Compulsory Helmet Use

JohnMartin

As per the artical on the front page of the site, would you give up cycling, if by law you had to wear a helmet?


Cheers

John.

geordiefreerider

No way I think its stupid not to wear one off road and on the road you have some absolutely clueless drivers so really unless your suicidal, I dont see any other option, whenever I see someone without one I instantly think "idiot" especially those parents who take there kids out for rides without them - im confident in my ability to ride a bike but there are too many unknown factors when contending with traffic and off road riding, it should definately be compulsory for under 16's.

XxxBFGxxX

it should be compulsery in my veiws. i came of a few year ago with out a helmet thank god the bus stopped as that was the last thing i remeber as i went out. wore one ever since.

at the end of the day ya asking for trobl with out one. if ya come of and hit ya head your gonna hurt ya self with one ya may be better of. who care if they look sill in some ppls eyes. my answer to that is i might look a twat but i dont care as i know i am save

shin0r

Apart from being pretty stupid it's also selfish not to wear a helmet when out on the trail. If the trail has to be closed so the paramedics can spoon your brains back into your skull and helicopter you to A+E you've ruined everyone elses day too.

That said, if you believe your head needs no protection that's fine by me, Darwinism in action.

geordiefreerider

shin0r wrote:

That said, if you believe your head needs no protection that's fine by me, Darwinism in action.

True ha ha

Cunobelin

shin0r wrote:

Apart from being pretty stupid it's also selfish not to wear a helmet when out on the trail. If the trail has to be closed so the paramedics can spoon your brains back into your skull and helicopter you to A+E you've ruined everyone elses day too.

That said, if you believe your head needs no protection that's fine by me, Darwinism in action.

Yep - those off road bikers are a selfish lot!

Apart from being pretty stupid it's also selfish to ride a bike down off road trails knowing you may injure yopurselfl. If the trail has to be closed so the paramedics can spoon your brains back into your skull and helicopter you to A+E you've ruined everyone elses day too, by your selfish and irresponsible aatiyude of expecting them to pick up the pieces when nyou fall off

Surely we should be looking at why the individual fell off. Taking risks and then relying on protective equipment is extremely unwise and foolish!

As you say Darwinism in action!

fallingoff

Always wear one,as does my daughter,my m8 won't but he makes his son wear one???
As said toooo many stupid car drivers and off road too many rocks..
Compulsory on the road especially for kids,but adults are far cleverer and don't need legislation.... :roll:

alfablue

No, I always wear one anyway, but I think it would be a bad idea to have compulsion.

XxxBFGxxX

my amte refuses to wear one say they look stupid. i cant wait till he is in hospital fighting for hiw life thr hiting his head i will just send him flowers the msg will say TOLD YA SO

geordiefreerider

Cunobelin wrote:

shin0r wrote:

Apart from being pretty stupid it's also selfish not to wear a helmet when out on the trail. If the trail has to be closed so the paramedics can spoon your brains back into your skull and helicopter you to A+E you've ruined everyone elses day too.

That said, if you believe your head needs no protection that's fine by me, Darwinism in action.

Yep - those off road bikers are a selfish lot!

Apart from being pretty stupid it's also selfish to ride a bike down off road trails knowing you may injure yopurselfl. If the trail has to be closed so the paramedics can spoon your brains back into your skull and helicopter you to A+E you've ruined everyone elses day too, by your selfish and irresponsible aatiyude of expecting them to pick up the pieces when nyou fall off

Surely we should be looking at why the individual fell off. Taking risks and then relying on protective equipment is extremely unwise and foolish!

As you say Darwinism in action!

Are you a roadie by any chance ?

3110neil

Hi
A few weeks back my 13yr old son came of his bike ,banged his head ,hemlet was ruined , ive 3 kids and i make them all ride with an hemet ,and myself .
£30.00 to buy an helmet ,how much for a life
If you dont wear one your an idiot .

Da Mighty Chicken

3110neil wrote:

If you dont wear one your an idiot .

Quoted for the Truth

Raymondavalon

It's not just Joe Public who isn't sensible enough to wear a helmet, let's not forget Miss Atherton's little close encounter with death a few months back.

When riding off road a helmet is a mandatory requirement in my book, I also use different helmets for different occasions, hence a normal commuter'esque lid doesn't hack it for me when riding in Swinley, I think one needs a helmet to suit the conditions.

I do undertake the weekday commute to gym on my roadster MTB and the route is along cycle paths, to be honest I don't always wear a helmet when doing these types of rides, it's only a few miles, no roads at all at a sensible pace.
If commuting or riding a route that has me on the roads, then again a helmet is mandatory

Tank-slapper

On the news the other day, the government was announcing a new scheme to make roads safer for cyclists by teaching car/bus/lorry/van/motorbike drivers to be more aware. I couldn't help thinking that a lot of cyclists need to be made more aware as well. In addition to compulsory helmets, should cyclists be made to sit a road proficiency test as well?

Northwind

As a motorcyclist, I'm not old enough to remember when the mandatory helmet laws came in, but I do know that the arguments against it (I don't like helmets, they cost too much, they make no difference, and my favourite "It's just the thin end of the wedge") are exactly the same as the ones used for cycling, and they've all been completely and totally discredited. The MAG and others insisted over and over that the helmet laws were the first step in a grand conspiracy to ban motorcycling, and that allowing the laws through was basically the death knoll for motorcycling. In 1973

So, it's the same cobblers for cycling. The only good argument against mandatory cycle helmets is, IMO, that it's unenforcable. Which it is. And you don't pass an unenforcable law, unless you want to look silly. Though I can't wait to see the Helmet Enforcement Squads hiding behind trees up in the hills for days so they can jump out and arrest helmetless riders It'd be enforcable on the road, to some extent.

Incidentally, in an off-road crash you're more likely to sustain a permanant leg injury than a permanent brain injury, by an order of about 2:1. So before helmets become law, knee pads should, right? (the reason, brains are well protected and well located, knees and hips are vulnerable joints stuck out, and first points of impact)

BorisSpencer

Taking my son to an away game this morning, passed a large group of cyclists, about 50% wearing helmets, funniest was the one who had a helmet in the bungees on the back of her pack.

Da Mighty Chicken

Thing is Northwind, How much would your life be altered by with a leg injury? Nothing in comparison to a serious head injury

dave_hill

Northwind wrote:

And you don't pass an unenforcable law, unless you want to look silly.

Have you tried telling Gordon Brown that? It seems to be his favourite pastime.

A law is only good if it is enforceable. Compulsory wearing of helmets IS enforceable, as is any other road traffic regulation. The problem is that there aren't the resources available to do it.

Speeding, drink driving, using a mobile phone while driving, having poor eyesight, having no insurance, having defective tyres and having no MoT are all offences and all are enforceable. But proactive law enforcement is now the exception rather than the rule.

Making wearing of cycle helmets compulsory in the UK would probably have little or no effect.

dave_hill

Tank-slapper wrote:

In addition to compulsory helmets, should cyclists be made to sit a road proficiency test as well?

Throws the onus back onto the cyclist though, doesn't it?

I think that there are cyclists and also People On Bikes (POBs).

Cyclists probably know the law but occasionally flout it when they know they can get away with it.

POBs are the ignorant ones who need educating.

But there is no doubt that the vast majority of drivers (and probably to a lesser extent motorcyclists) are completely ignorant of the needs and rights of cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders also using the roads.

Northwind

Da Mighty Chicken wrote:

Thing is Northwind, How much would your life be altered by with a leg injury?

Massively. Trust one who knows, I got 6 months on crutches, 6 months of constant physio and relearning how to walk, and 2 more years before I could run or ride a bike I was lucky to regain that much strength and movement. Legs are useful appliances for cyclists!

You're absolutely right of course, I'm just playing games with logic but it is strange how many cyclists (and this board) have adopted the policy that helmets are more or less mandatory, but pads are for big girls and incompetents.

mongoosed

My young lad and me both wear our helmets all the time ,i wouldn't have it any other way.

Cunobelin

XxxBFGxxX wrote:

my amte refuses to wear one say they look stupid. i cant wait till he is in hospital fighting for hiw life thr hiting his head i will just send him flowers the msg will say TOLD YA SO

Especially as it is most likely to happen when he is out on the town having a pint than on his bike!

Cunobelin

geordiefreerider wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

shin0r wrote:

Apart from being pretty stupid it's also selfish not to wear a helmet when out on the trail. If the trail has to be closed so the paramedics can spoon your brains back into your skull and helicopter you to A+E you've ruined everyone elses day too.

That said, if you believe your head needs no protection that's fine by me, Darwinism in action.

Yep - those off road bikers are a selfish lot!

Apart from being pretty stupid it's also selfish to ride a bike down off road trails knowing you may injure yopurselfl. If the trail has to be closed so the paramedics can spoon your brains back into your skull and helicopter you to A+E you've ruined everyone elses day too, by your selfish and irresponsible aatiyude of expecting them to pick up the pieces when nyou fall off

Surely we should be looking at why the individual fell off. Taking risks and then relying on protective equipment is extremely unwise and foolish!

As you say Darwinism in action!

Are you a roadie by any chance ?

Nope just pointing out the hypocrisy of the post....

It is alright for thr OP to take risks that they have assessed, but then refuses to allow others to make a similar decision.

geordiefreerider

I dont know about anyone else but when I see people on mountain bikes, especially off road without helmets I dont register them in my mind as being proper mountain bikers, meaning someone who takes the sport seriously or even half seriously, I think most of us although we might take risks (mountain bike riding inherently being a risky sport) are savvy enough to realise the stupidity of not wearing a helmet. Only the other day I came off and although no harm was done had there been a strategically placed rock or tree stump where my head went it could of been a different matter and I was alone in the middle of a forest, on a week day with hardly anyone around and I would of had difficulty directing an ambulance crew to where I was. Somebody mentioned on the last page "how come we dont all wear knee pads etc then if we have to wear helmets ?" and I think the answer to that is you have to think about the danger a head injury can cause at even slow speeds all it takes is a low impact in the right place to cause brain damage or even death, whereas a broken leg or arm yes it's painful but not life threatening (unless theres massive blood loss of course) but for most peoples style of riding a helmet is a minimum level of precaution just in case the worst should happen whereas body armour/knee pads are normally worn because of the extra risks when riding more extreme terrain at higher speeds. Basic first aid knowledge would also be beneficial in my opinion. God im getting old ha ha !!!!

geordiefreerider

Cunobelin wrote:

geordiefreerider wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

shin0r wrote:

Apart from being pretty stupid it's also selfish not to wear a helmet when out on the trail. If the trail has to be closed so the paramedics can spoon your brains back into your skull and helicopter you to A+E you've ruined everyone elses day too.

That said, if you believe your head needs no protection that's fine by me, Darwinism in action.

Yep - those off road bikers are a selfish lot!

Apart from being pretty stupid it's also selfish to ride a bike down off road trails knowing you may injure yopurselfl. If the trail has to be closed so the paramedics can spoon your brains back into your skull and helicopter you to A+E you've ruined everyone elses day too, by your selfish and irresponsible aatiyude of expecting them to pick up the pieces when nyou fall off

Surely we should be looking at why the individual fell off. Taking risks and then relying on protective equipment is extremely unwise and foolish!

As you say Darwinism in action!

Are you a roadie by any chance ?

Nope just pointing out the hypocrisy of the post....

It is alright for thr OP to take risks that they have assessed, but then refuses to allow others to make a similar decision.

It's true but then where would we be if we as a species didnt take risks ? Look at mountain climbers, when they get into trouble they endanger the lives of rescue teams etc etc

cougie

XxxBFGxxX wrote:

my amte refuses to wear one say they look stupid. i cant wait till he is in hospital fighting for hiw life thr hiting his head i will just send him flowers the msg will say TOLD YA SO

Lovely sentiment there....

And of course a helmet makes you completely safe ? Er no it doesnt.

Northwind

geordiefreerider wrote:

It's true but then where would we be if we as a species didnt take risks ? Look at mountain climbers, when they get into trouble they endanger the lives of rescue teams etc etc

Yep. It's all just about reasonable risks, and doing what you can to reduce those risks without stopping the activity. Some things are just inherently risky, but there's a balance between "This is dangerous, ban it/don't do it" and "Hey, life is risk maaaaan, nothing you can do about it"

Fact is, no man is an island, you can do whatever stupid thing you want as long as it doesn't affect or harm anyone else, but any responsible adult knows that what they do has consequences.

Cunobelin

Northwind wrote:

geordiefreerider wrote:

It's true but then where would we be if we as a species didnt take risks ? Look at mountain climbers, when they get into trouble they endanger the lives of rescue teams etc etc

Yep. It's all just about reasonable risks, and doing what you can to reduce those risks without stopping the activity. Some things are just inherently risky, but there's a balance between "This is dangerous, ban it/don't do it" and "Hey, life is risk maaaaan, nothing you can do about it"

Fact is, no man is an island, you can do whatever stupid thing you want as long as it doesn't affect or harm anyone else, but any responsible adult knows that what they do has consequences.

Which is fine..... and again points out why the original post was so hypocritical.

As I pointed out above, more head injuries are alcohol related than cycle related. (60 % according to Thornhillet al in the BMJ*) If I were to suggest compulsory "Pub Helmets" along with anecdotes such as the guy who died in Portsmouth from Head ijuries after a pub brawl then my evidence is as strong as that presented above - conclusive evidence for compulsion.

We should be looking at all the factors and if you decide that nothing else such as modified technique, training or experience would reduce your risks and that a helmet would then please feel free to wear one.

However misplaced anecdote, and demands for compulsion without any real evidence imposes on the right of the individual to make these choices.

Perhaps if someone has the right to decide that cycling is dangerous enough to make compulsion neccessary then there is an equal argument (and right) to ban any activity that increases the danger, such as cycling off road?



* Thornhill at al looked at ALL head injuries admited to a large DGH and found that

The most common causes of injury were falls
(43%) or assaults (34%); alcohol was often involved
(61%), and a quarter reported treatment for a previous
head injury.

Northwind

Cunobelin wrote:

As I pointed out above, more head injuries are alcohol related than cycle related. (60 % according to Thornhillet al in the BMJ*) If I were to suggest compulsory "Pub Helmets" along with anecdotes such as the guy who died in Portsmouth from Head ijuries after a pub brawl then my evidence is as strong as that presented above - conclusive evidence for compulsion.

What a classic straw man! The proportion of people suffering head injuries while drinking is of course lower than the proportion of people suffering head injuries while mountain biking- the reason for the high incidence of drinking-related injuries is the higher number of people drinking, not a high risk.

Cunobelin

Who mentioned risk......... I am comparing like with like.

The posts are referring to anecdotal evidence, so does mine...... equally valid, factual and deserving of equal weight. Neither carries any more or less weight as bioth ae unequivocally proof that the victim may have benefitted from a helmet.


The uncomfortable point comes when we start looking at the actual incidence of head injuries and profiling the victimsand realise that cyclists do not feature as highly as some would have us believe.


With he paper I am quoting the number of admitted head injuries in an independent cohort study.

The math is simple.....

We have 100 head injuries admitted, all of which would (if the claims are correct) have benefitted by a helmet. You are suggesting that only 2 - 3 of these desreve protection?

Are you really saying that the 60 alcohol rlelated ones, or the 40 from falls hurt less, are less traumatic or that these head injuries are "acceptable"

Risk is a diffrent measurement - I am quoting the incidence not the risk.


How would you like to experss your risk - milage, time or distance?

Northwind

Cunobelin wrote:

We have 100 head injuries admitted, all of which would (if the claims are correct) have benefitted by a helmet. You are suggesting that only 2 - 3 of these desreve protection?

Are you really saying that the 60 alcohol rlelated ones, or the 40 from falls hurt less, are less traumatic or that these head injuries are "acceptable"

This is really dismal stuff Of course I'm not saying that, nor am I saying anything which could possibly be misconstrued to say that. And trying to remove risk of injury from this argument is absurd.