Helmet on road?

Hey, crosshair, if you have such little respect for the opinions of others, and prefer to laugh and call people “ridiculous”, why bother starting the thread? Your tone is very patronising.

I never started the thread!!!! I only joined in on this page!!!
I never called people ridiculous, merely stated that some of the arguments are.

Not sure why people cite the Netherlands a s a safe place to ride, having spent 2 weeks there on holiday with a bike I can assure you it is not.

I really would urge you to take 15 minutes to watch this TED talk. You may end up disagreeing, fine, but Mikael Colville is one of the foremost experts on cycling culture in one of the two most successful cycling countries in the world, so I think it’s a pretty long leap to call him ridiculous.

Not sure why people cite the Netherlands a s a safe place to ride, having spent 2 weeks there on holiday with a bike I can assure you it is not.

http://www.bikexprt.com/research/pasanen/helsinki.htm

I don’t need to take my time, I’m still waiting patiently for you to have the common courtesy of answering my question.

I have answered it. If you’re struggling to understand, find a dictionary and look up “rhetorical”.

I never started the thread!!!! I only joined in on this page!!!

I misunderstood your opening line, apologies

I don’t need a crash helmet I need a pair of boxing gloves as proven this morning on Ken High St. Some drivers are just complete morons and bullies and don’t like being called out on it.

ormondroyd – Member

You still have problems there with motorists not seeing you, very safe when on cycle tracks which number in the 100,000s but dont expect a trouble free ride on the roads. Also dont forget that its a country where “Foreigners” drive and come with the driving habits of their country.
Found much the same riding in Menorca, lots of respect from local cars but when cut up or passed very close at speed by cars its always a rental car.

I fell off last night. My hand’s bruised.

I really would urge you to take 15 minutes to watch this TED talk. You may end up disagreeing, fine, but Mikael Colville is one of the foremost experts on cycling culture in one of the two most successful cycling countries in the world, so I think it’s a pretty long leap to call him ridiculous.

Ok, so a charismatic guy spends 14minutes telling us that promoting helmet wearing can scare people off of cycling.
He briefly mentions a statistic that might possibly imply that people get into more accidents wearing a helmet but never really elaborates on that (despite 2 1/2 y of study, one brief sound bite is all he can come up with).

Nothing in it convinced me that I shouldn’t wear a helmet (I don’t think that was trying to be at the crux of his argument anyway, so dubious as to how relevant the clip is).

His comparisons to pedestrians and driving a car were not ridiculous because he wasn’t in my opinion saying that if you believe you should wear a helmet for cycling then you just as well wear one for the other two. He was in fact referring to them in regards to scaremongering techniques.

We have the freedom to choose. I choose to, you may choose not to. When he’s old enough to cycle, my son will wear one too.

They banned TJ for this ?

Mikael Colville is one of the foremost experts on cycling

He may be an expert on cycling culture but I am willing to bet that I’ve ridden far more miles on Britain’s road network than he has. Perhaps he might like to consider where I get my perception of how safe it is.

promoting helmet wearing can scare people off of cycling.

perhaps we scare of those who would take the most risks and therefore protect themselves from themselves and considerable harm [JOKE please dont bite].

Nothing in it convinced me that I shouldn’t wear a helmet

But no one is trying to persuade you not to wear a helmet. No one is saying that wearing a helmet is a bad thing, just that those who choose not to wear one shouldn’t be marginalised, criticised, or viewed any differently from those who do.

Whoever said it was about the ‘uniform’ is right. Sadly, like the sad sheep that I am, I’ve been considering wearing a helmet on the road for while now, purely because I’m conscious that I stick out like a sore thumb among the helmet wearing cycling populace.

One thing I’m now certain of though, is that compulsory helmet laws are coming. It’s sad, but I suppose I’d better just get used to it. My big worry though, is that once it does, how quickly will registration and compulsory insurance follow?

Has anyone mentioned how few people actually wear their helmets correctly?

(In my experience) Women in particular can often be seen wearing helmets perched on the very back of their head with loads of forehead showing, whereas men often have the chinstraps loose or even undone.

If you’re going to wear one then at least wear it correctly so it can give you the protection it is supposed to.

SNELL says:

Position the helmet on your head so that it sits low on your forehead; if you can’t see the edge of the brim at the extreme upper range of your vision, the helmet is probably out of place. Adjust the chinstraps so that, when buckled, they hold the helmet firmly in place. This positioning and adjusting should be repeated to obtain the very best result possible. The procedure initially may be time consuming. Take the time.

Try to remove the helmet without undoing the chinstrap. If the helmet comes off or shifts over your eyes, readjust and try again. If no adjustment seems to work, this helmet is not for you; try another.

So, all those against helmet compulsion for cyclists – where do you stand on helmet compulsion for motorcyclists?

I don’t think it will become compulsory at all. In London at least there are 8000 bikes for hire and I can’t see people being forced to wear communal helmets or carry one about just in case.

This is an interesting point re Boris bikes from wikipedia

A study showed cyclists using the scheme are three times less likely to be injured per trip than cyclists in London as a whole, possibly due to motorists giving cycle hire users more road space than they do other cyclists.

Seem that the less able you are the more room you get, perhaps riding poorly has it’s upsides, or maybe the lack of helmets makes drivers more careful.

So, all those against helmet compulsion for cyclists – where do you stand on helmet compulsion for motorcyclists?

Why do you ask?

where do you stand on helmet compulsion for motorcyclists?

Tricky. Motorcyclists are an excellent source of donor organs which means it is useful to the population as a whole to prevent brain death until they are ready to be harvested.

So, all those against helmet compulsion for cyclists – where do you stand on helmet compulsion for motorcyclists?

At an idealogical level I’m against it, but I do recognise that it saves lives. The same with seatbelts in cars. Being one of those pinko liberal types, I tend to think it’s no business of the government to dictate to people how much risk they should accept in their everyday lives. As long as it doesn’t endanger anyone else of course.

compulsory helmet laws are coming. It’s sad, but I suppose I’d better just get used to it. My big worry though, is that once it does, how quickly will registration and compulsory insurance follow?

I dont think compulsion on helmets is coming and there is no way to practically enforce the registration or insurance angle – though I do have insurance as i consider it prudent to do so.

A study showed cyclists using the scheme are three times less likely to be injured per trip than cyclists in London as a whole, possibly due to motorists giving cycle hire users more road space than they do other cyclists.

Could be due to anything though. They dont live in london so cycle slower , they stick to quiet park routes

Being one of those pinko liberal types, I tend to think it’s no business of the government to dictate to people how much risk they should accept in their everyday lives.

The trouble is that pinko liberal socialism means everyone pays for those that are caught out by that risk.

The trouble is that pinko liberal socialism means everyone pays for those that are caught out by that risk.

You could use that logic to ban pretty much every dangerous or ‘extreme’ sport. That’s one for a different thread though.

You could. You could also use it to ban much more common causes of injury and health problems such as smoking, drinking, DIY, gardening and driving.

More reasonably you could use it as a justification for the government wanting to protect the health of citizens to a reasonable level. 🙂

You could use that logic to ban pretty much every dangerous or ‘extreme’ sport.

Even then, they wouldn’t ban cycling though because the benefit from the exercise vastly outweighs the risks, *even without a helmet*. You cost society less than if you made the same journeys by car or bus.

I came out of my house once, hopped onto the bike. rode 10metres and realised the road was very shiny – before I knew it I was laying sideways on the road on sheet ice.

EVERY time on the road.

(This is coming from someone who forgot his helmet and rode down the beast on a hardtail recently alone)

You could. You could also use it to ban much more common causes of injury and health problems such as smoking, drinking, DIY, gardening and driving.

Well I guess ‘ban’ is the wrong word. What we’re really talking about is denying free NHS treatment and emergency rescue services to those who can’t pay for it. This ball is already rolling. The end result will be less people partaking in ‘risky’ sports or activities because they can’t afford the insurance.

I do recognise that it saves lives. The same with seatbelts in cars.

It is debatable whether seatbelts save lives overall. The graph below for all UK fatalies (excluding motorcycles) shows no drop in UK fatalities after the seatbelt law was introduced in 1983. IN fact a previous declining trend was interrupted. While a driver who crashes is safer if belted it isn’t that simple at a population level.

Seat belts: another look at the data

After the seatbelt law for the driver and front seat passenger was introduced in 1983 deaths of drivers and front seat passengers went down but deaths of rear seat passengers, cyclists and pedestrians went up. Looks like risk compensation in action.

Second open letter to Executive Director of PACTS

I think it is fair to say that seatbelts save the lives of vehicle occupants while costing the lives of cyclists and pedestrians.

ransos – Member

I have answered it. If you’re struggling to understand, find a dictionary and look up “rhetorical”.

No you haven’t.
You Haven’t answered my question because to do so would expose the flaws in the BS you propagate.

And as you seem a little confused, rhetoric is determined by the author, not the audience. Best to avoid such obvious errors when trying to be clever, because they cause you to fail.
🙂

Apparently the human body (and specifically the skull IIRC) is designed to withstand impacts at up to 20mph

Hallelujah!

The end result will be less people partaking in ‘risky’ sports or activities because they can’t afford the insurance.

Sadly you are probably right – especially with the stealth privatisation of the NHS and moves toward private healthcare US-style.

It’s entirely wrong of course because ‘risky’ sports make up a tiny proportion of health problems in the population and must be offset against the benefits of being fitter and healthier.

But you’ll still get people sat on a creaking sofa, stuffing pizza and beer down their enormous neck, smoking between mouthfuls, who will drone on about the irresponsible mountain bikers costing the NHS so much money 😀

No you haven’t.
You Haven’t answered my question because to do so would expose the flaws in the BS you propagate.

I have answered your question. If you don’t understand it, I can’t help you any further. I suppose I could’ve dumbed down for my audience, but I don’t intend to sink to your level.

Pip pip!

ormondroyd – Member

I really would urge you to take 15 minutes to watch this TED talk.

His love of the bicycle is admirable. Shame he uses factual inaccuracies to support his opinion, although I’m sure he’d get along fine here! 😀

So, all those against helmet compulsion for cyclists – where do you stand on helmet compulsion for motorcyclists?

I’m against it.

In practice riding without a helmet (which I have abroad and occasionally on lanes at home) is even less practical than a convertible car, so I don’t really care.

ransos – Member

I have answered your question. If you don’t understand it, I can’t help you any further. I suppose I could’ve dumbed down for my audience, but I don’t intend to sink to your level.

Pip pip!

You haven’t (answered the question that is, you were already at my level).
It’s plain to see that you haven’t.
It’s obvious why you haven’t.

Now why don’t you stop being so silly? 🙂

I’ve been observing online “debate” about cycle helmets for about 15 years, and I’ve never seen anyone offer a new argument or change their position.
Every thread just repeats the same comments that were posted the last time.
I have no comment to make on helmets, but I am very anti cycling helmet debate. I don’t think there is any scientific evidence that debating cycle helmets serves any useful purpose.

Looks like risk compensation in action

Those figures are non significant and you get a similar “blip in 1975 – 1980

I am not a risk compensation denier but I am not convinced that is the cause here tbh

You haven’t (answered the question that is, you were already at my level).
It’s plain to see that you haven’t.
It’s obvious why you haven’t.

As I said, if you can’t see it, I can’t help you. I’ll leave you to carrying on rubbing your trousers.

I’ve been observing online “debate” about cycle helmets for about 15 years, and I’ve never seen anyone offer a new argument or change their position.

I’ve changed mine. I used to tend to the compulsion/ very good idea end of the spectrum, but I’ve become convinced that helmets are of limited use at a personal level, and have some significant disadvantages at a societal level.

Those figures don’t state what they are comparing the 1983 rates with in the table? Would be interesting to see, also how do they correlate with the increase in number of cyclists if they are recent. You put more people on the road with more cars you get more deaths.

The whole debate around helmets is ridiculous.

Currently we have personal choice, and thats also if we want to ride with people wearing and not wearing helmets. Me personally I respect your right not to wear one however please respect my right not to ride with you and to keep moving along if you have a crash and get head injury.

Some people may take greater risk with a helmet than without but do we see more people jumping red lights with helmets or without? I don’t know.

If you fall of your bike you may or may not hit your head. I know I did and my helmet protected it to the point my helmet was cracked, that could have been my head and I was travelling at less than 20mph, pretty sure my head hit the ground faster than 20mph though.

Would you rather take an impact to your skull with or without a helmet or do your mega skills preclude the possibility of you actually falling off your bike and hitting your bonce on something thats harder than your head.