Same for those adults foolish enough to travel in a car without a helmet?
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.
noooooo. anticompulsionists (not necessarily none wearers - I do wear a helmet >90% of the time I cycle) get their knickers in a twist when others start saying how outrageous it is for someone to ride sans lid. I don't think they "get quite annoyed" one way or the other about other people's [i]personal[/i] preference of headcovering.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.
So the same should apply to those drinking 15+ pints a week, or smoking, or eating crappy food and taking no exercise right? .. how can you enforce ideas like that?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?
he he he - for once i have the moral high ground, but FWIW, its still the person behind the wheel that'll make the difference. These systmens arent fool proof, my car has active cruise control which is similar in that it uses radar to detect objects in front. It has issues detecting small objects / motorbikes(!) in front and cars if you go around a corner so were a long way off of
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?
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 civviesSee, 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!
The daft bit is that I recognise the errands around town are when I get the highest incidences of smidsy etc, general poor driving by busy parents around town on sat am, etc, ie when I should wear a lid by conventional rationale. No answer or logic from me on that aside from my perception of genuine risk being lower there than other peoples.
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.
when fundamentally it isn't a dangerous activity?
It's not an especially dangerous activity, but there is some danger. I'll be drilling them on the highway code and good roadcraft too when they are old enough, because of the risks. I'm often to be found telling them to be careful* when they are out front, and pointing out cars coming down the hill - because there are risks.
Walking around outside is not especially dangerous, but I often prompt them to wear shoes.
* My eldest has just learned to ride without stabilisers and sometimes she's too preoccupied with staying up right to notice she's about to ride into something.
well I believe there's judges currently saying things along the lines of 'well he wasn't wearing a helmet so it's xx% his fault' Legislating against them would indeed be a good idea.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.
Agreed. If that's true. If it's a case of setting compensation value.. could be a complicated case.
I'm prepared to go out on a limb and say it would be higher though how much higher I dunno
Sadly it is true. The Sheriff mentioned lack of helmet in the [url= http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/judge-cites-lack-of-bike-helmet-as-contributory-factor-in-death-crash/014770 ]Audrey Fyffe case[/url].
"Mrs Fyffe wasn't to blame in any way for the accident. However, she was not wearing a safety helmet and that in my view contributed to her death."
[img] 
[/img]
That was the second cyclist that driver has killed. He got 300 hours community service and a five year driving ban.
If anything truly [i]"contributed to her death"[/i] (other than the driver himself) it was the court system allowing him to drive again after he was convicted of death by careless driving the first time!
I do wear a helmet, it does not bother me if other people don't.
I was against the law against smoking with children in cars not because I think smoking in a car with children is a good thing but because I do not wish to live in a nanny state with our civil liberties constantly being eroded .
Where will it end. Compulsory wearing of safety goggles when, ahem, viewing exotic ladies on the internet.
You look after your noggin I will look after mine.
helmet vs bullet proof jacket compulsion, in the latter (mostly) society aims to get rid of the cause of harm but in the former the victims are expected to save themselves."Mr Smith wasn't to blame in any way for getting shot. However, he was not wearing a bulletproof vest and that in my view contributed to his death."
[i]"Mrs Fyffe wasn't to blame in any way for the accident. However, she was not wearing a safety helmet and that in my view contributed to her death."[/i]
He was very wrong to use this as a mitigation in the sentencing of the driver, however the reason he said it was becasue IIRC she had her back wheel clipped and fell over at slow speed bamging her head on the ground. The problem then is not whether the helmet could've saved her life, but the way in which victim blaming/driver exoneration takes place. However....
"Mr Smith wasn't to blame in any way for [s]getting shot[/s] the other car pulling out in front of him. However, he was not wearing a [s]bulletproof vest[/s] seatbelt and that in my view contributed to his death."
just sayin'
But seatbelts are a legal requirement, helmets are not. A more accurate parallel would be:
"Mr Smith wasn't to blame in any way for the other car pulling out in front of him. However, his car did not have side impact airbags and that in my view contributed to his death."
with our civil liberties constantly being eroded
Where should your liberties end?
What about parents who make decision for their kids? Should they be allowed to make stupid decisions that endanger or hurt their kids?
What about people who are major parts of other people's lives? (ie most people) Should they be allowed to gamble away their own lives at detriment to others?
Who gives a shit!
Live and let live, there is no right or wrong in this debate*.
And that is FACT! IMO of course 😉
*Edit: Apart from, it's definitely bad to try and kill cyclists regardless of their headgear!
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 world country where we have to teach kids that it is dangerous to cycle, when fundamentally it isn't a dangerous activity?
Not really mate. I don't think of it like that. It's a safety measure, they like I ride mostly off road, being safer allows them to push further with a little more confidence.
I want to think about safety equipment as normal rather than forcing them to wear it when they're older and thinking its uncool.
They're forever crash and burning and this allows them to brush themselves down and crack on more.
I always throw a helmet on and don't think anything of it.
Useful graph,.. Not..
