[Closed] Hypocrit Daddy doesn't wear a helmet.

You don't consider how people will jump on every word when you write the Op.

😀 and you have been here for around two years already!?!

The more people who think that wearing a helmet when cycling = the norm, the better.

Agree to disagree. Very sad day when that becomes accepted wisdom (sic)

The more police/magistrates/insurance companies who think that wearing a helmet when cycling = the norm, the more likely it is that we will be lectured/let down in court/not get compensation

And it all starts with people thinking like the OP

but surely pisspots are not particularly uncool? A fair proportion of kids seem to wear them?

Mine all wear them. Few stickers or a design with blood and skulls and stuff, they love em. It's never even been a point of debate really.

Because they don't get themselves into an internet froth about insufficient venting they also wear them on scooters, skateboards etc. where the chances of 'smashing out your brainbox' as one eloquently described it are a bit higher.

Daddy's so tired and skint he doesn't care if he lives or dies

The more police/magistrates/insurance companies who think that wearing a helmet when cycling = the norm, the more likely it is that we will be lectured/let down in court/not get compensation

And it all starts with people thinking like the OP

thats it im removing the reflectors and bell/wearing black then its somebody else's fault not mine. 😐

(yes im trolling cos im bored at work)

If people decide to make their own choices about safety, how likely do you think they are to always make the correct one?

If we always wear one out of habit, then the worst thing that'll happen vs the alternative is we get a hot head or a messed up hairdo.

If we decide the risk is low and we're wrong, then the worst that can happen vs the alternative is a serious head injury.

They even lecture random strangers.

Which, if STW has taught me anything, is a valuable life skill. 😉

the op said it was hypocritical to have your family wear one and not wear one yourself as he has again pretty much on this page.

I am pro choice as well for helmet wearing and do not think they should be compulsory.
If it is then it should be for walking as well and scooters

My kids school insists kid cyclists wear helmets and they check bikes* - you can do what you like if you come on a scooter though.

* I use the word check in the loosest possible sense of the word. they checked the brakes worked basically. This year I just refused to sign unless they asked for MOT certs of all cars and insurance etc and gave some stats showing that more children died in cars and walking than on bikes so they were targeting the wrong group- they were ok [ ish] about this.

What helmet do you wear for your driving, molgrips?

As a child my dad taught me to always wear a helmet, he didnt always wear one, as i got older he explained its not about always wearing ppe its about jusging when it is appropriate, I always wear a helmet a an adult and he does now as well. but we have been know to take them off on fire track or canal side etc. The point is teaching kids about appropriate judgment is importand and prepares them to know what the right thing is later in life. As a child i was incapable of making this judgement as an adult i hope that i am not.

what two ton metal box with a seatbelt and air bags do you use encapsulate yourself in when cycling 😉

ok we are at that point now ...backs away slowly

This is what I love about STW - I find myself in total agreement with THM and completely disagreeing with Junkyard, the complete opposite to the Scottish independence thread 😉

no it is about him making his kids wear one and his wife and not wearing one himself

You've been reading too much 50shades, in the real world grownups make their own decisions.

I'll agree there is some hypocrisy there but as I said before there could be other reasons and even if he did decide not to wear a lid just to save his bouffant, in the grand scheme, I'm not sure it's worth a 3+ page wailing and gnashing thread and the swearies.

But **** it, it's a work day 🙂

Saw a good one yesterday. Dad with helmet on, two children without. Bit of a twist on this thread..

If people decide to make their own choices about safety, how likely do you think they are to always make the correct one?

So who is better equipped to make these decisions for them, you .

Get a grip, live a little.

What helmet do you wear for your driving, molgrips?

Does the OP also think it's hypocritical that adults drink, smoke, drive, work on oil rigs, have sex, own knives and guns etc but wouldn't want their 5 y/o children to do the same?

Does the OP also think it's hypocritical that adults drink, smoke, drive, work on oil rigs, have sex, own knives and guns etc but wouldn't want their 5 y/o children to do the same?

damn drive, i missed he'd written drive 😳

V666ern 😀

bencooper - Member
This is what I love about STW - I find myself in total agreement with THM and completely disagreeing with Junkyard, the complete opposite to the Scottish independence thread

Love you too Ben! Enlightenment comes to all in time...... 😉

Enlightenment comes to all in time.

Even you, hopefully 😉

What helmet do you wear for your driving, molgrips?

As well as using a seatbelt I opted for front, side and rear side airbags instead of a helmet. I even changed my car to get them. These aren't available on bikes so a helmet will have to do.

Lets be honest here all you pro-helmet-compulsion people...

Ignoring 'sport' cycling for a moment, ie: not competition or weekend gnar-bashing hooliganism ;-), when talking about general transport cycling or a weekend pootle with kids, is your worry:

A > falling off and bashing head

OR...

B > being [i]knocked[/i] off and bashing head

I'd hazard a guess if you answer honestly it's actually B, and that's the madness of the entire situation, we're in a situation where we have people arguing for compulsory protection of the people being hit! rather than trying to do something about the people doing the hitting.

It's totally backwards! by all means wear one (I do most of the time*), but what you should be campaigning for is a change in the environment and behaviour not compulsory PPE for the victim.

Cycling is not dangerous**

* mostly as scuff/minor bump protection if I'm honest.
** recreational and transport cycling, sport stuff depends obviously...

Lets be honest here all you pro-helmet-compulsion people

Who?

we're in a situation where we have people arguing for compulsory protection of the people being hit! rather than trying to do something about the people doing the hitting.

I'm arguing for both. You'll never eliminate collisions, so both are required.

+1 amedias

I left that to Ben to comment mol re Scotland !!! 😉

I can assess the risk of a leisurely evening cycle along a cycle path well enough already, thanks. But at least jekkyl' has gone from hypocrite and **** to the more measured question of setting an example. Still don't agree though!!

Ton up, yay!

From the National Office of Numbers

'Last year all the children in yeovil were killed by canal towpaths and several suffered severe mouth lacerations from cola cubes'

(I wear a dunce cap and so do/will my children when riding their bikes)

As well as using a seatbelt I opted for front, side and rear side airbags instead of a helmet. I even changed my car to get them.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands...

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

These debates makes me very sad.

I had a discussion on Facebook the other day after road.cc posted a story about protests to helmet compulsion in Australia.

Loads of fellow cyclists saying what a marvelous idea helmet compulsion for all was and how stupid the protestors were, completely blind to the fact that helmet compulsion in Australia and New Zealand directly preceded huge reductions in cycling numbers with no noticeable impact on injury rates. As a result compulsion did far more harm than good to overall public health.

I reckon helmets will be compulsory in the UK within a decade.
Probably with similar results. 🙁

Where did this idea come about that cycling is such a dangerous activity and you need to wear a helmet in order to be a responsible adult?

Likening helmet wearing to seatbelt wearing is not a valid argument because statistically wearing a seatbelt was shown to reduce fatalities where as wearing a helmet on a bike has a much weaker statistical link. Cycling just is not that dangerous activity.

I suspect Dad chooses not to wear a helmet as he decides it's not necessary. I also suspect he doesn't "make" his wife wear one as has been suggested above, but as an independent adult she chooses to wear one. And they both decide that the kids should wear one until they are more competent on their bikes and older enough to decide for themselves if they should wear one or not.

i love a good helmet thread.

not seen one for years tho

as wearing a helmet on a bike has a much weaker statistical link

For me, the jury's still out. The evidence hasn't convinced me but let's not go over it again here.

older enough to decide for themselves if they should wear one or not.

When would that be?

So you have done a risk assessment and decided a helmet is not necessary in you car as the likelihood of head injury is very small. Its pretty simple to do the same assessment and reach the same conclusion for a leisurely pootle on your bike

Is it? Cos last time we did this we didn't really reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Meanwhile in the Netherlands...

Just don't. Not in the least bit helpful. We can all find pictures of happy cycling families with or without helmets. That shows nothing and just spams the thread tbh.

And I'm not arguing for compulsion btw.

I'm arguing for both. You'll never eliminate collisions, so both are required.

But if you can reduce the collisions enough then the requirement for the other becomes negligible

But if you can reduce the collisions enough then the requirement for the other becomes negligible

I admire but do not share your optimism.

I ride on the road. There's a risk that someone'll take me out at some point. When my kids are older they'll ride on the road too, and they face similar risks.

If we allow them to decide if it's risky enough to wear a helmet, it's guaranteed they won't. Of course if they really want to not wear one, I can't stop them, but if it becomes normal for them to wear one then hopefully they won't think twice about grabbing the lid - just as I don't.

There probbaly are disadvantages to compulsion, but what's the disadvantage to habit forming?

Actually mol, it shows lots of people happily riding leisurely along cycle paths. Hard not to see that as being relevant or helpful.

Cycling can be dangerous for sure (I have a family member very sadly paralysed as a result of a MTB accident) but that does not mean that we automatically jump to the wrong conclusions. No one learns lessons from that.

'Last year all the children in yeovil were killed by canal towpaths and several suffered severe mouth lacerations from cola cubes'

did the lacerations happen first, if so i smell a rat, actually not thats bridgewater...

Meanwhile in the Netherlands...

I admire but do not share your optimism.

I ride on the road. There's a risk that someone'll take me out at some point. When my kids are older they'll ride on the road too, and they face similar risks.

And I am sad for your cynicism and defeatism 🙁

I also ride on the road, and there is a risk I'll get hit too, hence why I do wear one (even though I'm not sure it will help if I get hit that hard, but that's a different discussion), But the difference is that when I have kids I hope that they will also be riding on the road but the risk will NOT be similar.

I take the pragmatic approach and I do wear a helmet, but I'm also very much of the opinion that we CAN get to a stage where cycling for transport and leisure is not seen as something you have to dress up as a storm trooper for and I am definitely anti-compulsion.

An interesting side point/discussion topic for you - there was a thread recently about automatic braking and self-driving cars, if we ever got to the point where humans were not in control of the vehicles and they had robust auto braking/collision detection, would you still wear a helmet Mol?

Just don't. Not in the least bit helpful. We can all find pictures of happy cycling families with or without helmets. That shows nothing and just spams the thread tbh.

It's not just happy families. The point is that the Netherlands has very high levels of cycling and low injury rates. It didn't achieve that by making helmets compulsory or chastising anyone foolish enough to risk going without body armour on a walking speed pootle with kids.

And I'm not arguing for compulsion btw.

You're not arguing for [i]legal compulsion[/i] - but there is a growing [i]social compulsion[/i], as demonstrated by the OP, that anyone not wearing a helmet is dangerously irresponsible and will definitely die.
It's really not helpful.

The point is that the Netherlands has very high levels of cycling and low injury rates

Yes, for a whole host of reasons probably, which may or may not apply here, and yes, it's utopia I get it. But this isn't the Netherlands and won't be like any time soon. Sure, let's work towards, it, but that's a different debate.

You're not arguing for legal compulsion - but there is a growing social compulsion

Yes.. but personally habituation isn't the same as social compulsion. I want it to be a habit, so wearing one isn't a problem any more than wearing trousers or shoes. I just don't mind, cos I'm so used to it and I'm happy to. I don't resent it but feel pressured into it by the disapproving stares of passers by.

Fascinating stuff. No doubt that if you have a direct impact on the head with a hard thing, whilst riding a bike, a helmet will usually help. The issue however is impacts where the helmet's size/shape can increase the severity of the injury through the application of increased rotational force to the skull, which effectively "wrenches" the head to the side, and, in the words of a Doctor:

Dr Ashley Bloomfield wrote (Bloomfield, 2000): "The earliest murmurings that I heard against helmets ...[were from] ... a neurosurgeon whom I worked for in 1994. He claimed that cycle helmets were turning what would have been focal head injuries, perhaps with an associated skull fracture, into much more debilitating global head injuries. We had a couple of examples on the ward at the time".

The issue seems to be that the scalp's natural elasticity work very well at dissipating lateral forces that would cause dangerous rotation. A helmet can both magnify the forces involved, whilst at the same time reducing the ability of the skull/scalp interface to dissipate these forces.

However it is worth pointing out that my (admittedly limited) investigations into this show that the kind of accidents that would cause the potential level of rotational force to be high, usually involve large objects hitting a bike with enough momentum to flip/catapult the rider. In other words, in most cases you need a car, though enough momentum can be as little as 12mph.

Those who are interested might want to read this -

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1182.html#10155

I'd still rather wear a helmet than not and certainly insist on my kids doing so.

The good news is that there is a helmet out there which has been designed by a Doctor to help with this issue -

http://www.phillipshelmets.com/

I'm off to buy one just a soon as they/someone develops one for cyclists!

You're not arguing for legal compulsion - but there is a growing social compulsion, as demonstrated by the OP, that anyone not wearing a helmet is dangerously irresponsible and will definitely die.

edit: oh god you actually went and did it, brought up rotational injury in a helmet thread

You're not arguing for legal compulsion - but there is a growing social compulsion, as demonstrated by the OP, that anyone not wearing a helmet is dangerously irresponsible and will definitely die.
It's really not helpful.

Again gonna go back to ski-ing, which as a sport isnt inherintly dangerous if you stay to the runs, but the majority of riders now a days will hire a lid at the sma etime as ski's. Its not legal, but it is sensible id argue.

realistically if 'dad' were to fall off on a cycle track he'd 90% of the time be fine, but that other 10% your lying there in distress in front of your kids all for the sake of putting your helmet on?

flame away

arguably social compulsion could lead to legal compulsion shirley?

That too - which is what I witnessed on the Facebook thread - cyclists vocally supporting compulsion and chastising as idiots those (like me) who suggested that experience suggests it might not be such a great idea.

Legal compulsion within a decade I reckon. Probably compulsory high viz not long after that.

Fascinating stuff. No doubt that if you have a direct impact on the head with a hard thing, whilst riding a bike, a helmet will usually help. The issue however is impacts where the helmet's size/shape can increase the severity of the injury through the application of increased rotational force to the skull, which effectively "wrenches" the head to the side, and, in the words of a Doctor:

Dr Ashley Bloomfield wrote (Bloomfield, 2000): "The earliest murmurings that I heard against helmets ...[were from] ... a neurosurgeon whom I worked for in 1994. He claimed that cycle helmets were turning what would have been focal head injuries, perhaps with an associated skull fracture, into much more debilitating global head injuries. We had a couple of examples on the ward at the time".

The issue seems to be that the scalp's natural elasticity work very well at dissipating lateral forces that would cause dangerous rotation. A helmet can both magnify the forces involved, whilst at the same time reducing the ability of the skull/scalp interface to dissipate these forces.

However it is worth pointing out that my (admittedly limited) investigations into this show that the kind of accidents that would cause the potential level of rotational force to be high, usually involve large objects hitting a bike with enough momentum to flip/catapult the rider. In other words, in most cases you need a car, though enough momentum can be as little as 12mph.

Those who are interested might want to read this -

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1182.html#10155

I'd still rather wear a helmet than not and certainly insist on my kids doing so.

The good news is that there is a helmet out there which has been designed by a Doctor to help with this issue -

http://www.phillipshelmets.com/

I'm off to buy one just a soon as they/someone develops one for cyclists!

funkrobot, dont turn up being all clever with your facts and statistics! 😆

it's utopia I get it. But this isn't the Netherlands and won't be like any time soon

Actually it's a real place, and although this isn't the Netherlands there is no actual* reason we can't have a similar situation.

Sure, let's work towards, it, but that's a different debate.

So lets work towards it, and one part of that is recognising that cycling is not a dangerous activity and that helmets/PPE are not the answer. Habitual helmet wearing will not make the roads safer, and if anything it serves to re-enforce the idea that it is dangerous and stops people thinking about why, and doing their own risk assessing.

*other than the requirement for a lot of hard work and a social attitude change, both of which are achievable.

Why do helmet advocates get so excited about people not wearing a helmet, whilst people who dont always wear a helmet generally couldnt care less about those who do?

realistically if 'dad' were to fall off on a cycle track he'd 95% of the time be fine, 4.99% you won't bang your head anyway, but that other 0.01% your lying there [s]in distress[/s] with a sore head in front of your kids all for the sake of putting your helmet on?

FTFY.

And that's not even taking into account that falling over whilst pootling with kids on a cycle track is a pretty rare event to start with.

Realistically you're just as likely to bang your head whilst walking or jogging with your kids.

And don't get me started on adult injuries at soft play!

And don't get me started on adult injuries at soft play!

Legal compulsion within a decade I reckon. Probably compulsory high viz not long after that.

And then the next thing to forcibly protect the cyclist from the danger someone else imposes on them, and then the next thing...

It would be so much better if we could just stop people driving their cars into cyclists instead, lets make that compulsory! 😉

Why do helmet advocates get so excited about people not wearing a helmet

Some do, most don't. I don't recall ever posting a thread complaining about strangers' helmet practice, but I could have forgotten.

However the non-wearers seem to be quite annoyed at those who'd rather be on the safe side.

Realistically you're just as likely to bang your head whilst walking or jogging with your kids.

Stats please.

recognising that cycling is not a dangerous activity and that helmets/PPE are not the answer

It's ridiculous to even talk about 'the answer' as if there's one single thing that will sovle everything. NO-ONE thinks that.

However if you don't mind wearing PPE then go for it. Why not?

i love a good helmet thread.

not seen one for years tho

where is TJ when you need him

[img] [/img]

Dr Ashley Bloomfield wrote (Bloomfield, 2000): "The earliest murmurings that I heard against helmets ...[were from] ... a neurosurgeon whom I worked for in 1994. He claimed that cycle helmets were turning what would have been focal head injuries, perhaps with an associated skull fracture, into much more debilitating global head injuries. We had a couple of examples on the ward at the time"

One of the more amusing aspects of the helmet deabte is the way anti-helmeteers are quick to denigrate the medical profession when members of the A&E department comment that someone's injury was reduced by wearing a helmet (They aren't experts in helmet design are they!!!!!!) and to refute 'helmet saved my life stories' as being anecdote, yet are very willing to quote this story becasue it suits them.

The helmet rotation theory was [s]cooked up[/s] developed by a retired engineer who is a member of the Cyclists Rights Action Group whose manifesto starts with: [i]The Cyclists Rights Action Group (CRAG) was formed at a public meeting in Canberra, ACT, Australia, on 30th January 1992, in direct response to the introduction of Mandatory Helmet Laws (MHL) for bicyclists, with the aim of protecting cyclists against undue interference by Governments and erosion of civil liberties.[/i]

I remember reading that the theory had been comprehensively disproved ( can't find the linky, sorry) & that there is no epidemeological evidence for it, but there is absolutely no chance at all of you finding that out on cyclehelmets.org

Riding with a helmet should be a choice for adults but not for kids. Adults who have kids who are selfish enough to ride without a helmet should ensure they have could critical illness or life insurance to support their kids in the event that they are not able too.

One of the more amusing aspects of the helmet deabte is the way anti-helmeteers

Can we please stop generalising like this please? It gets people wound up for no reason.

> Realistically you're just as likely to bang your head whilst walking or jogging with your kids.

Stats please.

Really?

Age-adjusted stats comparing the rate of head injuries sustained by people travelling on foot at a walking or jogging pace to those travelling by bike on a safe traffic-free path at a walking or jogging pace?

I don't think even the ONS can help you with that one. 😀

Fell free to start a study.

Why LHS, how likely is a critical accident while leisurely cycling on a cycle path? Compulsory Elastoplast more like. This is just absurd levels of scaremongering and hyperbole.

Adults who have kids who are selfish enough to ride without a helmet should ensure they have could critical illness or life insurance to support their kids in the event that they are not able too.

And that's exactly the [i]social compulsion[/i] rhetoric I'm talking about. 🙁

Do you feel the same for those adults foolish enough to travel in a car without a helmet?

After all, far more people suffer life altering head injuries in cars than they do on bikes.

Same for those adults foolish enough to travel in a car without a helmet?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/10552108/Wearing-a-helmet-while-driving-a-car-is-dangerous.html

too late been done already!

 

Do you feel the same for those adults foolish enough to travel in a car without a helmet?

No. You're far less likely to need a helmet, plus you have airbags etc.

Why LHS, how likely is a critical accident while leisurely cycling on a cycle path?

Not massively likely, but it does happen, so...up to you.

The helmet rotation theory was cooked up developed by a retired engineer who is a member of the Cyclists Rights Action Group whose manifesto starts with: The Cyclists Rights Action Group (CRAG) was formed at a public meeting in Canberra, ACT, Australia, on 30th January 1992, in direct response to the introduction of Mandatory Helmet Laws (MHL) for bicyclists, with the aim of protecting cyclists against undue interference by Governments and erosion of civil liberties.

I remember reading that the theory had been comprehensively disproved ( can't find the linky, sorry) & that there is no epidemeological evidence for it, but there is absolutely no chance at all of you finding that out on cyclehelmets.org

Fair enough. I'm not particularly pro or anti. In fact I'd definitely be against any legislation that made wearing helmet mandatory. All things being equal I choose to wear one as I figure that on the balance of probabilities I'm better off with one.

Interesting the whole rotational thing though. Feel I may be a tad late to the party on this, assuming it's already been done to death on here.

Guess I'm going t have to go off and do some more research just to satisfy myself.

FWIW as a parent I generally try to operate on a do as I do principle with my kids. Leading by example is usually the best way to do things. Others are free to disagree with this, and probably will, but of course they're just idiots 😀

It's ridiculous to even talk about 'the answer' as if there's one single thing that will sovle everything. NO-ONE thinks that.

YOU might not think that, and I'm not stupid enough to thing there is 'an' answer but it is obvious from many discussions in the wider press, social media and even among colleagues and friends that a lot of people are pro compulsion because they think "it's safer", and completely missing the point as to why it is dangerous in the first place.

It never occurs to them that the danger comes not from the activity itself but from external sources (traffic and road infrastructure), it never occurs to them that *they* collectively as car drivers (yes I am one too) are the source of the danger, and that forcing [i]other [/i]people to wear protective gear is frankly quite a bizarre idea!
It never occurs to them to think in terms of making the environment safer, no it's much easier to force the cyclists to wear protection, and high vis too, yes that'll help "it's safer".

Why is there not a push for making cars high vis?
Why is there no social stigma attached to driving a car without decent pedestrian impact features?
Why are we not tutting at the people driving cars without auto-braking technology?

No far easier to demonise the 'idiots' who don't wear helemts 🙄

However if you don't mind wearing PPE then go for it. Why not?

This isn't what it's about though is it, and as you'll have noticed from reading my comments I do wear a helmet.

The thing people like myself and GrahamS and others are worried about is the social compulsion followed by legal compulsion side of it, and the continued perpetuation of the idea of cycling being a dangerous activity.

You personally may not be arguing for legal compulsion, but you appear to be supporting the kind of behaviour and ideas that will eventually lead to there, whether you mean to or not.

I'm genuinely interested to hear thoughts on my driverless car point though, do you think as this technology matures that it could lead to us not needing them?

It could massively improve safety for everyone, drivers, cyclist, pedestrians, most collisions are the result of human error, the number of genuine mechanical failures that cause a collision are vanishingly small, and if you could bring the likely hood of collisions down to the point where they really are an unusual occurrence then it changes the whole debate to the point where PPE/Helmets become protection against accidents of the 'falling off' type rather than the 'being knocked off' type and would change a lot of peoples perception of the risk I think.

A long way off maybe, but interesting to think about.

However the non-wearers seem to be quite annoyed at those who'd rather be on the safe side.

Very much with amedias and grahams here. Driverless cars? - I'd still wear a lid at times, when riding fast on a road bike or general off-road. I don't wear a lid for errands, social cycling or sub-5 mile trips in civvies. My call / risk assessment etc, and mine only.

Adults who have kids who are selfish enough to ride without a helmet should ensure they have could critical illness or life insurance to support their kids in the event that they are not able too.

^ what DONK said, I think you'll find very few people are actually avid non-wearers.

They're more likely to be 'reasoned decision about whether to wear one in situation X' type people.

No. You're far less likely to need a helmet, plus you have airbags etc.

Less likely, but due to the number of people in cars it is actually a bigger problem because it happens to many more people, thus putting a far greater burden on families, the NHS and the welfare system than unlucky cyclists sustaining similar injuries.

Yet it is the cyclists who get all the rhetoric about "who will support you when you are eating through a straw", "why should the state pay because you didn't wear a helmet" etc

> Why LHS, how likely is a critical accident while leisurely cycling on a cycle path?

Not massively likely, but it does happen, so...up to you.

Yes it [i]does[/i] happen.

Likewise there are roughly 2.7 million home accidents requiring hospital treatment, of which 470 thousand odd involve children under five. Of those, 4000 result in death. ([url= http://www.rospa.com/homesafety/adviceandinformation/general/facts-figures.aspx ]RoSPA[/url])

Yet I very rarely wear a helmet or body armour around the home.

So the same should apply to those drinking 15+ pints a week, or smoking, or eating crappy food and taking no exercise right?

Absolutely.

how can you enforce ideas like that?

With difficulty, but initially through education.

Likewise there are roughly 2.7 million home accidents requiring hospital treatment, of which 470 thousand odd involve children under five. Of those, 4000 result in death.

How many of those are down to head trauma?

Why are we not tutting at the people driving cars without auto-braking technology?

so lets not even start on I-robot!

 

I'd still wear a lid at times, when riding fast on a road bike or general off-road

Indeed, I would too, the times when I am likely to have an accident of my own making, or when the consequences of coming off would be greater, if that makes sense?

I don't wear a lid for errands, social cycling or sub-5 mile trips in civvies

See, I do still wear a helmet for these things* [i]in this country[/i], I wish I didn't feel the need to, and I certainly wouldn't if if humans were not in control of the cars. 🙁

*but in no way do I think you are silly for not doing so, you're probably a lot more rational than me for [i]not [/i]wearing one!

Do you feel the same for those adults foolish enough to travel in a car without a helmet?

I feel pretty strongly about people not using 'normal' PPE for their kids in cars. IE car seats.

I don't think even the ONS can help you with that one

That was my point. You were making assertions without any grounding. In other words, you're just saying 'oh it'll be ok' and waving a hand.

it is obvious from many discussions in the wider press, social media and even among colleagues and friends that a lot of people are pro compulsion because they think "it's safer", and completely missing the point as to why it is dangerous in the first place.

Not to me. I think they are separate issues, I don't see them being conflated. There are articles about helmets, and there are articles about cycle safety.

There are probably individuals who say 'well he wasn't wearing a helmet so it's his fault' but there are individuals who spout all sorts of bullshit for all sorts of stupid reasons. Legislating against THEM would really be something.

You personally may not be arguing for legal compulsion, but you appear to be supporting the kind of behaviour and ideas that will eventually lead to there, whether you mean to or not.

Ok let's just get something straight here.

I'm anti compulsion
I'm anti hysteria (this means OMG it's so dangerous to ride without a helmet anywhere)
I'm anti tut-tutting about strangers

However:

I'm pro habituation
I'm pro example setting

sub-5 mile trips in civvies

Statistically, this is unfounded. Drivers don't care if you're on a 5 mile trip or a 50 miler. 10 5 mile trips is just as much of a risk as one 50 mile one - possibly more if your local trips are suburban, at a guess.

Yet I very rarely wear a helmet or body armour around the home.

That's because impact speeds around the home are often quite low. I will however wear safety specs when grinding something, or gloves when tearing out vegetation, and so on. Body armour is not appropriate PPE for most domestic situations, but it is for DH MTBing. Poor arguing.

How many of those are down to head trauma?

Good point - full body bubblewrap in the home is the only way to be safe 😀

RoSPA say that [i]"Falls are the most common accidents, which can cause serious injury at any time of life. Fifty-five per cent of accidental injuries in the home involve falls"[/i]

So it sounds like around 1,485,000 of that 2.7 million involved falls - though they don't say how many people banged their head.

Yet despite those huge figures you are not jumping up and down demanding that people who don't wear suitable PPE around the home should have mandatory life insurance to ook after their kids when they inevitably slip getting out the bath and brain themselves on the sink.

when they inevitably slip getting out the bath and brain themselves on the sink.

Interesting point.

No-one wears a helmet at bathtime, but how many old people have anti-slip mats and handrails? A fair few. Because it's not a problem.

Make something a habit and it's not a problem...

That was my point. You were making assertions without any grounding. In other words, you're just saying 'oh it'll be ok' and waving a hand.

True - if you want to refute those assertions then please show me the stats 😉

There are articles about helmets, and there are articles about cycle safety.

Look at any government/police/transport authority "cycle safety" campaign and I'll bet you helmets and high viz is one of the very first things mentioned.

It's a huge distraction from the real issues.

Good point

But you didn't answer the question.

These systmens arent fool proof

and probably never will be, but they are improving and one day perhaps will be robust enough*

Ok let's just get something straight here.

I'm anti compulsion
I'm anti hysteria (this means OMG it's so dangerous to ride without a helmet anywhere)
I'm anti tut-tutting about strangers

As I said Mol, you may be anti-compulsion, but form some of your comments you seem to be supporting some of the same ideas that will lead us there in the long run.

Maybe I was reading into your comments too much, maybe you weren't explaining your point clearly enough, maybe I wasn't understanding them properly, but until you said the above I got the impression that you wouldn't mind if it became compulsory.

Not to me. I think they are separate issues, I don't see them being conflated. There are articles about helmets, and there are articles about cycle safety.

They are separate issues to some degree, but unfortunately it seems to be impossible to separate them!

I think very much they do get conflated in the press and in general discussion. I think the problem in the wider press and society is that it is impossible to have a debate about cycle safety without the issue of helmets coming up. Any discussion about cycling safety inevitably ends up including high vis, helmets, etc.

*whatever that means!

I always wear a helmet on the bike. Whatever the situation.
I've basically tried to engrain the association into my kids so it's just a normal response to being on a bike . Hopefully it should never going to be an issue for them in the future.

No-one wears a helmet at bathtime, but how many old people have anti-slip mats and handrails?

So LHS should only insist on mandatory life insurance for people stupid enough not to have anti-slip mats and handrails in their bath?

What about stairs? RoSPA says [i]"Every year more than 4,200 children are involved in falls on the stairs"[/i]

Should we force people with children to live in bungalows? Or just make stairlifts mandatory? 😀

I don't wear a lid for errands, social cycling or sub-5 mile trips in civvies

See, I do still wear a helmet for these things* in this country, I wish I didn't feel the need to, and I certainly wouldn't if if humans were not in control of the cars.

*but in no way do I think you are silly for not doing so, you're probably a lot more rational than me for not wearing one!

But you didn't answer the question.

I did - I said "1,485,000 of that 2.7 million involved falls - though they don't say how many people banged their head"

That's nearly 1.5 million people being treated in hospitals for falls in the home. How do you reckon that compares to the number of people banging their heads whilst riding slowly on a cycle path?

Why is it only latter situation which you think needs mandatory PPE equipment?

I've basically tried to engrain the association into my kids so it's just a normal response to being on a bike

I understand why you've done this, and I probably will too, but do you not find it a little sad that we live in a [s]world[/s] country where we have to teach kids that it is dangerous to cycle, when fundamentally it isn't a dangerous activity?

That's nearly 1.5 million people being treated in hospitals for falls in the home. How do you reckon that compares to the number of people banging their heads whilst riding slowly on a cycle path?

I imagine if 100% of people spent about 16 hours a day on cycle paths the numbers would be fairly comparable.

I imagine if 100% of people spent about 16 hours a day on cycle paths the numbers would be fairly comparable.

Yes I imagine it would be, as pootling slowly on a cycle path is probably roughly as dangerous as dossing about the house.