Helmet or no helmet?
Comments
-
rally200 wrote:you can make anything out of statistics
A statistician is someone who can have their head in an oven and their feet in a fridge and still say that, on average, everything is Ok
time flies like an arrow
fruit flies like a banana0 -
look mate when u get hit then u will wear one wont you!!Genesis Core 200
-
Maybe there is some merit to pedestrians wearing helmets too, though I'm still thinking (without evidence either way of course) that the % of pedestrians involved in accidents needing a helmet is way less than the % of cyclists. As for the killer-cyclists, that doesn't add up for me. There is roughly 1 death on the roads for every 8500 cars on the road. For 2 deaths caused by cycling to be worse there would have to be less than 16,000 people using bikes in the whole of the UK. I'm pretty sure there is more than that.
These studies that show pedestrians presenting with injuries, what do they call a pedestrian? Two drunks fighting on a Saturday night, one falls over and bangs his head, he isn't a pedestrian any more than he's a cyclists.
Even so, maybe pedestrians would be better off wearing helmets. Car drivers would be better off wearing 5 point harnesses and full face helmets in cars with full roll cages, and cyclists would be marginally better off wearing a helmet.
There is no way enough justification to make cyclists wear helmets compulsory though, so it's up to you. If you don't want to, don't. Simple. I wouldn't have it any other way.
(Of course I really didlike anything that suggests cyclists are somehow variations on pedestrians. Thats the sort of think that leads to "multi use paths", and ohh how I hate "multi-use paths")0 -
bear baun wrote:look mate when u get hit then u will wear one wont you!!
Do you mean cyclist or pedestrian?
Care to explain which of these groups this does not apply to?
......and why?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
there is no helmet question down here, its compulsory, full stop. The Police will stop you if they see you riding without a helmet. I grew up without them but these days dont even notice. Sure you look like a bit of a plonker (far less cool than the Rapha ad blokes in caps) but having seen them put to the test a few times over the years its really a no brainer....pardon the pun. Yes to helmet use.0
-
erko wrote:there is no helmet question down here, its compulsory, full stop. The Police will stop you if they see you riding without a helmet. I grew up without them but these days dont even notice. Sure you look like a bit of a plonker (far less cool than the Rapha ad blokes in caps) but having seen them put to the test a few times over the years its really a no brainer....pardon the pun. Yes to helmet use.
I think I understood they made helmets in Spain compulsory as well, but not within towns and villages. In Australia, in practice, does it really mean you have to wear a helmet if you pop down to the bakery or newsagent 400 m down the road? :?0 -
FJS wrote:In Australia, in practice, does it really mean you have to wear a helmet if you pop down to the bakery or newsagent 400 m down the road? :?
I cant speak for the entire country as road rules vary state by state , however, in the great state of New South Wales below applies....
It is compulsory to wear an approved helmet correctly when riding a bike. This applies to all cyclists, regardless of age, including children on bicycles with training wheels and any child being carried as a passenger on a bike or in a trailer.
from http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/bi ... rules.html
so basically no exceptions, in practice the Police would likely just give you a warning, though you can be fined. Its a rarity to see roadies out without helmets, though you do see it from time to time.0 -
Are you lot still at it?
Blimey!
:roll:
What kind of helmet would you wear, if you had to? Shimano or Campagnolo? :twisted:0 -
Having read through a few pages of this thread, i thought I'd try and find some actual statistics.
From the department for transport, the average distances travelled each year by each person in Great Britain in 2006 were 39km per year on bikes and 201km per year by walking.
But when you look at the injury statistics in terms of deaths/injuries per billion kilometres travelled by walking and cycling, you can see the differences:
Deaths - 31 per billion km for cycles, 36 per billion km for pedestrians
all injuries - 3494 per billion km for cycles, 1631 per billion km for pedestrians.
So statistically (which doesn't necessarily mean anything), you're more than twice as likely to get injured on a bike per km travelled than a pedestrian is, but the risk of death is about the same.0 -
I remember years ago, there was massive debate about wearing seatbelts in cars before they became compulsory. All the arguments were the same: not likely to crash, look a plonker, not worth the hassle, too expensive to fit, saves lives etc, and now, because they were made compulsory, everyone is wearing them as a matter of course and hardly anyone complains.
It seems common sense to wear some sort of safety gear to protect the more vulnerable parts of your body.FCN = 4.5 Roadie, hairy legs, half a beard (say goateeeeee!)0 -
Does any manufacturer use this standard now? The packaging for my Bell Ghisallo stated it meets CPSC standard, which I think may be a little more rigorous than the CE Euro standard, the baseline for cycle helmets sold in the EU. However, I'm not convinced this will make a great deal of difference (if any) in the event of a fall or collision.Cunobelin wrote:GIro do not test helmets to SNELL standards.
I have no idea if this comprehensive site has an agenda but there's more info there than most people need. However, I think it's quite a simple process to weigh up the pro's and cons and make your own decision. You can always change your mind tomorrow. IMHO zealotry or bigotry don't help anyone, so please don't condemn those making a different choice.
Shimano or Campagnolo? It doesn't matter. Perhaps not wearing a helmet = singlespeed/fixed.Aspire not to have more, but to be more.0 -
Simon E wrote:Felix-da-house-mouse wrote:
Thanks. My self-esteem can live with that, after all it's only your (rather condescening) opinion. I have no problem with you choosing not to wear a helmet but I don't think that's a fair argument to dissuade others. Were you bullied as a child?gkerr4 wrote:actually you look a dick.
did you read the rest of my post? - I was (pretty much) just talking about myself as I had worn my helmet for the first time in God-knows-how-long that day.
I actually wore it again this morning - something must have got to me with this thread.
It wasn't too bad and I was less self concious than last time.0 -
Simon E wrote:
Does any manufacturer use this standard now?Cunobelin wrote:GIro do not test helmets to SNELL standards.
Yep -
Specialized Bicycle Components test a wide range with the Snell foundation:
Air Force Adult
Air Force 3
Air Wave
Air-8
Aurora
Chamonix
Decibel
Deuce
Deviant
Deviant Carbon
Deviant Full Face
Echelon
Instinct
Propero
S-Work
S-Works
Skillet
Small Fry
Sworks 2D
Tactic
Telluride
So if one company can do it - why can't the rest?
Of course it means that you cannot specially manufacture helmets for test as they are "off the shelf" - the same as you would buy
The tests are tougher and many EN1078 will simply not pass!
AS long as we allow the manufacturers to dictate the testing as opposed to effective independent testing such as Snell, we are not working for the inetersts of cyclists.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
No, the arguments are not the same. The ones you mention, yes. But, making seatbelts in cars will keep very few people from driving a car, but making helmets compulsory would keep whole categories from using a bike, or certain types of usages of bikes, which would reduce the number of bikes on the road, and make us cyclists even more marginal.Elganesh wrote:I remember years ago, there was massive debate about wearing seatbelts in cars before they became compulsory. All the arguments were the same: not likely to crash, look a plonker, not worth the hassle, too expensive to fit, saves lives etc, and now, because they were made compulsory, everyone is wearing them as a matter of course and hardly anyone complains.0 -
I always advocate wearing a helmet and gloves, I recently went out to test ride my fixed wheel bike, all was going well , 100 yds down the road I stopped to join the main road, OK so far. Just got up to speed about 18mph and I noticed my left shoe lace was coming loose so I stopped peddling :oops: The next thing I remember was being helped up off the tarmac with red stuff flowing from the palm of my left hand, the back of my head and my kidneys felt like they'd been kicked. All this 200 yds and under a minute from home.
Now should I wear a helmet next time I go out ? It's a no brainer really.0 -
*Shrug* I'm Australian, so this debate is pointless for me. I wear a helmet every time I ride because it's compulsory by law. Of course it's humiliating, but I don't deceive myself that anyone in the government cares what I, or any other member of the tiny minority that cyclists represent here, think. Passing a helmet law was easy and cheap and provided some good sound-bites, while other measures to improve cycling safety are by comparison difficult and expensive and require low-key effort over years. It was a no-brainer, especially if you like pushing people around, and what politician or self-appointed safety advocate doesn't?
If you'd seen the non-stop cyclist-death-porn TV ads around the time the helmet laws came in, you might think differently. Never before or since did Sydney TV carry anything like the amount of cycling safety advertising, and the unrelenting message was basically "Cycling is dangerous. If you don't wear a helmet, you will die." Way to encourage cycling guys!I've got to go with "not true" here. From my experience the view that cycling is a crazy risky thing is pretty prevalent all on it's own, and not really anything to do with helmet campaigns.
Cycling helmets are generally poorly designed, often with pseudo-aerodynamic spikes and extensions at the rear when a smooth rounded shape is safer. In environments like Australia in which the climate is often hot and sunny, helmets are hot and sweaty, but the Australian Standard doesn't cover cooling performance. Nor does it cover sun-protection, in a country with a very high rate of skin-cancer, so it's no surprise that the manufacturers provide none. Faced with a small captive market (we have to buy their products regardless...), the manufacturers don't have much incentive to improve, and compete mostly on price and fashion style.0 -
whats the penalty for not wearing one in Oz - is it hefty?
I often think that if it did become a law in the UK I probably still wouldn't bother anyway - it's not as if we have number plates on the back or anything so how do you "get caught"?0 -
FJS wrote:
No, the arguments are not the same. The ones you mention, yes. But, making seatbelts in cars will keep very few people from driving a car, but making helmets compulsory would keep whole categories from using a bike, or certain types of usages of bikes, which would reduce the number of bikes on the road, and make us cyclists even more marginal.Elganesh wrote:I remember years ago, there was massive debate about wearing seatbelts in cars before they became compulsory. All the arguments were the same: not likely to crash, look a plonker, not worth the hassle, too expensive to fit, saves lives etc, and now, because they were made compulsory, everyone is wearing them as a matter of course and hardly anyone complains.
True, but there a lot more reasons people use for not riding a bike. Having to wear a helmet would come a lot further down the list than you'd think if everyone had to do it. If people insist on participating in an activity where there is an element of danger then wear some sort of safety equipment. It makes sense, doesn't it? Whether it's cool or not should not be a factor.FCN = 4.5 Roadie, hairy legs, half a beard (say goateeeeee!)0 -
Just ask the staff at your local Hospital A & E. You'll get a pretty persuasive argument for wearing a helmet. (The words vegetable and brain damage usually crop up).
If you take your time and chose the right helmet (i.e. colour/shape) you to can look like a road warrior.0 -
Australia has a federal political system, and bicycle helmet laws are a matter for the States, so technically there is no national rule. However, the States generally keep their road rules roughly consistent, and riding without a helmet is an offence in all States and Territories.gkerr4 wrote:whats the penalty for not wearing one in Oz - is it hefty? I often think that if it did become a law in the UK I probably still wouldn't bother anyway - it's not as if we have number plates on the back or anything so how do you "get caught"?
I don't know the situation in other States, but here in New South Wales, the offence of failing to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle carries a maximum penalty of 20 "penalty units". At the moment, I think one penalty unit equals $110, so the fine is up to $2200. I have no idea how many actual prosecutions are brought, or what the actual average fine levied might be. IANAL.
The NSW police don't make much effort to enforce any cycling laws. However, if you are involved in an accident while not wearing a lid, and the police are called to the scene, the coppers will probably add to your woes with an Infringement Notice. Also, and this is probably more important, failing to wear a helmet will most likely be treated as contributory negligence in any subsequent personal injury insurance claim.0 -
Elganesh wrote:FJS wrote:
No, the arguments are not the same. The ones you mention, yes. But, making seatbelts in cars will keep very few people from driving a car, but making helmets compulsory would keep whole categories from using a bike, or certain types of usages of bikes, which would reduce the number of bikes on the road, and make us cyclists even more marginal.Elganesh wrote:I remember years ago, there was massive debate about wearing seatbelts in cars before they became compulsory. All the arguments were the same: not likely to crash, look a plonker, not worth the hassle, too expensive to fit, saves lives etc, and now, because they were made compulsory, everyone is wearing them as a matter of course and hardly anyone complains.
True, but there a lot more reasons people use for not riding a bike. Having to wear a helmet would come a lot further down the list than you'd think if everyone had to do it. If people insist on participating in an activity where there is an element of danger then wear some sort of safety equipment. It makes sense, doesn't it? Whether it's cool or not should not be a factor.
Everything that we do carries risks it is whether the risks are so great that it requires legal intervention. I don't think they are. You could argue that by making helmets compulsory you actually help to increase the the risks to all cyclists as there is there is some evidence, though not conclusive but then what is in this whole debate, that increased numbers of cyclists leads to greater safety for all cyclists. By forcing whole groups of people out of cycling what you do therefore is increase the risks to all, including myself who does choose to wear a helmet.
Are the risks of not a wearing a helmet really that great? I think the greater risk is from badly designed roads, poor standards of driving, the biased road legislation which almost exclusively seeks to protect the interests of the ordinary motorist over other non motorised forms of transport.
I think that people don't wear helmets for more reasons than you credit the argument with by simply assuming its down to what other people might think of them. The fact is that the vast majority of people I see riding bikes for training reasons do so with a helmet. Those that don't tend to be for the most part people riding pavements. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of accidents that happen actually occur amongst those involved in training rides or are racing ie they are riding at speed and/or riding on the roads and having to compete with motorised transport. If you accept those things then it seems obvious that helmet enforcement will do little to significantly change either the number of people presenting with serious injuries or dying.
Of course I may live in an area which isn't typical of where everyone else lives however I can only comment on what I see. Who are the people that you typically see most often not wearing a helmet?0 -
Sure you will (though almost everyone there will be a car-driver, not a cyclist, so they probably think we're brain-damaged vegies to begin with), but in the next breath they'll be whittering about the "obesity epidemic sweeping Australia". Considering the sharp drop in cycling observed (in NSW and Victoria at least) when the helmet laws were introduced, a sense of irony is obviously not required in the medical profession.BazookaMoor wrote:Just ask the staff at your local Hospital A & E. You'll get a pretty persuasive argument for wearing a helmet. (The words vegetable and brain damage usually crop up).0 -
plain and simply if i didnt wear a helmet i would have died or severly brain damaged after an accident in sept resulting in helmet cracking in 20
-
saw on a government website in uk the reason helmets are not law in uk is that it would be an admission that cycling is dangerous, hence families might be tempted to find other hobbies with thier kids..0
-
marusches wrote:plain and simply if i didnt wear a helmet i would have died or severly brain damaged after an accident in sept resulting in helmet cracking in 2
How do you know that? You've got no evidence to show that the grave things would have happened if you weren't wearing a helmet.0 -
I think the best way to increase helmet use is to persuade people that they'll live longer if they ride a bike wearing a helmet.
Maybe incorporate the message with superfoods i.e. If you eat brocoli whilst wearing a bike helmet you'll live to 103 and have no need for viagra. 0 -
seriously... is your look that important?
you ain't going to look so slick with a head split in two.
no chance I ever ride without a helmet. especially offroad.
if you don't wear a helmet, you obviously aren't riding fast.0 -
Cycling has dangers, but so does abandoning cycling in favour of sitting on the sofa watching TV, and riding round everywhere in cars, busses etc.marusches wrote:saw on a government website in uk the reason helmets are not law in uk is that it would be an admission that cycling is dangerous, hence families might be tempted to find other hobbies with thier kids..
I hesitate to approve of anything done by the British government, but maybe it understands that there are trade-offs in public health policy. I hope I don't need to persuade anyone on this forum of the social and health benefits of cycling, and you don't encourage people to participate in any activity by screaming "It's dangerous! It's dangerous! If you don't wear a helmet you will die!". The introduction of helmet laws in NSW produced a sharp reduction in the amount of cycling, and I have little doubt that the same effect would be observed in the UK.0 -
visual-hybrid wrote:if you don't wear a helmet, you obviously aren't riding fast.
I bet these guys rode fast.......
0
