Legal position of h**m*ts

Came across a very interesting review by a Barrister and Law Lecturer at
the LSE on the status of cycle helmets in the UK Courts. An interesting
read especially some of his comments about Martlew and B****.
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.u.../fullbrook.pdf

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Tony Raven wrote:


Sig...

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

I'll take that quote very seriously, given who said it ;-)

BugBear

Tony Raven wrote:
An interesting read

Indeed. I particularly like the bit where it says that of the 28,000
head injuries suffered by children every year, only 1,200 are related to
cycling.

However, to say that newspaper reports of the 28,000 all being
cycling-related are "heavily criticised as sensationalist" is putting it
rather too mildly - "heavily criticised as outright lies" would seem
more appropriate.

Likewise, "the statistic that cycle helmets prevent 85 per cent of head
injuries has been shown to be a large exaggeration" might be better
worded as "the statistic that cycle helmets prevent 85 per cent of head
injuries has been shown to be a bare-faced lie".

A few more interesting quotes for the benefit of anyone who doesn't have
time to read through all 36(!) pages:
"An automated response that the absence of a cycle helmet might be a
causative factor ignores reality on the roads."

"In the vast majority of road collisions world-wide the literature notes
that 'driver error' is the key component."

"The pro-helmet campaigners are much too simplistic when they assert
that 'research has shown that wearing a good-quality cycle helmet is
proved to reduce deaths from head injury'; the research does not show
that by any means. The correlation is by no means automatic."

"In Great Britain, six times more pedestrians and eighteen times more
motor vehicle occupants suffer lethal head injuries than cyclists.
Children are 2.6 times more likely to suffer head injury through jumping
and falling than by cycling, and more than 99 per cent of head injuries
seen by UK hospitals do not involve road cyclists. It would therefore
seem logical that helmets for motorists would be rather more effective
than those for cyclists ... The potential of car driver helmets for
reducing injury is 17 times greater than that of cycle helmets."

"The simplistic mantra that absence of a cycle helmet equals culpability
in the civil courts is wholly unacceptable."

"What is clear is that there are many cycle injuries which cannot
possibly be ascribed to use or non-use of a cycle helmet. These are
likely to be the vast majority coming before the civil courts."

davek wrote:

However, to say that newspaper reports of the 28,000 all being
cycling-related are "heavily criticised as sensationalist" is putting it
rather too mildly - "heavily criticised as outright lies" would seem
more appropriate.

Likewise, "the statistic that cycle helmets prevent 85 per cent of head
injuries has been shown to be a large exaggeration" might be better
worded as "the statistic that cycle helmets prevent 85 per cent of head
injuries has been shown to be a bare-faced lie".


I gather it was published in a Law journal which I am tracking down but
as such one has to take a dispassionate tone as an author however
justified your proposed revisions may be. Look at Curnow on TRT for
example.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Tony Raven wrote:
davek wrote:

However, to say that newspaper reports of the 28,000 all being
cycling-related are "heavily criticised as sensationalist" is putting it
rather too mildly - "heavily criticised as outright lies" would seem
more appropriate.

Likewise, "the statistic that cycle helmets prevent 85 per cent of head
injuries has been shown to be a large exaggeration" might be better
worded as "the statistic that cycle helmets prevent 85 per cent of head
injuries has been shown to be a bare-faced lie".


I gather it was published in a Law journal which I am tracking down but
as such one has to take a dispassionate tone as an author however
justified your proposed revisions may be. Look at Curnow on TRT for
example.

Which one? I can't find it in Hein.

...d

Tony Raven wrote:
I gather it was published in a Law journal which I am tracking down but
as such one has to take a dispassionate tone as an author however
justified your proposed revisions may be.

Fortunately, usenet is /not/ a law journal... ;-)

d.

David Martin wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
davek wrote:
However, to say that newspaper reports of the 28,000 all being
cycling-related are "heavily criticised as sensationalist" is putting it
rather too mildly - "heavily criticised as outright lies" would seem
more appropriate.

Likewise, "the statistic that cycle helmets prevent 85 per cent of head
injuries has been shown to be a large exaggeration" might be better
worded as "the statistic that cycle helmets prevent 85 per cent of head
injuries has been shown to be a bare-faced lie".

I gather it was published in a Law journal which I am tracking down but
as such one has to take a dispassionate tone as an author however
justified your proposed revisions may be. Look at Curnow on TRT for
example.

Which one? I can't find it in Hein.

...d


Fulbrook, Julian. 'Cycle helmets and contributory negligence.' Journal
of personal injury law 2004, no. 3 (2004), pp. 171-191. for the first and

Curnow, W.J., 2005. The Cochrane Collaboration and bicycle helmets.
Accid. Anal. Prev. 37 (3) 569-574.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Tony Raven wrote:
Came across a very interesting review by a Barrister and Law Lecturer at
the LSE on the status of cycle helmets in the UK Courts. An interesting
read especially some of his comments about Martlew and B****.
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.u.../fullbrook.pdf



That took a while to read, but oddly worth it in the end! Common sense
seems to be prevailing...

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 08:52:24 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:

Came across a very interesting review by a Barrister and Law Lecturer at
the LSE on the status of cycle helmets in the UK Courts. An interesting
read especially some of his comments about Martlew and B****.
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.u.../fullbrook.pdf

Very interesting. For those who don't want to read the whole thing
there's a shorter article on the same subject at
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/helmets.php



Mike

"Pete White" wrote in message
...
Tony Raven wrote:
Came across a very interesting review by a Barrister and Law Lecturer at
the LSE on the status of cycle helmets in the UK Courts. An interesting
read especially some of his comments about Martlew and B****.
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.u.../fullbrook.pdf



That took a while to read, but oddly worth it in the end! Common sense
seems to be prevailing...

You'd be surprised how twisted "common sense" can become - some pro-helmet
zealots claim it as their reason for wearing and promoting helmets.