All it will do is reduce cycling use and lead to more people being fat and putting more strain on the NHS.
Actually this is true - read the data linked to above. The protective effects of helmets are so small across the population and the health benefits of cycling so large that it only takes a tiny reduction in cycling for the unwelcome effects of a reduction in cycling to outweigh any beneficial effects from helmet wearing
<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; background-color: #eeeeee;">Read the link I provided before</span>
Do you have any links to data not analysed by a famously anti helmet publication.
Riding at 10mph to the shops, or a 2 mile commute is not going to stop you getting fat and putting more strain on NHS.
Agreed that it doesn’t do a lot to stop people becoming overweight, but even relatively small amounts of exercise are beneficial to health, and are also likely to start a beneficent cycle.
A good summary of the actual evidence
There is no actual, holistic, reliable, peer-reviewed, independent evidence on either side
It's a matter of personal choice and must remain that way until the necessary, extremely complex and costly studies are completed. That won't happen anytime soon, if ever
@MoreCashThanDash there’s a quote for you:
you’re an idiot for not wearing one
I'm not quite seeing how that becomes your right wing paradigm
There’s a worrying tendency amongst some on here to buy into the (right wing) paradigm of blaming people for not wearing helmets.
I've spent a lot of time finding helmets I'm comfortable in. I think not wearing a helmet when there are so many types to use is stupid, based on my experience of falling off and banging my head.
I do not blame people who exercise their right to not wear one though. I am pro-helmet, anti-compulsion.
I'm not wanting or seeking to blame anyone with the opposing view. Not everything has to be a completely all or nothing, black and white excuse for an argument.
Do you have any links to data not analysed by a famously anti helmet publication.
Yes - that one Iinked to cycling UK not cyclehelmets.org
https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/cycle-helmets
There is no actual, holistic, reliable, peer-reviewed, independent evidence on either side
Yup - it points in various directions and no evidence for helmet compulsion reducing serious injuries is robust. The quality is generally pretty awful tho
One thing i learn from reading threads like this is that a lot of people should have paid more attention at school.
And scarily enough, some engineers/scientists/mathematicians should have paid more attention at University as well.
Agreed that it doesn’t do a lot to stop people becoming overweight, but even relatively small amounts of exercise are beneficial to health, and are also likely to start a beneficent cycle.
So if they walk instead of riding a bike that health benefit maybe even better. We don't know though do we as we don't have the level or quality of data required so we are all just guessing.
If you already use a bike for little trips it doesn't mean that a) you wouldn't just put on a helmet if it became law or b) ignore the law and just carry on cycling of c) get in your car (if you have one) and not just walk.
I’ve spent a lot of time finding helmets I’m comfortable in. I think not wearing a helmet when there are so many types to use is stupid, based on my experience of falling off and banging my head.
Why do you not ware a helmet walking or running? There is nothing special about riding a bike. I am many others here have no issue with people wearing a helmet and personally I ware a helmet for most of my riding. There is however a big difference between waring it where the user feels it is needed and having it being a requirement for riding at all when many forms of riding can be similar dangers to walking or running. There would still be a benefit to waring a helmet when walking or running but most people choose not to. It shouldn't be an issue if someone chooses not to for an aspect of cycling
Wish I could run or walk at 20mph for prolonged periods.
Fairly certain I can't even achieve that down a hill no matter how long it is.
Yes – that one Iinked to cycling UK not cyclehelmets.org
https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/cycle-helmets/blockquote >The answer you were looking for here apparently was no. You have posted the same link again.
I'm not pro compulsion but I'm anti people who try and make out that a helmet provides no protection - even more so by waving around what are skewed statistics by their very mature of how they are gathered.
oh do shut up. You put a seatbelt on in a car and you make sure a ladder is safe to use before going up
So why do so many people in cars end up with head injuries?
This is interesting: https://blog.ukdataservice.ac.uk/nts-road-deaths/
Using the raw numbers, we found that four times as many drivers and five times as many pedestrians died from a head injury as cyclists.
.....
A key finding from this use of NTS showed that young males are up to five times safer when they cycle than when they drive – and the rest of us are also safer if they cycle and don’t drive!
So even with the seatbelt, (and assuming helmets would make a difference, but racing drivers wear them for a reason) mandating helmets for drivers would save more lives, as I reckon close to 0% of driven miles are done by someone wearing a helmet, while a good % of cycled miles are done by someone already wearing a helmet. And that then leads to a follow on question of what % of cyclists who died from a head injury where actually wearing a helmet anyway.
It really is strange that bicycles are a special case for needing helmets. Look at these lunatics, risking life and limb head:
Whereas this is completely fine and sensible and there is no chance of a head injury:
And for the avoidance of doubt, I always wear a helmet when MTBing or 'proper' road riding, but not always if popping to the shop on a kerb-protected cycle lane.
Trail rat - have you bothered to read it? Cycling UK is a large pro cyclist lobbying campaign. That briefing is a decent analysis of the data. Its not slanted in any way particularly
And that then leads to a follow on question of what % of cyclists who died from a head injury where actually wearing a helmet anyway
More interesting would be the number of people who crashed, Impacted their head wearing a helmet and subsequently didn't report the incident due to their being no injury. - I know I have several times.
I've also been added to the head injury statistics when not wearing a helmet , snapped a chain , hit the ground at speed and took an epileptic fit + spent the rest of the year getting tests to ensure it was related directly to the trauma and not an ongoing thing.
Trail rat – have you bothered to read it? Cycling UK is a large pro cyclist lobbying campaign. That briefing is a decent analysis of the data. Its not slanted in any way particularly
Yes I have - seems they got a new PR guy doing their copy so it's less alienating than in the past. But their history is such that you cannot accept them as not biased towards helmet=bad.
Just waiting for the helmets increase injury line and my bingo card will be complete for this thread.
It would be interesting to know the rate/severity of head injuries on drop-bar road bikes vs more upright city bikes - on the latter your body has to rotate much further for your head to hit the ground first.
trail_rat
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838/
https://ideas.repec.org/p/mut/wpaper/21.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01785.x/abstract
Those are a good start I have more if you want them
Have you read more than the abstract while Googling?
the corrections on the first article alone are interesting.
Trail rat. Are you confusing it with cycle helmets.org?
I never use google 🙂
I read those - and others - last time this debate happened as I realised I was arguing from assumption not knowledge. It changed my mind about a few things.
but it’s ok, I see where you’re coming from now: “I want evidence. No, not that evidence”.
Edit.
**** it going for a bike ride .....with my helmet on. .
Enjoy your ride trail_rat. Sorry if I annoyed you.
There's a very, very big difference between "helmet = bad" and "helmet compulsion = bad".
I think these threads so often go a certain way because the people disagreeing with one another are actually arguing for/against different things.
Well, I've just got back from a 4 hour MTB ride with a helmet on. Tomorrow morning, I'll get up and do my 30 minute cycle commute down a tow path, without one. Time and a place.
At a personal level, on a recent family holiday, we rented bikes. When the person serving us offered me a helmet, I initially declined. He then looked me in the eye and asked, “Just how many brains do you have, sir?” I took the hint and I took the helmet
I feel that the question from the bike hire guy had a different meaning than the MP thought...
I’d be tempted to say yes to compulsory lids for delivery riders on e-bikes.
Applying a new law to folks who are legendary for their non-compliance with existing ones? (Well a sizeable proportion of them, at least)
I wonder how that will pan out...?
Riding at 10mph to the shops, or a 2 mile commute is not going to stop you getting fat and putting more strain on NHS.
That's not true at all. It's exactly that kind of low impact, everyday activity that stops people becoming immobile, overweight and sick - esp if the alternative is driving (as opposed to walking).
bails
There’s a very, very big difference between “helmet = bad” and “helmet compulsion = bad”.
I think these threads so often go a certain way because the people disagreeing with one another are actually arguing for/against different things.
I'm still missing the more fundamental question of why anyone thinks they have a right to legislate over some safety thing someone chooses of their own violation that doesn't affect them
If you have to wear a helmet on a bicycle then you should also have to wear on a scooter, skates or any other wheeled toy you ride.
My boy came off his bike yesterday and got mild concussion, dread to think what would have happened if he'd not had one on.
Had to take him to A&E. I was a little shocked on how unfit looking the vast majority of the other people were in the waiting room. Maybe if we need the state to enforce something as sensible as wearing a helmet when cycling, maybe the state should also ban other things that people need protecting from like:
- Booze
- Fags
- Gambling
- Sugar/sweets/confectionary
- Fast food
- Additives in food
- Pesticides
I was a little shocked on how unfit looking the vast majority of the other people were in the waiting room.
That's not exactly a random selection of punters, is it? Of course the hospital is going to be filled with unhealthy people. 🤣
I’m still missing the more fundamental question of why anyone thinks they have a right to legislate over some safety thing someone chooses of their own violation that doesn’t affect them
Interesting point but there is plenty of legislation that protects people from themselves. People don't always make good decisions do they?
I was a little shocked on how unfit looking the vast majority of the other people were
If we're into banning things for health reasons, we need to ban cities and road planning that forces you to go everywhere by car.
Transport planners should be held liable for all the deaths they cause from ill health by disallowing cycling.
Why do you not ware a helmet walking or running? There is nothing special about riding a bike
Well, I've never fallen and banged my head whilst walking or running, so in my limited anecdotal experience, I'd prefer to wear a helmet while riding.
If you have to wear a helmet on a bicycle then you should also have to wear on a scooter, skates or any other wheeled toy you ride.
And plenty of people choose to do so. Choose being the key word.
Srewth, there are some judgemental people on here. It is not stupid not to wear a helmet . It is your opinion that it doesn't suit you. Please STW, stop being so nasty about other peoples views.
It really is strange that bicycles are a special case for needing helmets.
Not really. Cyclists mix with cars which tend to knock them over and given the way you get knocked over it seems you're fairly likely to hit your head on the floor or part of the car. Falling off unassisted is probably a different dynamic.
I’m still missing the more fundamental question of why anyone thinks they have a right to legislate over some safety thing someone chooses of their own violation that doesn’t affect them
Because it happens in other aspects of life all the time but doesn't seem to cause as much upset as it does with cyclists.
And if I can't get an ambulance/hospital bed/operation when I need one because someone didn't follow mandatory PPE, then suddenly it does affect me.
(Playing devil's advocate as I'm prochoice until I see more research confirming that compulsion does more good than harm at a societal level)
Falling off unassisted is probably a different dynamic.
Not in my experience....
– Booze
– Fags
– Gambling
– Sugar/sweets/confectionary
– Fast food
– Additives in food
– Pesticides
Many of these already have some form of legislation in place to protect both individuals and environment.
Another authoritarian ruling from this absolute state of a government.
There have been a few posts along these lines. It's, not a 'ruling' and it didn't come from the government. It's a private member's bill from a back bencher that never had much hope, and has now been rejected by...... the government.
Yes I know they're a bunch of throbbers who are to blame for a lot of stuff, but in this case they did the right thing. They carried out a review, saw it was counterproductive and torpedoed it before got anywhere. Blaming 'the government' for everything bad in a knee jerk fashion diminishes genuine criticism when they do **** up.
MOlgrips - the point being rates of head injury when driving or walking are similar to cycling. so why cycling helmets and not driving or walking ones?
If anyone is interested, this is a good write up on the introduction in 1973 of compulsory helmets for motorcyclists. Including the fight against compulsion by MAG and the activist Fred Hill who was imprisoned 31 times for refusing to wear a helmet and died in Pentonville prison aged 74.
This is very still emotive in some quarters amongst motorcycling rights groups. There are possibly some parallels in the arguments for and against compulsory cycle helmets.
Personally, I wouldn't ride my motorbike or cycle without wearing a helmet, but I don't support compulsion in either case.
This is very still emotive in some quarters amongst motorcycling rights groups.
Wow that’s a shock because, in 30 years or so I’ve never met anyone in favour of riding motorcycles without a helmet (I’ve done it occasionally with the Honda c90 and it’s really stupid).
With a motorbike it’s all the gear all the time, with a bike I only wear a helmet if it’s mountain biking; road, commuting, cx / gravel riding never bother. It’s just a risk assessment thing
the point being rates of head injury when driving or walking are similar to cycling. so why cycling helmets and not driving or walking ones?
I think that there is more under my control when I am walking. I'm much more likely to be clattered by a car when riding due to someone else's mistake than I am to randomly collapse and hit my head.
I would query the stats on head injuries whilst walking, I wonder how many times there is something else involved like a fight, collapsing for some other reason, being old, or the involvement of alcohol etc.
I've seen maybe half a dozen cyclists on the deck following accidents. I've probably seen the same number of pedestrians, but in most cases they were knocked over by someone else. In one, some poor woman who looked pretty unwell just collapsed.
With a motorbike it’s all the gear all the time
Yeah - seems like motorcyclists are aware of the benefits of protective clothing, since they are nearly always wearing leathers which aren't compulsory.
Yeah – seems like motorcyclists are aware of the benefits of protective clothing, since they are nearly always wearing leathers which aren’t compulsory.
Some. Us older fellas prefer textile gear to leathers as the power ranger look is non too flattering for the dad bod!
I've seen plenty of people riding sports bikes in shorts and T-Shirts over the last few days and whenever the weather is hot. It makes me cringe thinking of the consequences in even a low speed off. But ultimately it's their choice, which imo is as it should be
Well, I’ve never fallen and banged my head whilst walking or running, so in my limited anecdotal experience, I’d prefer to wear a helmet while riding.
I have never banged my head when cycling (50 years as a very keen cyclist) so I would be exempt from any law the yes?
And if tomorrow you tripped and banged your head when walking would you then propose wearing helmets for all walkers?
Your argument is based on some very odd thinking. We need to the data to be able to make an informed decision and as nobody has that it is all aa very pointless discussion really.
Key for me is how many people already wear a helmet, what activities are cyclists doing and which of those activities lead to the most occasions of falling off of a bike.
I would say that 99% of road, gravel and MTB riders I see are already wearing a helmet so what if they are also the people most often falling off.
Even most people I see in towns are wearing helmets so are those types of rides where most people fall off
As I normally ask when yet another fool thinks that helmets should be compulsory or that all cyclists should have training/insurance/number plates etc, from what age?
so I would be exempt from any law the yes?.....
We need to the data to be able to make an informed decision and as nobody has that it is all aa very pointless discussion really.
To repeat, I am opposed to any law/compulsion, unless some conclusive evidence supports it.
So I think we are disagreeing about the fact that in my opinion, there's no real reason to choose not to wear one.
Transport planners should be held liable for all the deaths they cause from ill health by disallowing cycling.
I actually feel sorry for transport planners, highway engineers etc. Everyone thinks their job is easy and anyone could do it ("common sense scientists" assemble!), the organisations they work for are woefully underfunded, it's often not a very high paying job, and sometimes they get blamed for stuff that was nothing to do with them -- like this bill!
<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';">I actually feel sorry for transport planners, highway engineers etc.</span>
And the requirements they receive are mostly set by angry local councilors with the intellect and common sense of pond scum.
@morecashthandash:
So I think we are disagreeing about the fact that in my opinion, there’s no real reason to choose not to wear one.
Yep, I get it's your opinion. But to illustrate my 'real' reason:
For me, they're horrible things. Been wearing them for about 20 years though - dependent on the circumstance. I'm a head sweater, so if the temperature gets above about 12 degrees they severely compromise my comfort.
I take 'em off going uphill at trail centres. Which is a lot of faff. And I hate faff, so will only put up with it if the faff-to-benefit ratio is worth it.
Not wearing a helmet is unquestionably worth it for me. And for rides where it's exceedingly unlikely that I'll fall off and smack my noggin - riding around towns or bimbling XC rides, it's highly likely that I won't wear one at all. I might even choose to wear flip-flops as footwear if it's a sunny day.
We're aligned on compulsion. But even if there was conclusive evidence and compulsion I'd weigh my own risks. And the calculation would likely be how likely would it be for the cops to stop me.
I seem to remember about 20-25 years ago someone posted guidelines stating you need 20+ minutes of cycling to benefit from it physiologically.
By that standard, by forcing that group to wear helmets, and them not bothering to cycle anymore, those only going upto a couple of miles would see more benefits by walking, far greater than cycling that distance.
Although, if you're riding a Toys'R'Us Magna/Rhino special, heavy and with high stiction tyres, I'm not so sure 😄
But ultimately it’s their choice, which imo is as it should be
No. People need protecting from themselves. How many of you look back on the stuff you did as youths and think 'my god I did some stupid stuff back then' ? How many of you are now parents and worry about the consequences of your kids doing the same stuff you used to do?
That was the point I made earlier. If people are really that bothered by having to wear a helmet and then walk 2 miles instead of ride they will be at least as healthy as walking is harder work than riding slowly and the fact they were riding before means they are more likely to just walk than someone who was never riding on the first place (i.e. using their car).
I also don't think that just the act of cycling a couple of miles a day is going to be the difference between whether you are a strain on the NHS or not and more the case that the type of person who can be bothered to ride instead of drive is going to be less of a strain.
It is strange how most people's thoughts on helmets and cycling have been trained over time.
MOlgrips – the point being rates of head injury when driving or walking are similar to cycling. so why cycling helmets and not driving or walking ones?
Yes this exactly. If one suggests that people wear protective helmets inside cars (outside of motorsport) then most people think you've lost your marbles, yet far more motor vehicle occupants receive serious head injuries each year than cyclists do.
I also like what the hierarchy of controls diagrams JonBa shared highlights, I introduced that exact same diagram a few years ago when discussing this topic elsewhere.
Not only can mandatory helmet-wearing laws cause safety issues through reduced cycling but they foster an environment that exacerbates behaviours in motor vehicle drivers which is dangerous for cyclists.
No. People need protecting from themselves. How many of you look back on the stuff you did as youths and think ‘my god I did some stupid stuff back then’ ? How many of you are now parents and worry about the consequences of your kids doing the same stuff you used to do?
I'm not sure that's the best analogy. Kids will always do stupid stuff and ignore the rules that say they shouldn't. Even in the 1970s when I grew up and pulled some ridiculous stunts that make me shudder to recall, there were safety regs and laws of the land that outlawed stuff we did. We ignored them then and I'm sure kids today do the same. Except they post it on social media which thank the heavens was not a thing in my yoof.
Kids aside, it's pretty patronising to say we need protecting from ourselves. Who decides what we need protecting from? Do you have complete faith in those charged with making those decisions? A lot of outdoor activities are intrinsically risky. To those that don't participate, they might seem reckless even. Should those people dictate what we need protecting from? I'd rather make my own choices.
that people wear protective helmets inside cars (outside of motorsport)
a good comparison. some people take their cars on a race track, and depending on the level might find themselves in a helmet, full flameproof suit, 5 point harness etc. To drive to work, a 3 point seatbelt is all thats required.
Likewise on motorbikes, boots, full leathers (or textile alternative), airbag vests, is suitable and generally worn in many situations like motorway riding, "spirited" backroad riding on sports bikes; yet riding a moped around a city a 3/4 helmet and long trousers may be sufficient.
But on a pedal bike, some people lose their minds if you suggest a gentle roll to the shops with a bare head.
Interestingly, I know some people who are in the helmet everywhere camp, yet they will be doing bike park wales in an open face helmet, or riding rocky trail centres/singletrack with no kneepads or gloves.
I’ve seen maybe half a dozen cyclists on the deck following accidents. I’ve probably seen the same number of pedestrians, but in most cases they were knocked over by someone else. In one, some poor woman who looked pretty unwell just collapsed.
On the cycling stats they cover all cycling by all parties. For one person it is more of a risk that a other. Person a commuting like a warrior, person b pottering to shop
But on a pedal bike, some people lose their minds if you suggest a gentle roll to the shops with a bare head.
Interestingly, I know some people who are in the helmet everywhere camp, yet they will be doing bike park wales in an open face helmet, or riding rocky trail centres/singletrack with no kneepads or gloves.
Pretty much this ^^
Having fallen off wearing a Fox Flux half shell, breaking my jaw and another time bouncing my head off the ground at BPW wearing a convertible Bell Super (which probably saved a lot more damage), I've now got three different helmets for different rides. Maybe I'll wear the wrong one at some point. Also have varying degrees of body protection that may or may not be the right choice on the day.
I'll not wear a helmet riding to the shops, or the pub though, it's an assessment of risk. Generally though, I'll not ride down the big set of double steps from the pub to the park if I've had 5 peroni and sans helmet.
Every day is a risk assessment at work in construction and in the same vein, riding the bike. Sensible decisions and a dose of pragmatism usually prevail
Every day is a risk assessment at work in construction and in the same vein, riding the bike. Sensible decisions and a dose of pragmatism usually prevail
/thread
But even if there was conclusive evidence and compulsion I’d weigh my own risks. And the calculation would likely be how likely would it be for the cops to stop me.
The logical end point of that argument is the end of the national speed limit.
it’s pretty patronising to say we need protecting from ourselves
It's true though. Some people do. Are you saying everyone is intelligent, rational and responsible?
Take drivers for example. People will moan about how terrible drivers are at any opportunity, but as soon as the conversation turns to imposing limits on them, people will suddenly switch to saying that we should al be empowered to make our own decisions because we're all really good at that.
No. People need protecting from themselves. How many of you look back on the stuff you did as youths and think ‘my god I did some stupid stuff back then’ ? How many of you are now parents and worry about the consequences of your kids doing the same stuff you used to do?
To continue this thinking is to ban anything remotely risky.
And the interesting bit of course is the real risks to children and young people is not a banged head - it is harm in the home (abuse and sexual abuse), it is mental health and suicide, it is lifestyle attributed health issues of obesity, etc etc. I recall (but am struggling to find the report online) a Banardo's report from about 10 years ago - showing that children were at less risk of harm unaccompanied in a local park than in their own home, let alone the long term benefits of being out playing, in nature, while socialising in their local community..
I would much rather our discussion and thoughts focus on those REAL issues, rather than a perceived issue.
Well said Matt!
A great example of this is how councils remove rope swings from trees because someone might break their arm. I see one child did sadly die on one of those swings recently. But how many children get hit and killed by cars because they never do anything risky in life and thus are both bad at risk assessment and craving danger? How many bored teenagers get sucked into drug problems or lost in the dark corners of the internet because there’s nothing exciting accessible?
Here in Brighton lots of playgrounds have been replaced recently and everything is too easy for the age range it’s aimed at, presumably for “safety” reasons. It’s utterly moronic!
Every day is a risk assessment at work in construction
Sounds like whataboutary.
Along with talk of pedestrians, this that or t'other. What happens on a building site, or inside a car, or even walking along the road bears no relation to cycling along. Be that on or off road.
Take drivers for example. People will moan about how terrible drivers are at any opportunity, but as soon as the conversation turns to imposing limits on them, people will suddenly switch to saying that we should al be empowered to make our own decisions because we’re all really good at that.
Well clearly what we mean is "I drive correctly and shouldn't have any limits imposed upon me, everyone else is wrong and should be compelled to change"
Along with talk of pedestrians, this that or t’other. What happens on a building site, or inside a car, or even walking along the road bears no relation to cycling along. Be that on or off road.
Pretty sure all those activities involve ongoing risk assessments
Hmm this have anything to do with with hordes of cyclists dying due to not wearing helmets that we don’t have.
TBH I get fed up hearing that line that’s said every time some one has an assisted ‘accident’ with a bike.
Not sure how good a piece of polystyrene is when you’ve been articulated into the next world.
Big difference between motorcycle and cycle helmets and most cyclists aren’t achieving the speeds that a motorcycle does, and we’ve seen the effectiveness of hoodies whilst bouncing a Suron off something hard at speed.
Also differences in pootling on your bike in the park and hammering it down a rocky trail or tearing up the road.
I wear helmets but am under no illusion of their effectiveness, they aren’t some magic solution, especially not in an urban environment.
Anyway I’m just repeating what cycling U.K. are saying ,the numbers show that not cycling is worse.
Trust the numbers and wear sunscreen.
Crikey, are people that precious about their hair? Whenever I'm in the bike I wear my lid, worst case it never gets used to save my swede, best case it means someone else doesn't have to scoop bits of my swede off the road and tell my family what happened.
Compulsory though, far too much hassle to police when there are easier targets
Pretty sure all those activities involve ongoing risk assessments
IMHO life is one big ongoing risk assessment 🙂
life is one big ongoing risk assessment 🙂
Are you sure about your facts ?, last I heard it was a dream.
You OK there Big Brother?
Prove me wrong, go on!
Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and
accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands
for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical
liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the
State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State
in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts
Benito Mussolini.
You must be joking.
People need protecting from themselves
That's quite totalitarian. Especially when it comes to the rather genteel topic of bike helmets.
They rub along in Amsterdam quite nicely without being infantilised at such a level. But then maybe some people feel an emotional refuge in totalitarian ideals.
For me, I'd find such a loss of autonomy both stultifying and terrifying. But horses for courses I guess.
Sounds like whataboutary.
Along with talk of pedestrians, this that or t’other. What happens on a building site, or inside a car, or even walking along the road bears no relation to cycling along. Be that on or off road.
Point missed
What happens in every walk of life requires an assessment of risk, it's not a comparison between those different activities.
Some people will consider the risks of certain situations more than other people will, but to some degree, everyone does it. On a construction site, yes you have to think about it more than a walk to the shops because the hazards and likelihoods are greater, but even walking to get your pint of milk, you assess risks when you're crossing the road for example. It's a simple risk assessment that you do in your head without really realising, but you are doing it nonetheless.
Driving a car, you assess the risks when pulling out of a junction, overtaking, many other things.
Riding a bike has risks and you generally assess them. Can I make that drop and what will happen if I don't, how fast can I take this techy section without crashing? What are the consequences if I do crash? Do I really need a helmet to ride to the shop, what are the chances of smashing my head into a rock compared to when I'm hurtling through the woods at 25mph? Yes there's still an element of risk there, but the severity and likelihood are both greatly reduced.
What level of risk you are prepared to allow in your activity (cycling) is down to the individual and as always ppe (in this case a helmet) is the last line of defence. Prepare against the other risks/hazards before your helmet is even needed - to paraphrase my analogy earlier, don't ride down steps pissed is a perfect example 🤷 Not getting pissed before riding a bike would provide better preventive measures. Not riding a bike at all OR not getting pissed would reduce the risk of anything (including fun) happening at all. The helmet is merely a backup that may protect you if all that goes out of the window
I bet el duce had a helluva job getting a bike helmet to fit his bonce
Benito Mussolini.
Does any fascist count for Godwins law or does it have to be Hitler. Saying that, I am pretty sure Hitler was all for compulsory helmets for cyclists.