On 26 Aug, 12:33, Mike Clark  wrote:
> In message 
>           judith  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:15:55 +0100, "Michael C" 
> > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > >Yet you do not believe the evidence that suggests otherwise?
>
> > I think it is most unlikely  that if there is clear "evidence" that
> > wearing a helmet does not overall provide more protection in an
> > accident RoSPA and the DfT would be promoting the wearing of them.
>
> > Do you not think that both organisations employ people who are capable
> > of assessing the  "evidence" and providing advise accordingly?
>
> Do you think that banks and other financial institutions would employ
> people who are capable of assessing the "evidence" and providing advice
> accordingly? Of course those clever people always give good advice and
> never make mistakes or act against the public interest do they?
>
> I've yet to see RoSPA or the DfT address the question as to why the
> population based data is inconsistent with the case controlled studies.
>
>
>
> > > I don't see what your point is here - mobile phones and seat belts
> > > are quite  different to cycle helmets.
>
> > The point is that most people are not inclined to read, or capable of
> > understanding, scientific research papers.  People were more than
> > willing to accept the sense of not using mobiles and of wearing seat
> > belts without wading through "scientific" papers which have probably
> > been produced because someone has an axe to grind.
>
> > Unless someone can produce some easy to understand statistics which
> > clearly show that overall wearing helmets does more harm than good -
> > then people will continue to believe that they are a good thing.
>
> All you've done is confirm the writings of Taleb from his book "The
> Black Swan". In general humans follow a simple narrative and fail to
> understand the underlying facts. As a result they often make silly
> mistakes and get caught out by the unexpected.
>
>
>
> > > What general good?  The evidence suggests that those wearing cycle
> > > helmets  have more accidents than those that don't - so what 'good'
> > > are you trying to  promote here?
>
> > The evidence "suggests" - is it not very strong?
>
> Actually what the population data clearly indicates is that there is no
> overall benefit in terms of a reduction in the frequency of severe
> injuries following the introduction of compulsory cycle helmet wearing,
> and in several studies there has been an increase in the frequency of
> severe injuries.
>
>
>
> > Might I be so bold as to suggest that many cyclists do not want to
> > support the wearing of cycle helmets because people may believe that
> > they are necessary, that cycling can be dangerous, and that once there
> > is a critical mass of people wearing them then they *will* be made
> > compulsory,  and that as the fuckwit  Chapman says you cannot promote
> > cycling and promote helmet wearing at the same time.
>
> Life can be dangerous, indeed it has a 100% mortality rate. However the
> population statistics show that cycling as an activity is on average not
> much different in danger than are activities such as walking, or driving
> on urban roads. Head injuries sometimes occur to people around the home,
> out walking, climbing ladders or steps and especially when negotiating
> staircases. Why is wearing a helmet to alleviate one risk so much more
> important than the others?
>

Because Judith "cares" about cyclist's safety in the way that
motorists in favour of compelling cyclists to use cycle lanes "care".
Remove the opposition at any price. If compulsory helmet-wearing
decreases cycling, she will be happy.