A bit late in the day (it was published in 2002) another report has
been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
cycling.

Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns
trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning,
Rapport 3, 2002.
(http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/DTF/PDF/Rapporter/rap0302.pdf)

This gives helmet promotion as an example of the activities that had
made parents less positive about cycling, leading to a 30% reduction
in children cycling to school.

This backs other research which has I think been discussed here
before, but it's interesting (to me, anyway) how quiet government
reports and other sources are on this subject, and how little work
they have commissioned on assessing whether there is any negative
impact from the "dangerfying" of cycling in helmet campaigns.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:53:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>A bit late in the day (it was published in 2002) another report has
>been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
>cycling.
>
>Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns
>trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning,
>Rapport 3, 2002.
>(http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/DTF/PDF/Rapporter/rap0302.pdf)
>
>This gives helmet promotion as an example of the activities that had
>made parents less positive about cycling, leading to a 30% reduction
>in children cycling to school.

Well we will have to take your word for that - unless you have an
English translation so that we could read for ourselves.

anyone want a pinch of salt?

I trust we can believe you - you're not prone to lying are you?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman) -
proof to yet be provided.

............. the driver is also responsible for the use of seat belts
<of passengers>. (Guy Chapman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--   
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On 7 Sep, 14:46, judith  wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:53:00 퍝, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>
>  wrote:
> >A bit late in the day (it was published in 2002) another report has
> >been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
> >cycling.
>
> >Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns
> >trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning,
> >Rapport 3, 2002.
> >(http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/DTF/PDF/Rapporter/rap0302.pdf)
>
> >This gives helmet promotion as an example of the activities that had
> >made parents less positive about cycling, leading to a 30% reduction
> >in children cycling to school.
>
> Well we will have to take your word for that - unless you have an
> English translation so that we could read for ourselves.

Children's travel
The analyses show that the number of children driven in cars to and
from an
average Danish school has doubled from 1993 to 1998-2000. About 5-10%
of
this increase is due to a rise in car ownership, while 5-15% is due to
school
closures and 25-30% is due to a lower average age among children.
However,
55-60% of the increase must be a result of changed perceptions and
attitudes.
The changing attitudes seem predominantly to consist of a still less
positive
attitude towards cycling. A possibility is that parents due to
increased car traffic,
road safety campaigns and the media etc. today are more concerned on
their children’s behalf and have set new limits for the children’s
independent
mobility. Changed attitudes towards the use of cycle helmets during
the
1990s, which lead to an increase use of helmets, can also have
contributed to
a shift from cycling to walking, car and bus.
The primary trend during the past 20 years is that fewer children walk
to and
from school and instead are driven in cars. This trend is also
prevailing on
trips in the leisure time, on which 11-15-year-olds also cycle less
today.
An analysis show that age, sex, public transport supply, distance
between
home and school, car ownership and land use structures influence
children’s
transport mode choice. For example is 73% of all trips travelled by
foot and
bicycle among children with less than 1.5 km to school, while this is
only 26%
among children with more than 7.5 km to school.

> anyone want a pinch of salt?
>
> I trust we can believe you - you're not prone to lying are you?

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 07:46:23 -0700 (PDT), Eric 
wrote:

>On 7 Sep, 14:46, judith  wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:53:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >A bit late in the day (it was published in 2002) another report has
>> >been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
>> >cycling.
>>
>> >Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns
>> >trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning,
>> >Rapport 3, 2002.
>> >(http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/DTF/PDF/Rapporter/rap0302.pdf)
>>
>> >This gives helmet promotion as an example of the activities that had
>> >made parents less positive about cycling, leading to a 30% reduction
>> >in children cycling to school.
>>
>> Well we will have to take your word for that - unless you have an
>> English translation so that we could read for ourselves.
>
>Children's travel
>The analyses show that the number of children driven in cars to and
>from an
>average Danish school has doubled from 1993 to 1998-2000. About 5-10%
>of
>this increase is due to a rise in car ownership, while 5-15% is due to
>school
>closures and 25-30% is due to a lower average age among children.
>However,
>55-60% of the increase must be a result of changed perceptions and
>attitudes.
>The changing attitudes seem predominantly to consist of a still less
>positive
>attitude towards cycling. A possibility is that parents due to
>increased car traffic,
>road safety campaigns and the media etc. today are more concerned on
>their children’s behalf and have set new limits for the children’s
>independent
>mobility. Changed attitudes towards the use of cycle helmets during
>the
>1990s, which lead to an increase use of helmets, can also have
>contributed to
>a shift from cycling to walking, car and bus.
>The primary trend during the past 20 years is that fewer children walk
>to and
>from school and instead are driven in cars. This trend is also
>prevailing on
>trips in the leisure time, on which 11-15-year-olds also cycle less
>today.
>An analysis show that age, sex, public transport supply, distance
>between
>home and school, car ownership and land use structures influence
>children’s
>transport mode choice. For example is 73% of all trips travelled by
>foot and
>bicycle among children with less than 1.5 km to school, while this is
>only 26%
>among children with more than 7.5 km to school.
>
>> anyone want a pinch of salt?
>>
>> I trust we can believe you - you're not prone to lying are you?

Yes thanks - he was as usual putting the Chapman spin on things:

The summary doesn't actually say that "helmet promotion deters
cycling" does it?

But it does say:

Increased use of safety belts and cycle helmets can explain
approximately 30% of the fall in injuries and is the primary cause to
a significant reduction in accident severity.

I think it also shows that the Danish parents have realised that
cycling can be just too dangerous and are not allowing the
"independent mobility" of cycling:

A possibility is that parents due to increased car traffic,
road safety campaigns and the media etc. today are more concerned on
their children’s behalf and have set new limits for the children’s
independent mobility.

--   
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:53:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>A bit late in the day (it was published in 2002) another report has
>been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
>cycling.
>
>Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns
>trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning,
>Rapport 3, 2002.
>(http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/DTF/PDF/Rapporter/rap0302.pdf)


What the fuckwit hasn't made clear is that although the paper is in
Danish - it does contain a summary in English.

(and of course it doesn't support what he says in his post - no
surprise there then)


--   
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Sep 7, 4:09 pm, judith  wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 07:46:23 -0700 (PDT), Eric 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 7 Sep, 14:46, judith  wrote:
> >> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:53:00 퍝, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>
> >>  wrote:
> >> >A bit late in the day (it was published in 2002) another report has
> >> >been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
> >> >cycling.
>
> >> >Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns
> >> >trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning,
> >> >Rapport 3, 2002.
> >> >(http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/DTF/PDF/Rapporter/rap0302.pdf)
>
> >> >This gives helmet promotion as an example of the activities that had
> >> >made parents less positive about cycling, leading to a 30% reduction
> >> >in children cycling to school.
>
> >> Well we will have to take your word for that - unless you have an
> >> English translation so that we could read for ourselves.
>
> >Children's travel
> >The analyses show that the number of children driven in cars to and
> >from an
> >average Danish school has doubled from 1993 to 1998-2000. About 5-10%
> >of
> >this increase is due to a rise in car ownership, while 5-15% is due to
> >school
> >closures and 25-30% is due to a lower average age among children.
> >However,
> >55-60% of the increase must be a result of changed perceptions and
> >attitudes.
> >The changing attitudes seem predominantly to consist of a still less
> >positive
> >attitude towards cycling. A possibility is that parents due to
> >increased car traffic,
> >road safety campaigns and the media etc. today are more concerned on
> >their children’s behalf and have set new limits for the children’s
> >independent
> >mobility. Changed attitudes towards the use of cycle helmets during
> >the
> >1990s, which lead to an increase use of helmets, can also have
> >contributed to
> >a shift from cycling to walking, car and bus.
> >The primary trend during the past 20 years is that fewer children walk
> >to and
> >from school and instead are driven in cars. This trend is also
> >prevailing on
> >trips in the leisure time, on which 11-15-year-olds also cycle less
> >today.
> >An analysis show that age, sex, public transport supply, distance
> >between
> >home and school, car ownership and land use structures influence
> >children’s
> >transport mode choice. For example is 73% of all trips travelled by
> >foot and
> >bicycle among children with less than 1.5 km to school, while this is
> >only 26%
> >among children with more than 7.5 km to school.
>
> >> anyone want a pinch of salt?
>
> >> I trust we can believe you - you're not prone to lying are you?
>
> Yes thanks - he was as usual putting the Chapman spin on things:
>
> The summary doesn't actually say that "helmet promotion deters
> cycling" does it?
>
> But it does say:

The study analyses the development in accidents and travel among 6-16-
year olds
in Denmark. The number of injuries in this age group dropped by 46% in
the period 1985-2000. About 25% of the reduction in injuries occurred
due to
decreasing child figures and average age among children.

> Increased use of safety belts and cycle helmets can explain
> approximately 30% of the fall in injuries and is the primary cause to
> a significant reduction in accident severity.

The
number of children per school that are driven by car on school
journeys seem
to have doubled from 1993 to 1998-2000. The share of children cycling
to
school seems to have decreased almost 30%, while use of public
transport and
walking increased. The changes in travel can be explained by changes
in demography,
school closures, increased car ownership and changed attitudes among
children and parents. On the total journeys, the 6-10-year-olds have
doubled
their car trips and reduced their walking trips by 40% from 1978 to
1998-2000,
while 11-15-year-olds have tripled their car trips during the same
period.

> I think it also shows that the Danish parents have realised that
> cycling can be just too dangerous and are not allowing the
> "independent mobility" of cycling:

Due to pressures from the safety lobby promoting helmets and the
dangerisation of cycling, just as Guy said.

Note above, it lumps seat belts and helmets together.

> A possibility is that parents due to increased car traffic,
> road safety campaigns and the media etc. today are more concerned on
> their children’s behalf and have set new limits for the children’s
> independent mobility.
>
> --  
> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
> incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Sep 7, 4:16 pm, judith  wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:53:00 퍝, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>
>  wrote:
> >A bit late in the day (it was published in 2002) another report has
> >been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
> >cycling.
>
> >Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns
> >trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning,
> >Rapport 3, 2002.
> >(http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/DTF/PDF/Rapporter/rap0302.pdf)
>
> What the fuckwit hasn't made clear is that although the paper is in
> Danish - it does contain a summary in English.

Why didn't you try looking?

> (and of course it doesn't support what he says in his post - no
> surprise there then)

You also wrote:

> I think it also shows that the Danish parents have realised that
> cycling can be just too dangerous and are not allowing the
> "independent mobility" of cycling:
>
> A possibility is that parents due to increased car traffic,
> road safety campaigns and the media etc. today are more concerned on
> their children’s behalf and have set new limits for the children’s
> independent mobility.

i.e. the dangerisation of cycling.

> you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
> incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 08:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Eric 
wrote:

<snip>



>> Increased use of safety belts and cycle helmets can explain
>> approximately 30% of the fall in injuries and is the primary cause to
>> a significant reduction in accident severity.
<snip>

>
>Due to pressures from the safety lobby promoting helmets and the
>dangerisation of cycling, just as Guy said.

Please point out where it actually mentions the promotion of helmets
as contributing to a reduction in cycling.

Cycling is dangerous - this is a good reason for not cycling in some
circumstances - on some roads

Helmets help to reduce injury - this is not a good reason for not
cycling in some circumstances or on some roads

Would you agree?


--   
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 08:40:45 -0700 (PDT), Eric 
wrote:

>On Sep 7, 4:16 pm, judith  wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:53:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >A bit late in the day (it was published in 2002) another report has
>> >been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
>> >cycling.
>>
>> >Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns
>> >trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning,
>> >Rapport 3, 2002.
>> >(http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/DTF/PDF/Rapporter/rap0302.pdf)
>>
>> What the fuckwit hasn't made clear is that although the paper is in
>> Danish - it does contain a summary in English.
>
>Why didn't you try looking?


I looked at the paper - there was no indication that it was in other
than Danish.  A sensible person would have said something like:

"Here is a paper in Danish which also has an English summary."

The fuckwit Chapman is not a sensible person.

Anyway I do like the bit where is says that cycle helmets contributed
to a decrease in injuries - so some good comes out of his post.


--   

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 08:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Eric
 said in
:

>Due to pressures from the safety lobby promoting helmets and the
>dangerisation of cycling, just as Guy said.

See also Hillman & Whitelegg, "One False Move" and Davis' "Death on
the streets".  I don't think it's especially surprising that talking
up the danger of cycling in order to promote helmets, has the effect
of deterring cycling.  I only know of one study that even tries to
contradict this; that study was written by Angela Lee of BHIT and is
of no objective worth - certainly it is not widely cited (and for
good reason).

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sep 7, 4:48 pm, judith  wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 08:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Eric 
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Increased use of safety belts and cycle helmets can explain
> >> approximately 30% of the fall in injuries and is the primary cause to
> >> a significant reduction in accident severity.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >Due to pressures from the safety lobby promoting helmets and the
> >dangerisation of cycling, just as Guy said.
>
> Please point out where it actually mentions the promotion of helmets
> as contributing to a reduction in cycling.

Message-ID: <44429f65-3235-4a6e-
aa1b-424559a20add@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>


> Cycling is dangerous - this is a good reason for not cycling in some
> circumstances - on some roads

Cycling is not dangerous in comparison with similar activities.

> Helmets help to reduce injury - this is not a good reason for not
> cycling in some circumstances or on some roads
>
> Would you agree?

Wow, you chose to respond to that post despite plainly having
absolutely zero understanding of the study or the other literature
on the issue - who could possibly have predicted that?  Oh, wait...


>I trust we can believe you - you're not prone to lying are you?

Indeed, although I am mistaken on occasion.

>I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
>Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.

Um, no, proven to be a misunderstanding over tense: you demanded
that I say what I recommend (present tense) to my children and then
dredged up a four-year-old comment to try to poison the well.  I may
well have encouraged them to wear plastic hats four years ago, go
back far enough and I encouraged /everyone/ to wear them, but right
now you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what I encourage my
children to do, and I am not about to tell you because it is not in
any way relevant to my position on helmets, which is to advocate
informed choice.

>If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
>as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman) -
>proof to yet be provided.

Proof was provided at the time, you just stuffed your fingers in
your ears and chanted "laa laa I'm not listening".

>............. the driver is also responsible for the use of seat belts
><of passengers>. (Guy Chapman)

Partial quote: I actually said /I believe/ the driver is also
responsible for the use of seat belts, and it turns out this is true
only for minors.  As a parent, of course, that's the context in
which I tend to view it.

>you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
>incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

Absolutely.  And I stand by that.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 08:58:29 -0700 (PDT), Eric 
wrote:

>On Sep 7, 4:48 pm, judith  wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 08:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Eric 
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> Increased use of safety belts and cycle helmets can explain
>> >> approximately 30% of the fall in injuries and is the primary cause to
>> >> a significant reduction in accident severity.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Due to pressures from the safety lobby promoting helmets and the
>> >dangerisation of cycling, just as Guy said.
>>
>> Please point out where it actually mentions the promotion of helmets
>> as contributing to a reduction in cycling.
>
>Message-ID: <44429f65-3235-4a6e-
>aa1b-424559a20add@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
>
>
>> Cycling is dangerous - this is a good reason for not cycling in some
>> circumstances - on some roads
>
>Cycling is not dangerous in comparison with similar activities.

Do you mean like walking on a pavement?


>> Helmets help to reduce injury - this is not a good reason for not
>> cycling in some circumstances or on some roads
>>
>> Would you agree?

No answer.

Do you agree that helmets can reduce risk of injury and hence it is
sensible to wear them and promote wearing of them?


--   

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 16:55:23 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 08:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Eric
> said in
>:
>
>>Due to pressures from the safety lobby promoting helmets and the
>>dangerisation of cycling, just as Guy said.
>
>See also Hillman & Whitelegg, "One False Move" and Davis' "Death on
>the streets".  I don't think it's especially surprising that talking
>up the danger of cycling in order to promote helmets, has the effect
>of deterring cycling.  I only know of one study that even tries to
>contradict this; that study was written by Angela Lee of BHIT and is
>of no objective worth - certainly it is not widely cited (and for
>good reason).
>
>Guy

It is the fact that pointing out that cycling is dangerous which
deters people from cycling.

Because cycling is dangerous - and helmets reduce the risk of injury -
then it is sensible to wear a helmet.

It is not the promotion of helmets which deters people - it is the
realisation that cycling can be dangerous.


--   

I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.

On Sep 7, 5:09 pm, judith  wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 08:58:29 -0700 (PDT), Eric 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sep 7, 4:48 pm, judith  wrote:
> >> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 08:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Eric 
> >> wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> >> Increased use of safety belts and cycle helmets can explain
> >> >> approximately 30% of the fall in injuries and is the primary cause to
> >> >> a significant reduction in accident severity.
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> >Due to pressures from the safety lobby promoting helmets and the
> >> >dangerisation of cycling, just as Guy said.
>
> >> Please point out where it actually mentions the promotion of helmets
> >> as contributing to a reduction in cycling.
>
> >Message-ID: <44429f65-3235-4a6e-
> >aa1b-424559a20...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
>
> >> Cycling is dangerous - this is a good reason for not cycling in some
> >> circumstances - on some roads
>
> >Cycling is not dangerous in comparison with similar activities.
>
> Do you mean like walking on a pavement?
>
> >> Helmets help to reduce injury - this is not a good reason for not
> >> cycling in some circumstances or on some roads
>
> >> Would you agree?
>
> No answer.
>
> Do you agree that helmets can reduce risk of injury and hence it is
> sensible to wear them and promote wearing of them?
>
So you are in favour of people wearing helmets when walking then?

..d

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:20:25 +0100, judith 
said in :

>Because cycling is dangerous - and helmets reduce the risk of injury -
>then it is sensible to wear a helmet.

O RLY?

Perhaps you can provide the following then:

* Citations to studies that show cycling to be objectively
dangerous, i.e. markedly more dangerous than activities usually
considered safe, such as walking along the pavement.  There must be
one somewhere, I suppose, it's just that every single study on this
issue that I've ever read or seen cited says the exact opposite -
that cycling is not only safe but actively reduces whole-life
mortality.

* Citation to studies which show that increased helmet use has led
to a provable reduction in head injuries in real populations.  The
Minister for Transport said that Her Majesty's Government know of no
case where this has happened, so they, too, will be pleased to hear
of this evidence when you cite it.

None of the papers in my library of several hundred studies and
analyses gives any grounds to believe that ordinary cycling is
especially dangerous or that helmets make any measurable difference
to the risk of head injury in real populations.  Every single person
in this group who has engaged with you on these issues, and who has
any understanding of the research base, has told you the same thing.
Yet you continue to assert something which to the best of all our
knowledge is objectively false.  So it's time for you, who describe
others as "liars" and "fuckwits" when they disagree with you, to put
up or admit to being a lying fuckwit.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:05:47 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:


Hello Guy - Have I jumped out of the kill file again - nice to see
that you read my posts.

However your post epitomises your whole attitude:


>Wow, you chose to respond to that post despite plainly having
>absolutely zero understanding of the study or the other literature
>on the issue - who could possibly have predicted that?  Oh, wait...

I did go to read the study - I would not trust what you said.

Please point out where it actually mentions the promotion of helmets
as contributing to a reduction in cycling - which is what you said.

(or just say sorry for exaggerating - and you were wrong if you wish)

>>I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
>>Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
>
>Um, no, proven to be a misunderstanding over tense: you demanded
>that I say what I recommend (present tense) to my children and then
>dredged up a four-year-old comment to try to poison the well.  I may
>well have encouraged them to wear plastic hats four years ago, go
>back far enough and I encouraged /everyone/ to wear them, but right
>now you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what I encourage my
>children to do, and I am not about to tell you because it is not in
>any way relevant to my position on helmets, which is to advocate
>informed choice.

Er - no  - proven to be an outright lie.

You categorically said " I have never said that I encourage my
children to wear helmets"

Note you did not say "I used to encourage them to - but I do not do so
now"

Note the use of the word "never". 

I then pointed out on your web pages where you did in fact say it.

A reasonable person would have said :

"Woops - sorry - you are right - I used to say that some time ago - I
had forgotten - I will change the web page to show that is not my
current attitude"

What did you do?  Alter the web page - and "forget" to change the
"date last altered"

You are despicable. 

(By the way - if you are so anti-helmet - but you clearly show photos
of your kids wearing helmets - then it is a very reasonable question
to ask whether you encourage them to do so or not.  I do not
understand why you are fighting shy of this question)

>>If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
>>as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman) -
>>proof to yet be provided.
>
>Proof was provided at the time, you just stuffed your fingers in
>your ears and chanted "laa laa I'm not listening".

Excellent - if you have previously provided proof - just give the
reference or the quote.

Proof has *never* been provided - show the proof - and show that I am
a liar - or do not show the proof and show that you are a liar.



>>............. the driver is also responsible for the use of seat belts
>><of passengers>. (Guy Chapman)
>
>Partial quote: I actually said /I believe/ the driver is also
>responsible for the use of seat belts, and it turns out this is true
>only for minors.  As a parent, of course, that's the context in
>which I tend to view it.

Why do you always wriggle - why not just say that you were wrong?

You need to be more honest  - and admit when you make a mistake.

PS I like the way you refer to "plastic hats" - can't you bring
yourself  to say "cycle helmet"?

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:44:28 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:20:25 +0100, judith 
>said in :
>
>>Because cycling is dangerous - and helmets reduce the risk of injury -
>>then it is sensible to wear a helmet.
>
>O RLY?

In 2004, 134 cyclists were killed on Britain’s roads and 16,514 were
injured, of whom 2,174 were seriously injured

The number of cyclists killed on British roads in 2007 was 136.

(1985 - 1992) Female cyclists were especially at risk from heavy goods
vehicles in inner London (22 deaths), while male cyclists were
especially at risk from cars in outer London (50 deaths). 

A 2002 study found that more than 100,000 cycling head injuries could
have been prevented in 1997 in the USA if all cyclists had been
wearing helmets
(Injury Prevention Vol 8(1) ‘State Level Estimates of the Incidence
and Economic Burden of Head Injuries Stemming from Non-Universal Use
of Bicycle Helmets’ (J Schulman et al, 2002)

If a cyclist is knocked off their bike, there is a good chance their
head will hit the road. Nearly 50% of cyclist admissions to hospital
A&E departments are for head and face injuries, and the majority of
cyclist deaths and injuries are a result of head injury.
Mortality & Morbidity data (HMSO, 1998

A 1999 report by the British Medical Association (BMA) strongly
recommended that all cyclists, but especially children, wear a helmet
when riding on the public highway.


You're right - I was wrong - cycling is not at all dangerous.

I believe that DfT and RoSPA also recommend the wearing of cycle
helmets - but I can't find it stated as such in Cyclecraft - so it may
not be true.  Any ideas?


And now you can perhaps show where:

The Minister for Transport said that Her Majesty's Government know of
no case which shows  that increased helmet use has led
to a provable reduction in head injuries in real populations

--   

I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.

judith wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:44:28 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>  wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:20:25 +0100, judith 
>> said in :
>>
>>> Because cycling is dangerous - and helmets reduce the risk of injury -
>>> then it is sensible to wear a helmet.
>> O RLY?
> 
> In 2004, 134 cyclists were killed on Britain’s roads and 16,514 were
> injured, of whom 2,174 were seriously injured

Cite?

> The number of cyclists killed on British roads in 2007 was 136.
Cite?
> 
> (1985 - 1992) Female cyclists were especially at risk from heavy goods
> vehicles in inner London (22 deaths), while male cyclists were
> especially at risk from cars in outer London (50 deaths). 

Cite?
> 
> A 2002 study found that more than 100,000 cycling head injuries could
> have been prevented in 1997 in the USA if all cyclists had been
> wearing helmets
> (Injury Prevention Vol 8(1) ‘State Level Estimates of the Incidence
> and Economic Burden of Head Injuries Stemming from Non-Universal Use
> of Bicycle Helmets’ (J Schulman et al, 2002)
> 
> If a cyclist is knocked off their bike, there is a good chance their
> head will hit the road. Nearly 50% of cyclist admissions to hospital
> A&E departments are for head and face injuries, and the majority of
> cyclist deaths and injuries are a result of head injury.
> Mortality & Morbidity data (HMSO, 1998

Full cite please>
> 
> A 1999 report by the British Medical Association (BMA) strongly
> recommended that all cyclists, but especially children, wear a helmet
> when riding on the public highway.

Which report?

If you want to play the game you have to do it properly. When you have 
answered the questions ( questions are the bits that come before a 
question mark , a question mark looks like this "?")
> 
> 
> You're right - I was wrong - cycling is not at all dangerous.

Life is dangerous it has a 100% mortality rate, danger is relative, 
"big"  numbers may impress morons, trolls and Sun readers, but you will 
have to do a bit more work to be taken seriously.

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:59:19 +0100, judith 
said in :

>In 2004, 134 cyclists were killed on Britain’s roads and 16,514 were
>injured, of whom 2,174 were seriously injured

Why not use the 2007 figures?

Pedestrians killed: 646
Pedestrians SI: 6,278

Cyclists killed: 136
Cyclists SI: 2,428

Motorcyclists killed: 588
Motorcyclists SI: 6,149

Car users killed: 1,432
Car users SI: 11,535


Slight injury figures are terribly inaccurate due to
under-reporting, as anyone even slightly clued up on the subject is
well aware.

So, by those figures you quote, cycling does not appear to be
dangerous.  But of course this is not a study, it's a primary source
with no measure of exposure, so is of no value in establishing
whether any of these activities is actually dangerous.

What I asked for was citations to studies showing that cycling is
objectively more dangerous than activities normally considered safe.
After all, the most dangerous activity in the UK appears to be going
to bed, if you're going to go by the fatality figures alone.

>(1985 - 1992) Female cyclists were especially at risk from heavy goods
>vehicles in inner London (22 deaths), while male cyclists were
>especially at risk from cars in outer London (50 deaths). 

Especially relative to what, exactly?  What I asked for was
citations to studies showing that cycling is objectively more
dangerous than activities normally considered safe.  What's the
figure for pedestrians, to pick an activity nobody seems to think is
dangerous?  Incidentally, I believe that 22 deaths is rather fewer
than the number of stabbing fatalities over the same period in the
same area, and note "especially at risk from heavy goods vehicles in
inner London" - a form of collision that is 100% avoidable but made
/more/ likely by those who push the cowering in the gutter school of
cycling; the best way not to get crushed by a goods vehicle in this
type of collision is to keep out of the red "danger" strip you find
at the side of many roads - to help you, they paint a picture of a
bike so you know that it's bikes that are being endangered by being
there.

>A 2002 study found that more than 100,000 cycling head injuries could
>have been prevented in 1997 in the USA if all cyclists had been
>wearing helmets

LOL! That report boils down to this: "Assuming that helmets prevent
$MADEUPFIGURE percent of head injuries, if everyone wore helmets
then $RIDICULOUSEXTRAPOLATION injuries would be saved".  And you can
bet your life that they are including minor injuries for best effect
there.

I can play that game too.  I assert that wearing a helmet prevents
186% of head injuries (a figure taken from a report by Cook &
Sheikh, ardent helmet promoters), so if everybody wore a helmet
around 200,000 cyclist injuries would have been saved, which is more
than were actually injured!  Yes, by wearing a helmet you end the
year more than 100% uninjured!  You actually absorb injuries from
non-cyclists!  Or something.

But we can do better than that: we can do the cost-benefit analysis
for a country where everybody (or nearly everybody) /did/ start
wearing helmets.  You'll never guess: the calculated cost saving in
injury treatments, even attributing reduced levels of cycling as a
benefit of the law, was less than the cost of the helmets.  Amazing,
who could have predicted that?

The fact that you would quote this figure despite its obviously
being predicated on uncritical acceptance of the figures from the
observational studies, which are flatly contradicted by every single
real cyclist population in the world where there has been a
measurable change in helmet use, marks you out as being wilfully
clue-resistant rather than simply clueless.

But this is not even close to what you were asked for, which was:
studies which show that increased helmet use has led to a provable
reduction in head injuries in real populations.  The predictions are
grandiose, 65% to 88%, so this should be /trivially/ easy.  Just
name the country and the data series that shows this proposed
reduction - 

>If a cyclist is knocked off their bike, there is a good chance their
>head will hit the road. Nearly 50% of cyclist admissions to hospital
>A&E departments are for head and face injuries, and the majority of
>cyclist deaths and injuries are a result of head injury.
>Mortality & Morbidity data (HMSO, 1998

The same applies to pedestrians, whose risk of head injury is
actually somewhat higher as a proportion of all injuries.  And it's
hardly a surprise that non-head trauma is, these days, less likely
to be fatal than in the past, the state of medical science being
what it is.

But it doesn't address either of the points I put: it does not show
any evidence that cycling is more dangerous than activities normally
considered safe (it doesn't even show that cycling is more
productive of head injuries than activities normally considered
safe, come to that), and it doesn't show any evidence that helmet
use has resulted in any provable improvement in cyclist head injury
rates in any real population.

>A 1999 report by the British Medical Association (BMA) strongly
>recommended that all cyclists, but especially children, wear a helmet
>when riding on the public highway.

Logical fallacy: appeal to authority.  And this, too, fails to
address either of the things you were asked for.

>You're right - I was wrong - cycling is not at all dangerous.

No, cycling is not /unusually/ dangerous.  That is, ordinary cycling
is no more dangerous, by any objective measure I have seen, than
activities normally considered safe.  But see below.

>I believe that DfT and RoSPA also recommend the wearing of cycle
>helmets - but I can't find it stated as such in Cyclecraft - so it may
>not be true.  Any ideas?

>And now you can perhaps show where:

>The Minister for Transport said that Her Majesty's Government know of
>no case which shows  that increased helmet use has led
>to a provable reduction in head injuries in real populations

Letter from David Jamieson, Minister Department for Transport, to
Michael Jack MP, Oct 2003. 

So lets try this again, shall we?  What you need to provide in order
to back your claim is the following:

* Citations to studies that show cycling to be objectively
dangerous, i.e. markedly more dangerous than activities usually
considered safe, such as walking along the pavement.  There must be
one somewhere, I suppose, it's just that every single study on this
issue that I've ever read or seen cited says the exact opposite -
that cycling is not only safe but actively reduces whole-life
mortality.

* Citation to studies which show that increased helmet use has led
to a provable reduction in head injuries in real populations.  The
Minister for Transport said that Her Majesty's Government know of no
case where this has happened, so they, too, will be pleased to hear
of this evidence when you cite it.


Read the two paragraphs very carefully and you should be able to 	
avoid making the same silly mistakes again.


>I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
>Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
>their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
>I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
>Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.

To say that your sig was proven to be an outright lie is being a
little harsh on yourself - wilful misrepresentation is more like it.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:44:28 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
>  On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:20:25 +0100, judith 
>  said in :
> 
> >Because cycling is dangerous - and helmets reduce the risk of 
> >injury - then it is sensible to wear a helmet.
> 
>  Perhaps you can provide the following then:

Guy, I thought you'd quite that nasty, dirty habit.
You said you had.

regards,  Ian SMith
-- 
  |\ /|      no .sig
  |o o|
  |/ \|

On 07 Sep 2008 19:42:14 GMT, Ian Smith  said
in :

>Guy, I thought you'd quite that nasty, dirty habit.
>You said you had.

Displacement activity - I am putting off something very fiddly on
the railway.

Every now and then the statements "cycling is dangerous" and
"helmets reduce the risk of injury" need rebutting.  In this case
it's pretty simple, you just ask for the proof of either and watch
the wriggling.

You'll be needing to ignore this thread, though.  I might well reply
again here.  Not in other threads, though.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 07 Sep 2008 19:42:14 GMT, Ian Smith  said
> in :
> 
>> Guy, I thought you'd quite that nasty, dirty habit.
>> You said you had.
> 
> Displacement activity - I am putting off something very fiddly on
> the railway.

Snap  trying desperately not to put the 30 odd diagrams of soft systems 
methodology, VSM and hard systems methodology, together  with the 5,00 
words, (needs to be done by Friday)
> 
> Every now and then the statements "cycling is dangerous" and
> "helmets reduce the risk of injury" need rebutting.  In this case
> it's pretty simple, you just ask for the proof of either and watch
> the wriggling.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel, if it wasn't such a stupid ( and 
obvious) troll I might feel some sympathy.
> 
> You'll be needing to ignore this thread, though.  I might well reply
> again here. 

Is it worth it? Surely it's at the stage now where it thrashs about, 
just making itself look more and more stupid? Once you have pushed a 
sled down a hill once or twice you don't need to keep watching ( or 
pushing) to know what the result is going to be.

In article , Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:20:25 +0100, judith 
>said in :
>
>>Because cycling is dangerous - and helmets reduce the risk of injury -
>>then it is sensible to wear a helmet.
>
>O RLY?

Which part of "In short, judith is a lying troll" are you struggling with :-)
(http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/0419e2d7332fa019)

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 07 Sep 2008 19:42:14 GMT, Ian Smith  said
> in :
> 
>> Guy, I thought you'd quite that nasty, dirty habit.
>> You said you had.
> 
> Displacement activity - I am putting off something very fiddly on
> the railway.
> 
> Every now and then the statements "cycling is dangerous" and
> "helmets reduce the risk of injury" need rebutting.  In this case
> it's pretty simple, you just ask for the proof of either and watch
> the wriggling.
> 
Similar to watching *you* wriggle about changing your website and then 
denying it? *That* sort of wriggling? Lol, being a pretentious wanker is 
one thing, but being a liar as well...

Marc wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On 07 Sep 2008 19:42:14 GMT, Ian Smith  said
>> in :
>>
>>> Guy, I thought you'd quite that nasty, dirty habit.
>>> You said you had.
>>
>> Displacement activity - I am putting off something very fiddly on
>> the railway.
> 
> Snap  trying desperately not to put the 30 odd diagrams of soft systems 
> methodology, VSM and hard systems methodology, together  with the 5,00 
> words, (needs to be done by Friday)
>>
>> Every now and then the statements "cycling is dangerous" and
>> "helmets reduce the risk of injury" need rebutting.  In this case
>> it's pretty simple, you just ask for the proof of either and watch
>> the wriggling.
> 
> It's like shooting fish in a barrel, if it wasn't such a stupid ( and 
> obvious) troll I might feel some sympathy.
>>
>> You'll be needing to ignore this thread, though.  I might well reply
>> again here. 
> 
> Is it worth it? Surely it's at the stage now where it thrashs about, 
> just making itself look more and more stupid? Once you have pushed a 
> sled down a hill once or twice you don't need to keep watching ( or 
> pushing) to know what the result is going to be.

Yes, you're right. We know Chapman is happy to lie when cornered, so 
whats the point in asking him difficult questions?

On 07 Sep 2008 21:39:11 +0100 (BST), armb@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

>In article , Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:h
>>On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:20:25 +0100, judith 
>>said in :
>>
>>>Because cycling is dangerous - and helmets reduce the risk of injury -
>>>then it is sensible to wear a helmet.
>>
>>O RLY?
>
>Which part of "In short, judith is a lying troll" are you struggling with :-)
>(http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/0419e2d7332fa019)


Well done Bilbo - pointing to the page which Chapman altered - you're
trying to embarrass him aren't you?

Perhaps you can ask him is that date of alteration actually correct?

When it says "Version 3 created 27/06/2004 , last 
updated 31/08/2004" 

Here is a simple question for him : did he alter it after 31/08/2004?

Of course he may lie and say no - in which case I'll post my dated
copy of it before and after the changes.

You've done him no favour there :-) Still one fuckwit trying to help
another - what would one expect.

(I see you are still using Organization: University of Cambridge,
England - in your header.  It's odd they say that you are not a
student or a member of staff - why do you use it????)

--   

I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 08:29:36 -0700 (PDT), Eric 
wrote:

<snip>

>> I think it also shows that the Danish parents have realised that
>> cycling can be just too dangerous and are not allowing the
>> "independent mobility" of cycling:
>
>Due to pressures from the safety lobby promoting helmets and the
>dangerisation of cycling, just as Guy said.


Where does it mention the "safety lobby promoting helmets" - I can't
see that bit.

(Perhaps the fuckwit Chapman made it up - he is caught out lying every
now and again)

--   

I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:22:27 +0100, judith 
said in :

>Hello Guy - Have I jumped out of the kill file again - nice to see
>that you read my posts.

You are still on auto-ignore, I am watching some replies in this
thread only.

I thought of replying to the rest, but really it's just generic
"judith" - attempting to prove that a 99% correct response is 100%
incorrect in order to somehow make out that you "win" despite being
ill-informed and generally wrong.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

judith wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:53:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>  wrote:
> 
>> A bit late in the day (it was published in 2002) another report has
>> been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
>> cycling.
>>
>> Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns
>> trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning,
>> Rapport 3, 2002.
>> (http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/DTF/PDF/Rapporter/rap0302.pdf)
>>
>> This gives helmet promotion as an example of the activities that had
>> made parents less positive about cycling, leading to a 30% reduction
>> in children cycling to school.
> 
> Well we will have to take your word for that - unless you have an
> English translation so that we could read for ourselves.
> 
> anyone want a pinch of salt?

The guy cites a reference, and you still want proof?

You *are* truly bizarre.

   BugBear

judith wrote:
> No answer.
> 
> Do you agree that helmets can reduce risk of injury and hence it is
> sensible to wear them and promote wearing of them?

You're either stupid, or deliberately missing the point.

   BugBear

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:19:24 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:22:27 +0100, judith 
>said in :
>
>>Hello Guy - Have I jumped out of the kill file again - nice to see
>>that you read my posts.
>
>You are still on auto-ignore, I am watching some replies in this
>thread only.


Ah - so you didn't read my post - you read someone else's reply and
then went and found the post which they were replying to,  and opened
my post just so that you could reply to it.

Most odd - but then you are.


--   

I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:32:35 +0100, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:53:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> A bit late in the day (it was published in 2002) another report has
>>> been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
>>> cycling.
>>>
>>> Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns
>>> trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning,
>>> Rapport 3, 2002.
>>> (http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/DTF/PDF/Rapporter/rap0302.pdf)
>>>
>>> This gives helmet promotion as an example of the activities that had
>>> made parents less positive about cycling, leading to a 30% reduction
>>> in children cycling to school.
>> 
>> Well we will have to take your word for that - unless you have an
>> English translation so that we could read for ourselves.
>> 
>> anyone want a pinch of salt?
>
>The guy cites a reference, and you still want proof?
>
>You *are* truly bizarre.
>
>   BugBear


Sorry sunshine -  not bizarre at all - when the fuckwit Chapman said
that the report showed that "helmet promotion deters cycling." - it
says no such think - and it was in fact something which he had made up
again.  It does not even mention "helmet promotion".

The problem with the fuckwit Chapman is that he wants everyone else to
be so precise in what they say - but then moans like hell when someone
picks him up on yet another lie that he has made.

(Did you see the one about "never"? - here it is again in case you
missed it):

--   

I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:34:19 +0100, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> said in
<RJednXSx8d8GbFnVnZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>:

>> Do you agree that helmets can reduce risk of injury and hence it is
>> sensible to wear them and promote wearing of them?

>You're either stupid, or deliberately missing the point.

Or both, of course :-)

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:37:36 +0100, judith 
said in :

>Ah - so you didn't read my post

Yes I did.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:32:35 +0100, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> said in
<RJednXWx8d-ubFnVnZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>:

>The guy cites a reference, and you still want proof?

What judith wants is for everyone else to provide proof that she is
right.  Since she is generally wrong, that is proving elusive.  It
is also one explanation of why she is unable to find said proof
herself, but only one of several explanations.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"judith"  wrote in message 
news:ljs9c4ltacs2tqp3dfpiv9a05afemd19qp@4ax.com...
>
>
> Sorry sunshine -  not bizarre at all - when the fuckwit Chapman said
> that the report showed that "helmet promotion deters cycling." - it
> says no such think - and it was in fact something which he had made up
> again.  It does not even mention "helmet promotion".


Actually it does:

"The changing attitudes seem predominantly to consist of a still less 
positive
attitude towards cycling. A possibility is that parents due to increased car 
traffic,
road safety campaigns and the media etc. today are more concerned on
their children's behalf and have set new limits for the children's 
independent
mobility. Changed attitudes towards the use of cycle helmets during the
1990s, which lead to an increase use of helmets, can also have contributed 
to
a shift from cycling to walking, car and bus"



but it does also say;


"Increased use of safety
belts and cycle helmets can explain approximately 30% of the fall in 
injuries
and is the primary cause to a significant reduction in accident severity"


And, wrt the reduction in independent mobility of children:

"On the total journeys, the 6-10-year-olds have doubled
their car trips and reduced their walking trips by 40% from 1978 to 
1998-2000,
while 11-15-year-olds have tripled their car trips during the same period."

and, wrt causes of the changed patterns of transport to school:

"The analyses show that the number of children driven in cars to and from an
average Danish school has doubled from 1993 to 1998-2000. About 5-10% of
this increase is due to a rise in car ownership, while 5-15% is due to 
school
closures and 25-30% is due to a lower average age among children. However,
55-60% of the increase must be a result of changed perceptions and 
attitudes....

...An analysis show that age, sex, public transport supply, distance between
home and school, car ownership and land use structures influence children's
transport mode choice. For example is 73% of all trips travelled by foot and
bicycle among children with less than 1.5 km to school, while this is only 
26%
among children with more than 7.5 km to school."

The overall thrust of the paper quoted is not properly summarized by:
"another report has
>>> been brought to my notice which shows that helmet promotion deters
>>> cycling."


Selective quoting of bits of sources which offer a more balanced view is not 
good practice
http://www.trm.dk/graphics/Synkron-Library/DTF/PDF/Rapporter/rap0302.pdf

pk

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:34:19 +0100, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

>judith wrote:
>> No answer.
>> 
>> Do you agree that helmets can reduce risk of injury and hence it is
>> sensible to wear them and promote wearing of them?
>
>You're either stupid, or deliberately missing the point.
>
>   BugBear

It seems a perfectly sensible question to ask.

Why are you yet another who fights shy of answering it?

(Ask the fuckwit  Chapman why he encourages his kids to wear helmets)
--   

I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:13:16 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:32:35 +0100, bugbear
><bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> said in
><RJednXWx8d-ubFnVnZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>:
>
>>The guy cites a reference, and you still want proof?
>
>What judith wants is for everyone else to provide proof that she is
>right.  Since she is generally wrong, that is proving elusive.  It
>is also one explanation of why she is unable to find said proof
>herself, but only one of several explanations.
>
>Guy


You said: 

"a report has been brought to my notice which shows that helmet
promotion deters cycling"

The report shows/says  no such thing - there is an acknowledgment that
there may have been a contribution to falling cycling numbers due to
the helmet effect - but no more than that.

Still lying is now second nature to you isn't it.

--   

I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

bugbear wrote:
> judith wrote:
>> No answer.
>>
>> Do you agree that helmets can reduce risk of injury and hence it is
>> sensible to wear them and promote wearing of them?
> 
> You're either stupid, or deliberately missing the point.
>

My money is on both.