Compulsory Helmet Use
JohnMartin
Posts: 33
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.
Cheers
John.
2010 Trek Fuel EX8
2009 Rockhopper Comp.
2009 Rockhopper Comp.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
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 censored but i dont care as i know i am save
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!
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.)
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:
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 .
Quoted for the Truth
Click Here for FREE Cashback on purchases inc. Wiggle/CRC/Evans & Halfords
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
The Shaker
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
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)
Click Here for FREE Cashback on purchases inc. Wiggle/CRC/Evans & Halfords
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.
Help for Heroes
JayPic
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.
Help for Heroes
JayPic
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
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.
Especially as it is most likely to happen when he is out on the town having a pint than on his bike!
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.)
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.
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.)
Lovely sentiment there....
And of course a helmet makes you completely safe ? Er no it doesnt.
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
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.)
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.
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?
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.)
This is really dismal stuff