Compulsory Helmet Use

Cunobelin

No-one is removing risk.....

Lets make this very simple foryou

Do you not accept that a pedestrian falling and striking their head would benefit from a helmet or not?

Si78

the way i look at it is this:-

I wear a safety helmet all day at work. If I ride a horse I wear a riding helmet, If I drive a kart or ride a motorbike I wear a helmet....

It really is no hardship wearing a bike helmet. Its not gonna save you from everything, but it just might stop you dying after a small off.

I would be a bit p*ssed off if my epitaph read " ...died when he fell a few feet to the floor after skidding on some dog sh*t, his vanity meant he didnt wear a helmet... "

Si

Cunobelin

Si78 wrote:

the way i look at it is this:-

I wear a safety helmet all day at work. If I ride a horse I wear a riding helmet, If I drive a kart or ride a motorbike I wear a helmet....

It really is no hardship wearing a bike helmet. Its not gonna save you from everything, but it just might stop you dying after a small off.

I would be a bit p*ssed off if my epitaph read " ...died when he fell a few feet to the floor after skidding on some dog sh*t, his vanity meant he didnt wear a helmet... "

Si

Was that as a pedestrian?

Si78

Cunobelin wrote:

Si78 wrote:

the way i look at it is this:-

I wear a safety helmet all day at work. If I ride a horse I wear a riding helmet, If I drive a kart or ride a motorbike I wear a helmet....

It really is no hardship wearing a bike helmet. Its not gonna save you from everything, but it just might stop you dying after a small off.

I would be a bit p*ssed off if my epitaph read " ...died when he fell a few feet to the floor after skidding on some dog sh*t, his vanity meant he didnt wear a helmet... "

Si

Was that as a pedestrian?

No, on a bike! Why would a pedestrian wear a bike helmet???.... I was trying to think of an embarrassing way to die on a bike... and skidding on some dog poo and cracking your head on the road would be a pretty ignoble way to go imo.....

stupid analygy i know but, hey, im really tired

Always wear a helmet on a bike is my general point.

Sleepy Si

bikefish85

Cunobelin wrote:

Who mentioned risk

You did. You said:

Cunobelin wrote:

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

Likelihood of an accident occuring is a definition of risk. Have you any figures to back up your claims? The ones you have provided do not define risk as you have not provided any other data set.

Cunobelin wrote:

Do you not accept that a pedestrian falling and striking their head would benefit from a helmet or not?

Yes. Anyone falling would benefit if they hit their head and it could cause injury even if it was 1 in 10^10000000 chance. But the risk is a lot lower for a pedestrian than a cyclist (based on DFT figures, 2006 comparing KSI stats, total casualties compared to man kilometres for each activity and converting to man hours based on average speeds). Your argument implies either we all wear helmets all of the time, or nobody should. If you are not implying that, and do advocate helmet use for some activities, what are you basing it on?

Northwind

Cunobelin wrote:

Lets make this very simple foryou

Do you not accept that a pedestrian falling and striking their head would benefit from a helmet or not?

Let me make it even simpler- pedestrians are less likely to fall and strike their heads than cyclists. It is not a hard concept. Pedestrians are also less likely to run between trees at 30mph

The 2 would benefit equally from wearing helmets should they have an accident which involves striking their head, but the cyclist is more likely to find himself in that situation. Therefore, the cyclist is more likely to benefit from the helmet. The chance of the pedestrian suffering an injury which could be mitigated by a helmet are vanishingly small

Head injuries among cyclists have fallen by over 40% since 1995 despite the number of cyclists growing and the number of recreational cyclists (the most at-risk group) growing higher, again in line with the growth and acceptance of helmet use. 37% of all hospitalisation injuries for cyclists involves a serious head injury. In england, cycling injuries constitute 7% of all head injuries.

(Another popular straw man of the anti-helmet people- "helmets don't protect you from cars, and most injuries involve cars." Actually, less than 1 in 7 of all cycling head injuries involves a car.)

Your choice of the Glasgow survey is quite funny though- who would have thought it, Glasgow hospitals see more drinking and less cycling! No ****!

The actual number of reported hospitalising cyclist head injuries isn't huge- it was 2183 in 2003, or 6 per day. Of course, this is only hospitalising injuries, there are no statistics for the number of minor injuries. Now, of course it's impossible to compile statistics on the number of injuries which may have been prevented by helmet use.

elgordo

i see the helmet nazis are out in force again. Cycling is a fun,safe and healthy activity.. You soft lads think your living on the edge when you ride your bikes. If you can't stay upright then get some stabilizers. Most of us managed to sort our balance out by the age of 3 or 4. I'm guessing you still piss the bed and sleep with the light on, right?

I'll keep riding without a helmet because a) i don't need one, and b) it appears wearing one turns people into ****'s who think they should tell everyone else how to live their lives.

captainfly

I can't see why you would want to ride without a helmet, they're not expensive and aren't that uncomfortable, it will probably be that accidental low spped sideways topple where you bang your head on a rock/tree/curb that does for you, life is funny that way :roll:

Si78

elgordo wrote:

I'll keep riding without a helmet because a) i don't need one, and b) it appears wearing one turns people into ****'s who think they should tell everyone else how to live their lives.

I guess some people dont need a helmet on to be ****'s......

Northwind

elgordo wrote:

i see the helmet nazis are out in force again. Cycling is a fun,safe and healthy activity.. You soft lads think your living on the edge when you ride your bikes. If you can't stay upright then get some stabilizers. Most of us managed to sort our balance out by the age of 3 or 4. I'm guessing you still wee-wee the bed and sleep with the light on, right?

Whereas I'll keep wearing my helmet and pads, and keep riding stuff which is actually difficult

cougie

If anyone here goes back long enough to the days before the polystyrene helmets were invented, they could probably vouch for the fact that cycling wasnt a blood sport then. I dont believe the fatality levels have changed that much.

The helmet debate kind of loses credibility for me when posters come on and tell me that their helmet saved their life - or as I've seen today - their helmet saved their life three times.
I cant work out if thats bloody lucky, or bloody unlucky ? Just because a helmet breaks - that doesnt mean your skull would. Helmets are designed to break, and cleverly skulls are designed not to.

That said - wear a helmet if you want, but dont put all your faith into it, and dont make them compulsory. Cycling really isnt that dangerous.

GHill

Is it a month since people moaned about helmet wearing already? Seems like that's about the right period for this to come up anyway...

Adults should be able to decide if they wear a cycle helmet or not. For kids I can see some benefits of making it compulsory but I'm still not sure.

Northwind

cougie wrote:

If anyone here goes back long enough to the days before the polystyrene helmets were invented, they could probably vouch for the fact that cycling wasnt a blood sport then. I dont believe the fatality levels have changed that much.

The riding has, though. Poly helmets have been around since the mid 70s, so they predate modern mountain bikes. Though modern integrated shell helmets started in about 1990 I think. But just look at the diffence in what we ride... There were no trail centres, no north shore, suspension was in its infancy... We do stuff now which is just fundamentally more dangerous, and we do a lot of it, I remember "mountain biking" in 1991 and it was RUBBISH. Bouncing up and down fire roads on skinny smokes. Now every year hundreds of thousands of people go to Glentress alone, riding courses which would have been considered madness 20 years ago.Road riding conditions have also changed of course- more cars, more congestion, more accidents.

cougie wrote:

The helmet debate kind of loses credibility for me when posters come on and tell me that their helmet saved their life - or as I've seen today - their helmet saved their life three times. I cant work out if thats bloody lucky, or bloody unlucky ?

Yup. I hate this argument, nobody ever knows what would have happened in an accident if you change one variable. I rode my old raleigh into the side of a car at top whack, went over the front, and went through the windscreen of a parked car. I was mauled, covered in blood and various minor injuries, but nothing worse than a cracked rib and fingers, and dislocated shoulder, and some interesting scars. lucky one. When I was in A&E, about 3 different people told me "Your helmet saved your life" Good one, I didn't know they had such range, it was in my bedroom at home at the time...

Si78

like most things in life, its a personal choice.

Like I said earlier, I wear a hard hat all day in work...it wont save me if a crane sling breaks and a 30 ton casting die falls on my head, but it will save me if some one drops a hammer on my head....

ive only been wearing a helmet for the last few weeks, since I got back into biking. I will always wear one now.

Contrary to what some idiot says, I dont need stabilisers, i dont wet the bed at night etc

I just feel safer, and it helps keep the wind, rain and sun out of my eyes a bit too.

Just my opinion, my personal choice.

But it does make me angry when i see kids riding about with no helmet on....


Si

cougie

Why angry about kids riding round without helmets ? We've had decades of children raised fine without helmets. All my pals made it through to adulthood without helmets. Even the little kid who ran slap bang into the back of a car whilst wearing his spiderman outfit.

Maybe the doctor would hae told him that the web-powers protected him ?


OMG Ant and Dec are in the back of a car on Britains Got Talent and havent got seatbelts on. Did they learn nothing from Diana ?

Northwind

cougie wrote:

Did they learn nothing from Diana ?

They may have made sure the driver's not p***ed Sides, some of us have more to lose from brain injury than others, for them it'd probably be a career enhancement.

(Kids make up a disproportionate number of serious head injuries for cyclists, because they're IDIOTS, their brains are too small to tell them not to ride into skips, and in younger kids the skull is much less protective and the brain more vulnerable to acceleration damage, so the case for kids wearing helmets is much stronger for them.)

Si78

cougie wrote:

Why angry about kids riding round without helmets ? We've had decades of children raised fine without helmets. All my pals made it through to adulthood without helmets. Even the little kid who ran slap bang into the back of a car whilst wearing his spiderman outfit.

Maybe the doctor would hae told him that the web-powers protected him ?


OMG Ant and Dec are in the back of a car on Britains Got Talent and havent got seatbelts on. Did they learn nothing from Diana ?

Because surely any good parent wants to ensure their child is as safe as possible?

Just because your toddler has never fallen down the stairs does that mean you dont need stair gates?
Just because your kid has never flown thru the windscreen of your car in a crash does that mean you shouldnt make them wear a seat belt?
If a kid falls off their bike I would rather they cracked their helmet on a kerb, rather than their soft head!

FSR Si

If you want to wear a helmet then wear one, If you don't want to wear one then don't, But no way should you judge riders as idiots or anything else for not wearing them especially as its not law, its freedom of choice and that's how it should stay.
And the person who wrote "i cant wait till he is in hospital fighting for his life thr hiting his head i will just send him flowers the msg will say TOLD YA SO" well thank f*** you're not my mate with that attitude!!!

Si. Not wearing a helmet since 1989...

tlw1

up to the person - simple as that. I am big enough to make my own mistakes & strong enough to enforce them with my family.

I wear one, as do my kids - but I have lost a brother to cycling & had a few trips to a&e. So I am strict with the kids & it has worked - because they ask for their lids in the garden!

I have also go a car without a windscreen & always wear a lid in that

RedJohn

I doubt making it compulsory would putmany off though, as once someone is established as a cyclist then they'll generally be willing to out up with wearing one - the majority do so anyway - and any newbies starting out will generally be encouraged to get one anyway.

The only place I see people regularly without a helmet is canal towpaths etc - speeds are low, the surface is good, there are no cars, so the risk is much lower. On roads and trails it's unusual to see someone without one.

Mountainbiking without a helmet is either semi-suicidal or a serious inhibition to going at a decent pace on interesting trails and getting the most enjoyment from it.

That said I'm in favour of freedom of choice. Just!

Apparently some motorist on the TV/radio said that helmets should be complusory because as a driver he has to take extra care around cyclists without one ...

dave_hill

elgordo wrote:

I'll keep riding without a helmet because a) i don't need one, and b) it appears wearing one turns people into ****'s who think they should tell everyone else how to live their lives.

When you have to be fed through a straw I'll make you some soup, but I absolutely draw the line at wiping your ar$e for you...

I'll bet you think it's OK to use a mobile phone when your drink-driving, don't you??

geordiefreerider

elgordo wrote:

i see the helmet nazis are out in force again. Cycling is a fun,safe and healthy activity.. You soft lads think your living on the edge when you ride your bikes. If you can't stay upright then get some stabilizers. Most of us managed to sort our balance out by the age of 3 or 4. I'm guessing you still wee-wee the bed and sleep with the light on, right?

I'll keep riding without a helmet because a) i don't need one, and b) it appears wearing one turns people into ****'s who think they should tell everyone else how to live their lives.

Exactly the type of rider darwinism should be filtering out anyway..............

dave_hill

It's the "I don't need a helmet" line that gets me. I mean just how f**king arrogant can you get? I bet he won't be saying that when he's got a boulder sticking out his left temple and can't remember his own name. :roll:

geordiefreerider

I know, every professional rider wears one yet he believes he doesnt need one, well either his head is hollow or he rides so slow on such lacklustre terrain he probably doesnt feel the need for one or he's the greatest skilled rider there ever was and we should all be worshipping him !! Personally I think it's the second one ?

dodgy

RedJohn wrote:

Mountainbiking without a helmet is either semi-suicidal or a serious inhibition to going at a decent pace on interesting trails and getting the most enjoyment from it.

So you're saying people that wear helmets take more risks?

Cunobelin

Northwind wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

Lets make this very simple foryou

Do you not accept that a pedestrian falling and striking their head would benefit from a helmet or not?

Let me make it even simpler- pedestrians are less likely to fall and strike their heads than cyclists. It is not a hard concept. Pedestrians are also less likely to run between trees at 30mph

The 2 would benefit equally from wearing helmets should they have an accident which involves striking their head, but the cyclist is more likely to find himself in that situation. Therefore, the cyclist is more likely to benefit from the helmet. The chance of the pedestrian suffering an injury which could be mitigated by a helmet are vanishingly small

Head injuries among cyclists have fallen by over 40% since 1995 despite the number of cyclists growing and the number of recreational cyclists (the most at-risk group) growing higher, again in line with the growth and acceptance of helmet use. 37% of all hospitalisation injuries for cyclists involves a serious head injury. In england, cycling injuries constitute 7% of all head injuries.

(Another popular straw man of the anti-helmet people- "helmets don't protect you from cars, and most injuries involve cars." Actually, less than 1 in 7 of all cycling head injuries involves a car.)

Your choice of the Glasgow survey is quite funny though- who would have thought it, Glasgow hospitals see more drinking and less cycling! No ****!

The actual number of reported hospitalising cyclist head injuries isn't huge- it was 2183 in 2003, or 6 per day. Of course, this is only hospitalising injuries, there are no statistics for the number of minor injuries. Now, of course it's impossible to compile statistics on the number of injuries which may have been prevented by helmet use.

.... an dtheanswer to the question is...... that pedestrians would benefit equally and that more head injuries would be prevented by helmets in pedestrians.

There is an avid group of fanatices who with a trotal lack of evidence come up with pathetic bullying with the emotive blackmail of posts such as :

It's the "I don't need a helmet" line that gets me. I mean just how f**king arrogant can you get? I bet he won't be saying that when he's got a boulder sticking out his left temple and can't remember his own name. Rolling Eyes

When you have to be fed through a straw I'll make you some soup, but I absolutely draw the line at wiping your ar$e for you...

Both of which would apply equally to a pedestrian, car driver or passenger. Yet they demand the right to choose not to wear a helmet as a pedesrtrian because
Iin their opinion the risk is small. Or even worse, refuse to discuss the matter.

Yet shoul a cyclist feel that the risk to them is insufficient to wear a helmet than it is unacceptable.

The stench of hyporisy


Mind you I did find the fact that the number of pedestrian head injuries were omitted above amusing.... and I would love to see the reference that evidences the 40 % reduction claim. - can you please either link or detail the source.

dave_hill

geordiefreerider wrote:

Exactly the type of rider darwinism should be filtering out anyway..............

Quod erat demonstrandum...

Cunobelin

Pedestrians are also less likely to run between trees at 30mph

Now that is certainly Darwinism in practice.

After all when you have to be fed through a straw I'll make you some soup, but I absolutely draw the line at wiping your ar$e for you... simply because you have chosen to take stupid and unneccessary risks. If the risks are that great then surely we should be reviewingthe pracice and as these of road bikers are the greater part of the head injuries accordingto the above posts - lets review whether it should be allowed.

I mean to say It's the "cycling on an un[predictable surface at 30 mph between trees" line that gets me. I mean just how f**king arrogant can you get? I bet he won't be saying that when he's got a branch sticking out his left temple and can't remember his own name.

But then again are these exactly the type of rider darwinism should be filtering out anyway..............

dave_hill

Two things -

1. Learn how to use the posting system properly so that we know what the hell you're on about.

2. If I'm going to take part in a risky activity, be it mountain biking, naked hang gliding, frying an egg or bear baiting, I take precautions to reduce the risk of personal injury to myself. If you choose not to that's fine by me but don't a) ask me to come to the rescue and b) say that you're associated with me in any shape or form if it all goes tits up for you.

And while I'm still of the opinion that wearing a helmet should be compulsory for road use, I still don't think it will change anything. Stupid is as stupid does, to paraphrase Forrest Gump.

RedJohn

dodgy wrote:

RedJohn wrote:

Mountainbiking without a helmet is either semi-suicidal or a serious inhibition to going at a decent pace on interesting trails and getting the most enjoyment from it.

So you're saying people that wear helmets take more risks?

Umm ...
That's putting the cart before the horse I think.

Mountainbiking has an inherently higher chance of head injury than road cycling.
People who go mountainbiking by and large recognise this and so wear a helmet to mitigate that risk. It's very very rare to see someone mountainbiking without one.

Can't comment about other people, but for myself, if I found myself mountainbiking without a helmet ... suppose for example it got damaged while out riding ... I'd then ride paranoically slowly and walk anything vaguely difficult, undoubtedy over-compensating the change in risk by a large margin.

For all that I rarely (note: not never) fall off, and when I do I rarely hit my head, I'd still consider riding in my usual off-rode style - and I'm not all that adventurous really - unacceptably dangerous without a helmet.

I also wear a helmet when cycling on road, beacuse I don't find it particularly unpleasant and I recognise there are safety benefits. But if I forgot to take it on-road then I wouldn't change my riding style.