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmets

wrote:
posted by Vivian I see the helmets as a protection, really. When
wearing seatbelts becase compulsory, did that deter drivers from buying
and driving cars? Don't think so. All the contrary by the looks of it!!
Did the obligatory use of helmets for motorcyclist reduce their
numbers? Nope.
I think we should trust people a bit more, that's all.
Vivian



Vivian claim

"Did the obligatory use of helmets for motorcyclist reduce thei
numbers? Nope.

Are you sure about that, or is that a claim that you would prefer t
believe, and that seems credible, and is a claim that you don't expec
anyone to be able to refute

Well here's a claim that contradicts the assertion that mandator
motorcycle helmet laws reduce motorcyclist numbers

"It is also proffered that the repeal of mandatory helmet-use laws, b
offering individuals a choice in whether to wear protective helmets
increases the attractiveness and convenience of motorcycle use. Thi
in turn affects miles traveled and sales of motorcycles. For example
Kraus, Peek, and Williams (1995) reported that after an unrestricte
helmet-use law went into effect in California in 1992, there was
substantial decrease in the number of motorcycles observed travelin
on roads in various California cities." (page 132*

* “BORN TO BE WILD” The Effect of the Repeal of Florida’s Mandator
Motorcycle Helmet-Use Law on Serious Injury and Fatality Rates
Stolzenberg L.,D'Alessio S.J., Florida International University
Evaluation Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, April 2003 131-15
www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/FloridaMHL.pd

Vivian's use of analogous 'reasoning' seems silly and is hardl
relevant: "When wearing seatbelts becase compulsory, did that dete
drivers from buying and driving cars? Don't think so. All the contrar
by the looks of it!!

I've seen this type of use of analogy in many guises before -wher
you can get the sense that the person who has need to resort t
coming up with some patently silly and sneering, and irrelevan
analogy - is bereft of a good argument and the ability to reason i
through. What's more laughable about this is that Vivian i
effectively sneering - and (s)he can't see that what he's sneering a
his own pathetically silly analogy

There seems to be a very strong whiff of self assured smugness an
condescension in what Vivian writes - as if to say that we're stupid an
that he knows better

I don't think the epithet 'troll' is appropriate here - any suggestion
for alternative term of endearment - anybody

Roge


-


  #48  
Old April 21st 04, 09:05 AM
Simon Brooke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmets

in message , Vivian
') wrote:

I see the helmets as a protection, really. When wearing seatbelts
becase compulsory, did that deter drivers from buying and driving
cars?


No, but the number of people killed in road accidents went up, not down.
That's a fact, and you can easily check it.

In countries where compulsory helmet laws have been introduced, while
the number of people cycling has gone down sharply, the number of
cyclists killed or injured has fallen only slightly. In other words
cyclists have become _more_ likely to be killed or injured, not less.
That's a fact too, and you can check it.

What common sense would predict would happen with 'safety' legislation,
and what really does happen, are often different. This is particularly
the case with cycle helmets, which are much too weak to have any real
effect in road-speed collisions.

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

;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning.
  #49  
Old April 21st 04, 09:05 AM
Simon Brooke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmets

in message , Vivian
') wrote:

I see the helmets as a protection, really. When wearing seatbelts
becase compulsory, did that deter drivers from buying and driving
cars?


No, but the number of people killed in road accidents went up, not down.
That's a fact, and you can easily check it.

In countries where compulsory helmet laws have been introduced, while
the number of people cycling has gone down sharply, the number of
cyclists killed or injured has fallen only slightly. In other words
cyclists have become _more_ likely to be killed or injured, not less.
That's a fact too, and you can check it.

What common sense would predict would happen with 'safety' legislation,
and what really does happen, are often different. This is particularly
the case with cycle helmets, which are much too weak to have any real
effect in road-speed collisions.

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

;; Usenet: like distance learning without the learning.
  #50  
Old April 21st 04, 09:23 AM
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmets

Gonzalez wrote:

Take care! Many so called "facts and evidence" posted on this NG have
been grossly distorted or presented in such a way to give a false
picture.


What, like all of the BHIT ones?

The most salient *facts* are helmet compulsion has reduced cycling
numbers everywhere it's been introduced and overall safety increases
with increased numbers cycling.

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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
published helmet research - not troll patrick Racing 1790 November 8th 04 04:16 AM
published helmet research - not troll Frank Krygowski General 1927 October 24th 04 06:39 AM
published helmet research - not troll Frank Krygowski Social Issues 1716 October 24th 04 06:39 AM
Cricket helmets may slow the brain, says study (D. Telegraph, 15.4.2004) Scott Leckey UK 7 April 17th 04 08:57 PM
Compulsory helmets again! Richard Burton UK 526 December 29th 03 09:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.