helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 1 May 2010 19:02 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:18:27 +0100, Mike Clark <mrc7--ct(a)cam.ac.uk> wrote: >However I'm still awaiting the answer to the question of whether or not >you personally deem the wearing of a helmet necessary in order to render >acceptable the risks of cycling on the road? > >Do you JMS regularly cycle without a helmet? If not why not? ffs - do you have a reading difficulty Message-ID: <9bugt5p1t3qeppg3dpdmujvs91i2burtgj(a)4ax.com> >Mike >-- > o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark ><\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, > "> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and > ` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" I used to do silly little drawings like that thinking I was really quite clever. -- "wearing helmets can sometimes increase the chance of a cyclist being involved in an accident." That august body The CTC (They've already had a slap for lying by the ASA)
From: Peter Clinch on 3 May 2010 02:48 Derek C wrote: > I just think that it's sensible to wear head protection when riding a > bike, not that it should be compulsory. But not to bother for equally risky things, equally productive of serious head injury, and to feel anyone pointing out oddities like that is a dangerous loon who's "anti helmet" and is thus trying to stop anyone doing as you do. 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 p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: Derek C on 3 May 2010 05:56 On May 3, 7:48 am, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > Derek C wrote: > > I just think that it's sensible to wear head protection when riding a > > bike, not that it should be compulsory. > > But not to bother for equally risky things, equally productive of > serious head injury, and to feel anyone pointing out oddities like > that is a dangerous loon who's "anti helmet" and is thus trying to > stop anyone doing as you do. > > Pete. > -- I don't walk or run around my house at up to 30 mph, and even if I do trip and fall downstairs I will land on a nice soft carpeted floor, not a concrete kerbstone. Many collisions between vehicles and bicyles are just glancing blows that are enough to make you topple off without striking your head against the fast moving vehicle. It is in these situations that a cycle helmet will help to prevent head injuries. The argument that they won't stand up to 30mph head-on impacts, so it is not worth wearing them at all, seems totally fatuous to me! I also find it worrying that a supposedly responsible body such as the CTC does not strongly recommend wearing sensible protective headgear. Derek C
From: DavidR on 3 May 2010 05:57 "Derek C" <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote > > "Derek C" <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote > > > > > But the CTC and psycholists in general seem to be against using > > > > cycle > > > > lanes and cycle paths, as well as wearing cycle helmets! > > I don't believe that I even mentioned not wearing a cycle helmet in my > list of cycling sins! Oh?
From: Peter Clinch on 3 May 2010 11:15
Derek C wrote: > I don't walk or run around my house at up to 30 mph, and even if I do > trip and fall downstairs I will land on a nice soft carpeted floor, > not a concrete kerbstone. Many collisions between vehicles and bicyles > are just glancing blows that are enough to make you topple off without > striking your head against the fast moving vehicle. It is in these > situations that a cycle helmet will help to prevent head injuries. The > argument that they won't stand up to 30mph head-on impacts, so it is > not worth wearing them at all, seems totally fatuous to me! So if they're so good, where are the casualty savings? So if walking is so safe, how come the serious head injury rates are, mile for mile, similar to cycling? > I also find it worrying that a supposedly responsible body such as the > CTC does not strongly recommend wearing sensible protective headgear. You don't have a clue what the CTC think, as you continually demonstrate. You'll find certain areas of the CTC membership have very high wearing rates, say technical mountain bikers. Very few of the articles on MTBing in their magazine feature bare-headed riders, and their training courses feature their instructors wearing helmets. Yet apparently this is telling people not to wear them? OTOH, for A to B on roads there really isn't a strong argument when you go through the real data and see what the risks are to start with and the extent to which helmets have a track record of working. So why should they "strongly recommend" something without a track record for an activity that has no obvious need of extra protection, especially when saying it is so unsafe as to need special head protection discourages people from cycling? You should get in touch with the CTC and actually find out what their policies are and why, because it's self evident you really don't knbow and are making assumptions of considerable inaccuracy. 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 p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |