Helmet compulsion again

Home Forum Bike Forum Helmet compulsion again

Viewing 45 posts - 46 through 90 (of 146 total)
  • Helmet compulsion again
  • bellefied
    Member

    headpotdog – Member

    ^ what he said! πŸ˜€

    Premier Icon crazy-legs
    Subscriber

    Secondly to suggest that the compulsary wearing of helmets would have a direct effect on the use of bikes is ridiculous. Why should one thing have a direct correlation on the other? A very tenuous assumption in my opinion especially when there are so many other strong influences on peoples decision to buy & ride bikes.

    Read this:
    http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia’s-helmet-law-disaster

    When compulsory helmet laws were introduced in Austraila, there was an almost immediate 30+% decline in the number of people cycling. That link above has some of the reasons why.

    Try it in this country and it would kill off any hire bike scheme like in London (unless each bike came with a universal fit helmet too?).

    It’s not an assumption to say it leads to an immediate reduction in the number of people cycling, it’s been observed everywhere it’s been tried. People assume that cycling is more dangerous than it actually is, people just popping to the shops or pub don’t want to go to the hassle of putting on specialist biking kit or don’t want to mess up their hair for such a short journey. Current cyclists who don’t own a helmet don’t want to/can’t afford to go and buy one so they just stop cycling. All sorts of reasons.

    Compulsion for this is wrong.
    It’s not the same as the seatbelt argument – seatbelts are already in cars, they all fit, you might as well use them and you don’t have to pay extra for them!

    Edit: that link won’t embed properly, it is correct, the apostrophe is supposed to be there

    gonefishin
    Member

    Secondly to suggest that the compulsary wearing of helmets would have a direct effect on the use of bikes is ridiculous

    Well that’s exactly what happened in Australia, in the short term at least. Just because an effect is apparent to you doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

    mrmo
    Member

    Secondly to suggest that the compulsary wearing of helmets would have a direct effect on the use of bikes is ridiculous.

    Read the studies, people stop riding/don’t ride if there are compulsary helmet laws.

    I have crashed, needed stiches to my face, i have crashed and written off a helmet or two.

    The first point to make, if i hadn’t been wearing a helmet i wouldn’t have been doing what i was doing when i crashed! Risk compensation at work.

    project
    Member

    A few weeks ago stopped to help 2 fellow cyclists, one had an over the bars head first ontot the road, deformation of his helmet and sunglases.

    He was a paramedic and so was his riding buddy, air ambulance finally arrived to take him to hospital,after treatment by 2 more car based paramedics, im so glad as he must have been he was wearing a helmet.

    Also tonight, van almost smidsy s me by him doing a left turn, further on a lgv, almost crushes me into the Kerb,then a gang of kids started throwing stones at me and a few other cyclists a helmet wouldnt have helped, but it did when i went under a low branch and smacked my head.

    Junkyard
    Member

    Secondly to suggest that the compulsary wearing of helmets would have a direct effect on the use of bikes is ridiculous.

    Why not google the stats and research on the effects of compulsion on cycling rates and get back to us.
    Given lots of folk cycle without a helmet and more folk own bikes than helmets what do you think will happen to rates?

    A very tenuous assumption in my opinion especially when there are so many other strong influences on peoples decision to buy & ride bikes.

    Please read the research
    http://cyclehelmets.org/1194.html on australia
    not from that site – CTC

    However, the evidence strongly suggests that being told to wear helmets strongly deters some people from cycling, and that the loss of cycling’s health benefits (not to mention the wider environmental, congestion-reducing and other benefits of cycling) far outweigh any helmets could possibly deliver, even on the most optimistic assessment of their benefits.”

    I am not sure why you would think it wont have an impact tbh

    fourbanger
    Member

    Wow. What always gets me in these arguments is that cyclists are wasting effort arguing with other cyclists over the effectiveness of helmets during RTA.

    Surely everyone here would be better off joining the CTC and writing to your MP to know what they’re doing to improve conditions for cyclists on the roads and reduce the root cause, vehicle/cyclist collisions.

    mrmo
    Member

    fourbanger +1

    Helmet arguments are wasting time, it is not actually solving anything.

    kcr
    Member

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=714-Dsoj1VU[/video]

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmet-compulsion-again

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/wiggo-on-helmets

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/how-do-you-deal-with-folk-not-wearing-a-helmet

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/bike-helmet-for-kids

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-helmet-debate-rumbles-on-in-the-mainstream-media

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/would-you-helmet-nazi-content#post-3139927

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/psa-another-study-on-the-efficacy-of-bike-helmets#post-3128520

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/thank-god-for-helmets#post-3071801

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/so-i-decided-to-write-off-my-helmet-today#post-3015561

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/will-the-uk-every-be-like-this#post-3001646

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/no-helmet#post-2983986

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/my-helmet-is-very-deformed-graphic-photo-content#post-2963127

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-woman-who-tragically-died-in-dent-on-the-letjog-ride#post-2956453

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmets-2#post-2941835

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cyclist-hit-15-times-with-hammer-by-driverfor-riding-too-slow-up-a-hill#post-2943106

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/this-really-makes-you-want-to-wear-a-lid#post-2919841

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/good-or-bad-advert#post-2894537

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/james-cracknell-wear-a-helmet-video#post-2783611

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/bmxers-idiots#post-2758996

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/motorcyclist-protesting-helmet-laws-dies-in-bike-crash-while-not-wearing-helmet/page/3

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/wear-a-helmet-kids#post-2705179

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/psa-helmet-debate-on-radio-2-now#post-2584202

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/if-helmets-were-to-be-made-compulsory#post-2573922

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmet-on-your-child-always#post-2482018

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/some-very-sad-news#post-2476001

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-great-helmet-debate#post-2432920

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/kids-cycling-to-school-without-helmets-is-it-me-or#post-2368335

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/compulsory-helmet-law-in-ni#post-2236497

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/how-smug-will-tj-be

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmets-possibly-the-last-word

    http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/anyone-else-hear-peter-thatchel-on-jeremy-vine-calling-for-compulsary-helmets/page/2

    rudebwoy
    Member

    the helmet ‘argument’ is a smokescreen for the real problem–people who do not know how to operate motorised vehicles….and the non enforcement of said behaviour…

    ormondroyd
    Member

    The benefit of wearing a helmet is outweighed by nothing, other than if the helmet you were wearing was 1) dangerously radioactive 2) lined with razor blades 3) made of glass. What are the downsides of wearing a helmet in an accident?

    This is a thread called “Helmet compulsion

    nikk
    Member

    I’m pro research, pro wearing a helmet, pro appropriate education to wear a helmet (but only based on real life research).

    I am totally, utterly, absolutely against any legal compulsion to do so.

    There are more than enough laws in this nanny state. We do NOT need more.

    It is awful when people loose their lives or get badly injured doing anything. When riding, most fatalities are from motor vehicles, not bicycles. The problem isn’t bikes, it’s cars.

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    What are the downsides of wearing a helmet in an accident?

    There aren’t any. If I’m going to bang my head I’d rather be wearing a helmet. I think most people would.

    BUT…

    What if wearing a helmet made it MORE LIKELY that you’d be involved in an accident in the first place?

    And what if helmet compulsion meant less cyclists, therefore more people dying from sedentary lifestyles and an increase in risk to those still cycling?

    Both those are quite realistic concerns backed by a fair amount of research.

    Fundamentally we’re supposed to be encouraging people to cycle – not sucking our teeth and recommending compulsory safety equipment.

    (Helmet wearer (mostly), Staunchly anti-compulsion)

    We have most of the weekly threads now….time for the “banned” thread next than we have the full house.

    (anti compulsion FWIW)

    headpotdog
    Member

    Regarding the link between compulsary helmet use & decline in bike use, there are many other factors that could contribute to this effect in other countries that may not necessarily apply elsewhere such as:

    The existing culture of bike and helmet use in the country prior to the legislation change.
    The nature of the media coverage prior to & after the change is made.
    The nature of penalties introduced for law breakers
    Incentivisation given by government & other institutions when the law is introduced.
    Methods of enforcement used after the law has been introduced.
    Education campaigns used after the law change etc….

    Believe me I’m the last person wanting to have legislation introduced for bike helmets, but I still think it’s naive to assume there is a direct correlation there and to assume the stats on their own tell the whole story.

    Premier Icon ads678
    Subscriber

    Don’t think they should be made compulsory but I reckon, although I have no evidence, that banging my head on the floor whilst wearing a helmet will hurt less than doing the same without the helmet.

    For that reason I’ll carry on wearing one whether it’s law or not.

    I’m going to bed now though, what are the stats for injury whilst walking up stairs helmetless? πŸ˜‰

    Premier Icon cookeaa
    Subscriber

    rudebwoy – Member
    the helmet ‘argument’ is a smokescreen for the real problem–people who do not know how to operate motorised vehicles….and the non enforcement of said behaviour…

    Precisely the point…

    Again I’m a Helmet user but not in favour of compulsion.

    The efficacy of helmets is not the point really, Odd as that sounds.

    Compulsory use of helmets for cycling on the road becomes a way of shifting responsibility for avoiding accidents from drivers onto cyclists.

    As sad as the story that set this thread off is, why is the boys father not campaigning for safer driving?

    We’ve already seen lack of helmets being commented on by the police and even judges When considering RTAs.

    Anecdotally I now seem to find many non-cyclists seem consider helmets to effectively be mandatory, and almost always comment upon non-helmet wearers as if they are breaking an unwritten law. But thats not actually the case my choice to wear a helmet or not should not be seen as absolving any motorist of their duty of care.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    As sad as the story that set this thread off is, why is the boys father not campaigning for safer driving?

    That is the point right there, and precisely why I started this thread (well maybe not the only reason πŸ˜‰ )

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    I still think it’s naive to assume there is a direct correlation there and to assume the stats on their own tell the whole story.

    I’m not sure i understand your point? Yep all those things could be factors that contribute to the correlation, but that doesn’t make the correlation any less valid.

    The biggest issue is the accompanying media and advertising campaign. It’s unlikely to be “Hey guys, why not wear a helmet mmmmkay?”

    It would be a hard-hitting commercial showing exactly the kind of situation as in the OP and sending the message that “Hey, cycling is INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS! If you are idiotic enough to ride a bicycle instead of driving a nice car like a proper person then you need to wear a helmet or you’ll DEFINITELY DIE”

    Which funnily enough kinda puts people off the whole idea.

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    As sad as the story that set this thread off is, why is the boys father not campaigning for safer driving?

    Exactly!

    The parents of kids who are stabbed or shot don’t campaign for compulsory body armour.

    They campaign to stop other kids being stabbed or shot!

    Stop the Child Murder!

    samuri
    Member

    Yes. The kid is in a coma because someone can’t drive, not because he wasn’t wearing a helmet.

    Lets take someone who was stabbed in the street.
    “EVERYONE SHOULD WEAR STAB PROOF VESTS!!!”

    It’s ridiculous and embrassing isn’t it? Lets have a campaign to stop shite driving and feckwits being in charge of two tons of fast moving metal, then we’ll be able to stop stuff like this. Forcing people to wear helmets will only stop people riding bikes.

    samuri
    Member

    I’m going to bed now though, what are the stats for injury whilst walking up stairs helmetless?

    Way higher that for riding a bike while helmetless.

    poly
    Member

    IHNRAT! Poor TJ must be about to have a stroke.

    However I couldn’t ignore this:

    johnellison – Member
    I don’t get the attitude that wearing a helmet isn’t effective at all.

    Surely if you wear ANY protection of any sort when undertaking a potentially hazardous activity, then the risk of injury or death is reduced (or survivability is increased, whichever way you look at it)? Or am I being overly simplistic?

    I’m throwing hypotheticals around with reckless abandon here, but lets say with this young lad that when he set off on his journey without a helmet if he is involved in an accident there’s a 10% chance of him ending up in a coma.

    If he had been wearing a helmet and the risk is reduced to say, 9%, then surely that’s better than the risk not being reduced at all? Isn’t it?

    OK lets play that made up numbers game.

    There is some evidence to suggest that (i) Drivers subconsciously risk compensate for helmet wearers. (ii) Cyclists may also risk compensate. I have done my own experiments and believe both happen. Perhaps that increases the chance of an accident by 15% by putting a helmet ON. Now your 9% is actually 10.35% of ending up in a coma AND 15% more likely to get the less serious injuries too…

    Now the other adverse effect of compulsory helmets is reduced activity. It won’t stop serious ‘cyclists’ but if we are making up hypothetical statistics. Lets say 5% of journeys made without helmets would stop if helmets were compulsory. The net impact is more cars = more risk for all cyclists. Then remove the health benefits of cycling from those 5% – so in order that a tiny number of people MIGHT not get head injuries many people might be fatter, and less healthy. So lets keep playing made up numbers: 3 million regular cyclists in the UK. Lets say 20% of them don’t wear helmets = 600,000, and if 5% stopped because of a new rule then 30,000 people don’t cycle. Now lets assume 10% of them become fat / unhealthy as a result = 3000 people. Perhaps 1000 of them actually die indirectly as a result of the rule (and their stubbornness not to wear a helmet). Even if every cycling fatality could be avoided it wouldn’t make sense!

    Now rather than playing made up numbers the government employs people who properly understand statistics, road accidents etc – and they (the TRL) have come to the conclusion that there is no compelling argument for compulsion.

    I do USUALLY wear a helmet. But there are some journeys where I assess the risk is low and its more convenient not to bother. Its likely that if I had to wear a helmet I would just leave the bike at home for those.

    dekadanse
    Member

    Numpties paradise here – sure, lots of people stopped driving after seatbelts were made compulsory, didn’t they?

    There may be some initial dip – but then folk will get habituated to wearing a helmet, and getting the coolest one will be the thing to do. It will become second nature to not go out without one (except amongst the most extreme wind-in-your-hair evangelists, who will queue up for legal martyrdom).

    Helmets don’t protect against all accidents and bad drivers – but how many people other than the great and long-lost TJ can claim that they are safer not wearing one?

    Bike helmets in ‘not the work of the devil’ shock.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    Numpties paradise here

    So you thought you’d join in?

    antigee
    Member

    but how many people other than the great and long-lost TJ can claim that they are safer not wearing one

    looking back thru the thread quite a lot of people saying they choose to wear a helmet but don’t see the need for compulsion – i’d fit that category

    I believe (rightly or wrongly) that wearing a helmet can mitigate the injuries in some accidents but it contributes very little to the safety of cyclists and campaigning for compulsory wear will not fix anything – the major cause of serious injury and death for cyclists is vehicles and the way in which they are driven – here are some simple checks – based on the ever popular “what about the kids”

    if helmets were compulsory would it be safer for kids to cycle to school?
    – my answer = no it might mitigate the outcome of a collision

    if high viz were compulsory would if be safer for kids to ride to school?
    -my answer no = high viz just helps those drivers that are already aware of cyclists and other vulnerable road users

    If speed limits in urban areas were reduced on all roads and enforced would it safer for kids to ride to school – yes

    if drivers had to resit tests every five years would if be safer – yes

    if more road space were take away from vehicles and given to cycles would it be safer – yes

    a campaign for compulsory helmet wear moves the blame for accidents on to cyclists and fails to address anything

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    Numpties paradise here – sure, lots of people stopped driving after seatbelts were made compulsory, didn’t they?

    Driving is already the norm. People feel safe driving (and generally are).

    Cycling is an “out” activity. Lots of people already avoid it because they believe it is dangerous. Insisting they need safety equipment for a five minute ride to the shop just reinforces this. As would hard hitting adverts about why wearing a helmet is terribly terribly important.

    There may be some initial dip – but then folk will get habituated to wearing a helmet, and getting the coolest one will be the thing to do.

    Oh good so it will make cycling more expensive instead of more accessible?

    I was having a conversation with someone just the other day that thought the new money released for cycling was ridiculous because “people are struggling to live so how could they possibly afford a bike ???”

    You think adding another Β£30 for the cheapest helmet will help them?

    Premier Icon ads678
    Subscriber

    I’m going to bed now though, what are the stats for injury whilst walking up stairs helmetless?

    Way higher that for riding a bike while helmetless.

    Just to let you I made it up stairs and back down again this morning without any problems, there are no cars on my stairs though, thankfully! πŸ˜€

    Dickyboy
    Member

    a campaign for compulsory helmet wear moves the blame for accidents on to cyclists and fails to address anything

    +1 & everything else he said too

    poly
    Member

    dekadanse – Member
    Numpties paradise here – sure, lots of people stopped driving after seatbelts were made compulsory, didn’t they?

    There may be some initial dip – but then folk will get habituated to wearing a helmet…
    not the same at all; if I want to ride the 1/2 mile to the local shop I might decide not to bother with the rather ineffective lump of polystyrene. If I have to use it – I might decide not to bother with the bike and take the car. A better analogy would be – if helmets were compulsory for walking on pavements would you expect more people to drive rather than walk? I would. With seatbelts there was no ‘more convenient’ option to revert to.

    You may think people who disagree with you are “numpties”; but perhaps they have just engaged their brains to understand the issues a bit better before labelling everyone who disagrees.

    Helmets don’t protect against all accidents and bad drivers – but how many people other than the great and long-lost TJ can claim that they are safer not wearing one?

    eh – you do realise that there is some credible evidence, along with a stack of anecdotal evidence that drivers and cyclists risk compensate because of helmets and therefore wearing a helmet might make you more likely to have an accident (which if it is ineffective protection will make you more likely to get hurt/killed). If you don’t believe that to the experiment. Ride a set reasonably busy route (e.g. your commute) every day for a week, with a helmet on. Now repeat for a week with the helmet off. I will be amazed if you can honestly say that some vehicles don’t treat you better with no helmet.

    Am I safer not wearing one? Depends what I am doing. Am I healthier making short journeys on a bike or in a car? Which is more likely to kill me (I live in Scotland) – Heart Disease or a bike accident…

    El-bent
    Member

    a campaign for compulsory helmet wear moves the blame for accidents on to cyclists and fails to address anything

    You’ll have to forgive me for not reading all of the thread, While you are quite correct that this could be construed as placing the responsibility of road safety onto the cyclist and not the driver, I still think it’s a sensible thing for cyclists to wear a helmet on the roads.

    You can bring in what laws you like with regards to drivers, but a minorty still drink and drive, a significant amount still use the mobile phone while driving, and an awful lot will still drive like w****rs. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want more cyclists to be martyred just to highlight bad driving.

    As for the whether a helmet is a good thing or a bad thing to wear protection wise, I have seen a few incidents in my time and quite a lot of claret left on the roads, but the helmets did their job as described.

    craigxxl
    Member

    We’ve had these arguments decades before with motorcycles for helmets and number plate skull splitters. I think we take those arguments against as quite stupid now. Hopefully we look back at this argument in the same way.
    Regardless of who caused the accident it’s what stops your head from bouncing that causes the damage. Kerbs, lamp posts, signs, tarmac, car wings don’t care who caused it and don’t forgive innocent parties. Some kind of impact damage is going to decrease the chances of head trauma. Bails picture on the first page is very nice and idyllic but you may notice it’s lacking street furniture and isn’t in the UK. Until we have cycle paths like that with no street furniture and wide run offs I would prefer to protect myself.
    If people don’t want to wear one that is up to them. If they take a tumble crack their head on a kerb and spending the rest of their miserable life drooling down their fronts, it was their choice. It won’t be their parents/loved ones choice at the time to mop up the drool, sell their assets to look after that child or give up their own life because their child wanted to look cool by not wearing an helmet.
    The good thing is there will be good supply of relative fit specimens donating organs. This will really rattle the helmetless rider in the afterlife, if their is such a thing, when their nice healthy lungs are transplanted into a 40 a day ex-smoker, white van man who hates cyclists.

    Peyote
    Member

    Loving the attempted emotional manipulation by the helmet devotees!

    Blackmail is a dodgy trait at the best of times, but using it to try to win points in this way is particularly sick.

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    We’ve had these arguments decades before with motorcycles for helmets and number plate skull splitters.

    Except motorbikes don’t make you fit. If less people chose to ride motorbikes then that wouldn’t have an negative effect on public health.

    Bails picture on the first page is very nice and idyllic but you may notice it’s lacking street furniture and isn’t in the UK. Until we have cycle paths like that with no street furniture and wide run offs I would prefer to protect myself.

    So am I allowed to not wear a helmet on my commute, in the UK with wide run offs and no street furniture then?

    (note: don’t worry – when these pictures were taken I was wearing a full-face helmet, shinpads, elbow and knee guards, spine protector, high viz flouro vest and helmet cover πŸ˜€ )

    because their child wanted to look cool by not wearing an helmet.

    It REALLY isn’t about “looking cool” – I think that’s another strawman argument.

    Helmets don’t look cool, granted, but then neither does being a sweaty red-faced late-30s overweight man with pale hairy legs poking out the bottom of some overly tight lycra.

    Anyone who makes the decision whether or not they should wear a helmet based purely on whether it looks cool or not is an idiot – but I don’t see anyone on here espousing that view. Do you?

    Premier Icon crazy-legs
    Subscriber

    Good article in The Times this morning:
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3849991.ece

    I note that Lord Sir Bradley of Wiggins has waded in by saying they should be compulsory.

    Idiot.

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    I note that Lord Sir Bradley of Wiggins has waded in by saying they should be compulsory.

    Idiot.

    Again? He was widely misquoted about it this time last year after an off-hand comment in a interview.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/olympics/olympic-news/bradley-wiggins-i-did-not-call-for-compulsory-helmets-for-cyclists-8001325.html

    Junkyard
    Member

    but how many people other than the great and long-lost TJ can claim that they are safer not wearing one

    I can

    I would give up MTB [ ok the gnar] if i could not wear a helmet doing it and that is where i have 99% of my accidents

    We’ve had these arguments decades before with motorcycles for helmets and number plate skull splitters. I think we take those arguments against as quite stupid now. Hopefully we look back at this argument in the same way.

    And pedestrians – its just as dangerous to walk
    Oh and car drivers they get head injuries as well.
    We will look back and see not wearing a helmet all the time as stupid then.

    If people don’t want to wear one that is up to them. If they take a tumble crack their head on a kerb and spending the rest of their miserable life drooling down their fronts, it was their choice.

    Yes stupid pedestrians with their unprotected heads
    as for the rest of that emotive tosh. Most folk accept a helmet mitigates risks rather than it ensures you will not end up a dribbling burden on your loved ones.
    Most damage to a brain is caused by the deceleration of the head when the skull stops dead and the brain keeps going and hits the inner skull. As skulls are considerably stronger than brains a helmet is unlikely to make a great deal of difference- Does the lad in this incident have a fractured skull or brain damage ?

    People die from internal injuries caused to the brain which helmets wont generally prevent

    bellefied
    Member

    crazy-legs – Member

    Good article in The Times this morning:
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3849991.ece
    thanks for that – I think that sums up most people’s view on this thread – with the exception of the extremists of course πŸ˜‰

    The significant paragrph from the Times is

    “Motorists who speed, pass too close to cyclists, drive in cycle lanes, fail to look properly while turning and stop in cycle boxes at traffic lights are liable for fines and points on their licence as well as possible jail terms. These offences should be treated seriously by police and enforced more strongly, while cyclists who jump red lights or disobey the rules of the road should also be dealt with according to the same laws. Only a small minority of motorists or cyclists misbehave – most are law-abiding, responsible road users. This must be encouraged.”

    Unfortunately reporting them is at the moment a waste of time, I’ve tried.

    antigee
    Member

    El-bent – Member
    a campaign for compulsory helmet wear moves the blame for accidents on to cyclists and fails to address anything…..
    You’ll have to forgive me for not reading all of the thread, While you are quite correct that this could be construed as placing the responsibility of road safety onto the cyclist and not the driver, I still think it’s a sensible thing for cyclists to wear a helmet on the roads.

    not sure if you read the OP – my comments were about the appropriateness of a campaign for compulsory helmet wearing (by cyclists) and if this really addressed any safety issues for cyclists ….not if wearing helmets is or isn’t sensible

    craigxxl
    Member

    Might be emotional blackmail but you can’t say it won’t happen.

    Last two accidents I had involved no other vehicle to blame. Both resulted in damaged helmets. One just scuffed as my head slid down Cutgate (massive run off just full on natural obstacles). From that accident I had broken ribs grazed arms which a helmet wouldn’t protect but no facial damage other than dirt and sore neck. The one before that hit a brick with the back of my head. Coming down a cycle path that crossed a small bridge over a stream, child ran onto the bridge without looking so it was either it the girl or avoid. It left a fist size hole in the back of the helmet. No brain damage even though it decelerated from 15+mph to nil in less than a second. I think I would have been drooling down my front and needing care if not for the helmet. That’s my proof that helmets work that I’m not in that situation. Please feel free to try these accidents yourself without an helmet. I don’t know you and won’t be looking after you.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    You’ll have to forgive me for not reading all of the thread,

    Well if you think that you’ll have to forgive me for not bothering to read your post as undoubtedly it repeats some of the guff which has already been said and disproved.

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    Might be emotional blackmail but you can’t say it won’t happen.

    If that is a real concern for you then I suggest you stop cycling immediately.

    Helmets are only going to protect your head (a bit) – what if you break your neck or spine and are left “spending the rest of your miserable life drooling down your fronts”?

    You DO wear a neck brace and spine protector don’t you??

    Most damage to a brain is caused by the deceleration of the head when the skull stops dead and the brain keeps going and hits the inner skull.

    And SNELL helmet certification allows a deceleration of up to 300 G’s before the helmet fails the test!

    Please feel free to try these accidents yourself without an helmet.

    You have no understanding of the issue being discussed. Please read the thread again from the start. Sorry.

    Executive Summary: if you’re going to bash your head then it’s probably best to wear a helmet* – that doesn’t mean that helmets should be compulsory or that making them compulsory would save lives overall.

    * (excluding rare, freak injuries caused by the slightly increased rotational force)

    antigee
    Member

    as undoubtedly it repeats some of the guff which has already been said

    as probably hadn’t even read the OP it was actually “new guff” πŸ˜†

    Peyote
    Member

    Might be emotional blackmail but you can’t say it won’t happen.

    Whether it will or won’t happen is irrelevant. You’re trying to prove a point based on tugging on the heartstrings of people without using any kind of logical or rational argument. It’s a poor way to get your point across and ignores so many other factors that may influence the greater picture of accident causation and resultant effect.

    You’re trying to simplify a matter so that it becomes a red-top soundbite and something like this has too big an effect, is too complex and potentially influences too many lives to go around blithely mouthing off without considering the impact* of what you’re saying.

    * For example, if research yet to be conducted demonstrated that risk compensation ended up with far more KSIs than lack of helmet wearing. NB I don’t know if it does or not, but I’m not willing to argue it isn’t important based on personal anecdotes and the mythical army of “dribbling patients” wheeled out to support the point.

Viewing 45 posts - 46 through 90 (of 146 total)

The topic ‘Helmet compulsion again’ is closed to new replies.