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

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.