Forum menu
Prompted by Natasha Richardson's death, they're debating whether helmets should be compulsory for "dangerous sports" and then including cycling in that! Cue most of the debate being on bike helmets and ignoring the more dangerous activities (eg walking down the street). Lots of the usual rubbish, most of which seems to come up on here, with the usual "why wouldn't you wear a helmet" and asking why people should get free treatment if they don't protect themselves (why should smokers get free treatment, numpty?)
Up to the user, isn't it?
So long as they know the risks it's then up to them what precautions they take...
It's nobody's responsibility, other than your own, to protect yourself from any possible outcome that may result from a risk taking choice..
So long as the risks and dangers are outlined.
Can I be the first to ask posters not to refer to the poor argument that 'pedestrians should wear helmets'?
Can I be the first to ask posters not to refer to the poor argument that 'pedestrians should wear helmets'?
Please explain why it's a poor argument?
Does anyone have access to figures that show the number of car occupants suffering head injuries?
God there's some morons out there.
God there's some morons out there.
Sorry - should have given the health warning about it only being slightly better than Jeremy Vine.
did TJ get on ??
Why stop at wearing a helmet? More common bike injuries are surely ones that could be prevented by wearing full armour?!!
Exaggerated comments always seem to come from people who don't do the sport in question.
I remember my father teaching me to ski when i was about 3 or 4 (pretty common in europe), never badly hurt myself skiing in 10 years! Started snowboarding at 13, didn't hurt myself until i was 21 when i broke my wrist. Helmet would have done **** all there!
I always wear a helmet whilst cycling as you are more at the mercy of others (cars etc) than i feel when i'm snowboarding.
People getting carried away are the problem. Freak accidents will always take place, in every part of life.
Please explain why it's a poor argument?
Because it is, so there.
Oh and my Dad is bigger than yours.
Deja vu
again again!!!!
please see the answers I gave some days ago...
Don't you think strapping two planks of carbon/kevlar to your feet, then hurtling down a slippery slope, with tress, pylons, other people around, without a helmet, is a pretty stupid idea? Cause I do.
Why stop at wearing a helmet? More common bike injuries are surely ones that could be prevented by wearing full armour?!!
That is a pretty stupid argument because the injuries that knee/shin pads, elbow pads etc protect you from are not generally life threatening, whereas head injuries can cause brain damage or even death.
Don't you think strapping two planks of carbon/kevlar to your feet, then hurtling down a slippery slope, with tress, pylons, other people around, without a helmet, is a pretty stupid idea? Cause I do.
Lots of people think its a stupid idea, even with a helmet on - maybe we should ban it?
Lots of people think its a stupid idea, even with a helmet on - maybe we should ban it?
That is a typical over reaction: No need to ban it, just doing this one simple thing (wearing a helmet) could prevent you from suffering serious brain injury, or worse.
I, for one, do not want to be the person who comes across you lying in the middle of a ski slope, or bike trail, having knocked yourself out because you weren't wearing a helmet.
Do you wear a helmet when driving your car?
Do you wear a helmet when driving your car?
Yes I do: It's called the crumple cage that completely surrounds me. Plus I have airbags, and a soft headrest behind my head.
But people still regularly suffer head injuries in car accidents, so a helmet would make them safer. Same for pedestrians.
I do wear a helmet when snowboarding but why on earth should it be compulsory? People's attitude to any kind of risk is becoming ridiculous.
"I do wear a helmet when snowboarding but why on earth should it be compulsory?"
Because of the effect that your injury can have on other people. Don't be so selfish.
"But people still regularly suffer head injuries in car accidents, so a helmet would make them safer. Same for pedestrians."
But reasonable precautions are taken in cars: No one said that helmets, airbags etc, will stop ALL injuries, but they help prevent many. Pedestrians do not deliberately put themselves in danger (except the stupid ones). They are catered for with pedestrian crossings, traffic lights, subways etc
I think that what you really meant was "Pedestrians and other road users are catered for by removing them from in front of my car"
This is all such a pointless argument.
Why is it pointless?
Read the thread from Monday and you'll find all the exact same stuff written there.
But reasonable precautions are taken in cars:
Given that THOUSANDS of people are killed in/by cars every year, these precautions are not really working are they.
But that doesnt make the argument pointless, only this thread, lol.
Given that THOUSANDS of people are killed in/by cars every year, these precautions are not really working are they.How do you know? Perhaps many more would have been injured without them.
How do you know? Perhaps many more would have been injured without them.
So would it be unreasonable for car drivers to have to wear a helmet, given that this would probably save more lives?
To quote from the BBC: "However, leading neurosurgeon Chris Chandler said a seemingly minor blow on the head can cause life-threatening injuries.
Mr Chandler, from King's College Hospital in south London, said the effects of a blow to the head may not become apparent until several hours afterwards and, if untreated, a patient can fall into a coma.
"A blow to the head can cause a bruise or rupture a blood vessel that slowly swells, causing pressure to build up inside the skull," he said.
"In the skull there is nowhere for the brain to move to so pressure continues to grow and that swelling can cause the brain to malfunction because it can limit circulation.
"If that pressure is not relieved it can kill." "
So would it be unreasonable for car drivers to have to wear a helmet, given that this would probably save more lives?
Yes it would, as REASONABLE precautions have already been taken, there is no need to go overboard, but something as easy as wearing a helmet on a bike or skiing is not too much to ask and, for very little effort and cost, can prevent so much.
something as easy as wearing a helmet while driving a car or walking on the street is not too much to ask and, for very little effort and cost, can prevent so much.
To quote from the BBC: "However, leading neurosurgeon Chris Chandler said a seemingly minor blow on the head can cause life-threatening injuries.Mr Chandler, from King's College Hospital in south London, said the effects of a blow to the head may not become apparent until several hours afterwards and, if untreated, a patient can fall into a coma.
"A blow to the head can cause a bruise or rupture a blood vessel that slowly swells, causing pressure to build up inside the skull," he said.
"In the skull there is nowhere for the brain to move to so pressure continues to grow and that swelling can cause the brain to malfunction because it can limit circulation.
"If that pressure is not relieved it can kill." "
something as easy as wearing a helmet on a bike or skiing is not too much to ask and, for very little effort and cost, can prevent so much.
One thing it can prevent is people riding bikes. What's a bigger killer, heart disease or head injuries?
However, leading neurosurgeon Chris Chandler said a seemingly minor blow on the head can cause life-threatening injuries.
I've never bumped by head while riding a bike. I have while getting into a car, walking down some stairs...
Department for transports view from a while back
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/bicyclehelmetsreviewofeffect4726
Department for transports view from a while back
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/bicyclehelmetsreviewofeffect4726
Useful link. I like this point, from the summary:
The way in which the debate has been conducted is unhelpful to those wishing to make a balanced judgement on the issue.
I also like this from the conclusion:
The UN convention on the rights of a child asserts that the child has a right to a safe environment.
I'd say we're in breach of that in the UK.
The real debate we should be having: Why are decent cycle facilities not being built?
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/praising-darlington-good-cycle-facilities
Helmets yes, compulsory no - leave it to the choice of the individual, atm we are being mollycoddled by this nanny state saying "you should do this, you shouldn't do that" - let people decide for themselves [b]FFS[/b], next thing you'll know we'll be wearing helmets and HANS systems driving to Morrisons in the car.
"I've never bumped by head while riding a bike"
Neither have I, but I have had concussion after falling off, twice.
I got concussion and a split head while walking home from my girlfriends...
The pedestrian and helmet is just a poor piss argument because most off the people have no idea how statistics works.
How many people walk? Certainly way way much more than people cycling. Hence there is more people injuring themselves walking down the street than cyclist riding down to the shop.
One thing it can prevent is people riding bikes. What's a bigger killer, heart disease or head injuries?
That is a bad argument too. People who will stop cycling to work "because" of making helmet compulsory will probably take the bus + walk, so they will still exercise.
And as no wearing a helmet how much you hurting yourself on the head is oing to coast to the taxpayer?
Juan - congratulations for misrepresenting the argument!
Pedestrians are at greater risk of head injury [b]PER TIME SPENT DOING THAT ACTIVITY[/b] (capitals used for the hard of understanding). It is you that fails to understand the statistics.
The problem with all of this is the prevailing and increasing message that cyling is dangerous and that you thus need a helmet. Cycling is not more dangerous than being an urban pedestrian.
Also, if you look into some recent threads you'll find links to studies which reveal the safety/health balance for cyling, which is [b]MASSIVELY[/b] on the side of cycling, despite the very rare injuries.
People who will stop cycling to work "because" of making helmet compulsory will probably take the bus + walk, so they will still exercise.
Less exercise even if that's true - you are however making it up with little or no evidence. Also missing the point that it's far more pervasive than somebody simply deciding not to ride a bike on a paticular journey.
Pedestrians are at greater risk of head injury PER TIME SPENT DOING THAT ACTIVITY
My walk to work takes me about 40 minutes and I can ride there in 15. Nobody has ever suggested that I wear a helmet for walking to work.
IIRC, cycling is twice as dangerous per km as driving. I ride 3 miles to work and share an office with two guys who drive 7.5 and 15.5 miles to work. They're both more likely than I am to be killed on their way to work.
Pedestrians are at greater risk of head injury PER TIME SPENT DOING THAT ACTIVITY (capitals used for the hard of understanding). It is you that fails to understand the statistics.
My point about statistics exactly. It doesn't matter if it's by km walk or time spend walking. The massive number of pedestrians is going to make comparison irrelevant.
My point about statistics exactly. It doesn't matter if it's by km walk or time spend walking. The massive number of pedestrians is going to make comparison irrelevant.
I think you might need to read up on your stats juan.
most off the people have no idea how statistics works.
So good of you to provide the proof for that statement, Juan 😆
Well you lot really makes me laugh
I'll give you a clear example.
Let say there is 1000 207 stolen every year in britain.
Let say there is 20 porshe cayenne stolen every year in britain.
which one got the most probability of getting stolen?