C4 News now - doctors recommend mandatory helmets for U16s

Fireblade96

Like the title says . Apparently A&E Doctors are recommending that helmets be made mandatory for under 16s.

here we go....


*stands back*

roger_merriman

sits down, ooh popcorn...

Porgy

doctors want to stop us drinking as well...anything to make their job easier.

Pity most of the ones I've had dealings with can't even do their own job and should have been struck of years ago.

jonginge

In other news: locusts proven to fly efficiently. FACT (but bees still can't)

Fireblade96

I missed the news item in the end anyway

Loading the car with tools, workstand etc. to go fix a mate's son's bike. Wish me luck !

cjw

I've just started listening to Steve Vai again after many years... really good stuff.

Fireblade96

Just to, ahem, stimulate debate, here's a linky

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/make+bike+helmets+aposcompulsory+for+childrenapos/3347312

Now, I'm off to work on a bike :-)

Porgy

What'll happen is that kids will take their helmets off and lose them when out playing - parents will get fed up with buying new helmets and possibly being fined by police after losing them and parents will stop kids from cycling - there'll be no cyclists in 30 years under 50 and the trend in rising unhealthiness will continue to rise leaving the NHS so overwhelmed it'll go bankrupt and everyone will die of heart disease, strokes or cancer.

I don;t care any more

prj45

I think that there should be strong advice for kids to wear helmets (I think they're probaby far more likely to take a tumble), but making it mandatory is nuts.

tailwindhome

JonGinge wrote:

In other news: locusts proven to fly efficiently. FACT (but bees still can't)

According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. It's wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway, because bees don't care what humans think is impossible

Mike Healey

All part of the traditional:

"Wear A Helmet or You WILL DIE" campaign to encourage people to cycle.
Altho', by and large, it is advisable for kids to wear them - they tend to experience "drop" accidents rather than the "slide" accidents of adult riders. That, together with the fact that smaller children have fairly large heads in relation to their body size means that they're more likely (tho' not very often) to hit their heads in a fall.

Aidy

Do people's skulls magically become harder when they hit 17?

prj45

Aidy wrote:

Do people's skulls magically become harder when they hit 17?

No, but coordination gets better with age and understanding of what happens when you fall off a bike is enhanced (and thus risk taking reduced).

Flasheart

And they can afford to buy their own helmets

dirk_van_gently

Yet another study wasting my tax-pounds, so that bloody doctors can pontificate.
Why don't they and all the other so called experts STFU?

dsmiff

Both my kid's wear helmets and now their friends do as well, they are out most of there time and they are just use to wearing their helmets (this is just playing out in the street / fields with their friends).

Most of their friends wear them, in fact, there is only one that doesn't and they think he is a bit of a "censored " (they also think the same of other people they see without one – it’s a bit like smoking to them, not cool)

I DON'T think they should be mandatory, I always wear one (my choice) but people should be able to choose themselves.

I DO think we should encourage people to wear them (even if some people think the reasons are flawed) I just go with the majority on this.

cjw

Aidy wrote:

Do people's skulls magically become harder when they hit 17?

It's not magic, it's growth. Childrens' skulls are thinner and less mechanically robust than adults. This growth continues until early 20's as I recall (age may be wrong but it is later than you wuold imagine).

dirk_van_gently

Obvously the message is sinking in somewhere.

always_tyred

Dirk Van Gently wrote:

Yet another study wasting my tax-pounds, so that bloody doctors can pontificate.
Why don't they and all the other so called experts STFU?

Why are they "so called" experts? Because you don't agree with them?

That "so called expert" Robert Peston keeps telling me stuff I don't like. He should STFU.

Wallace1492

BREAKING NEWS: Falling off your bike and landing on your head may cause injury. "So Called Expert" advises that wearing helmet may reduce or prevent injury.

ellieb

Why don't they and all the other so called experts STFU

If ever I happen to suffer a head injury, perhaps you might like to point me in the direction of someone who can really treat me, rather than me having to rely on one of those so called expert doctors to do it :roll:

biondino

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

In other news: locusts proven to fly efficiently. FACT (but bees still can't)

According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. It's wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway, because bees don't care what humans think is impossible

THE notion that engineers once "proved" that bees can't fly has become an urban myth. So partly to restore the reputation of the profession, Michael Dickinson decided to investigate the forces at work during honeybee flight.

In 1996, Charlie Ellington at the University of Cambridge showed how vortices rolling along the leading edge of the wing were the vital source of lift for most insects. But this can't explain how a heavy insect with a short wing beat, such as a bee, generates enough lift to fly.

Dickinson and his colleagues at Caltech in Pasadena, California, filmed hovering bees at 6000 frames per second, and plotted the unusual pattern of wing beats. The wing sweeps back in a 90-degree arc, then flips over as it returns - 230 times a second. The team made a robot to scale to measure the forces involved.

It is the more exotic forces created as the wing changes direction that dominate, says Dickinson. Additional vortices are produced by the rotation of the wing. "It's like a propeller, where the blade is rotating too," he says. Also, the wing flaps back into its own wake, which leads to higher forces than flapping in still air. Lastly, there is "added-mass force" which peaks at the end of each stroke and comes from the acceleration of the wing after it changes direction.

The work may help engineers come up with designs for rotating propellers or more stable and manoeuvrable aircraft. But most importantly, "it proves bees can fly, thank God," says Dickinson.

(from New Scientist)

jonginge

biondino wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

In other news: locusts proven to fly efficiently. FACT (but bees still can't)

According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. It's wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway, because bees don't care what humans think is impossible

THE notion that engineers once "proved" that bees can't fly has become an urban myth. So partly to restore the reputation of the profession, Michael Dickinson decided to investigate the forces at work during honeybee flight.

In 1996, Charlie Ellington at the University of Cambridge showed how vortices rolling along the leading edge of the wing were the vital source of lift for most insects. But this can't explain how a heavy insect with a short wing beat, such as a bee, generates enough lift to fly.

Dickinson and his colleagues at Caltech in Pasadena, California, filmed hovering bees at 6000 frames per second, and plotted the unusual pattern of wing beats. The wing sweeps back in a 90-degree arc, then flips over as it returns - 230 times a second. The team made a robot to scale to measure the forces involved.

It is the more exotic forces created as the wing changes direction that dominate, says Dickinson. Additional vortices are produced by the rotation of the wing. "It's like a propeller, where the blade is rotating too," he says. Also, the wing flaps back into its own wake, which leads to higher forces than flapping in still air. Lastly, there is "added-mass force" which peaks at the end of each stroke and comes from the acceleration of the wing after it changes direction.

The work may help engineers come up with designs for rotating propellers or more stable and manoeuvrable aircraft. But most importantly, "it proves bees can fly, thank God," says Dickinson.

(from New Scientist)

I'd read the NS article but the 'bees can't fly' meme is just so compelling.

Porgy

biondino wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

In other news: locusts proven to fly efficiently. FACT (but bees still can't)

According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. It's wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway, because bees don't care what humans think is impossible

THE notion that engineers once "proved" that bees can't fly has become an urban myth. So partly to restore the reputation of the profession, Michael Dickinson decided to investigate the forces at work during honeybee flight.

In 1996, Charlie Ellington at the University of Cambridge showed how vortices rolling along the leading edge of the wing were the vital source of lift for most insects. But this can't explain how a heavy insect with a short wing beat, such as a bee, generates enough lift to fly.

Dickinson and his colleagues at Caltech in Pasadena, California, filmed hovering bees at 6000 frames per second, and plotted the unusual pattern of wing beats. The wing sweeps back in a 90-degree arc, then flips over as it returns - 230 times a second. The team made a robot to scale to measure the forces involved.

It is the more exotic forces created as the wing changes direction that dominate, says Dickinson. Additional vortices are produced by the rotation of the wing. "It's like a propeller, where the blade is rotating too," he says. Also, the wing flaps back into its own wake, which leads to higher forces than flapping in still air. Lastly, there is "added-mass force" which peaks at the end of each stroke and comes from the acceleration of the wing after it changes direction.

The work may help engineers come up with designs for rotating propellers or more stable and manoeuvrable aircraft. But most importantly, "it proves bees can fly, thank God," says Dickinson.

(from New Scientist)

Well I'm glad we got there before they become extinct.

wgwarburton

Fireblade96 wrote:

Just to, ahem, stimulate debate, here's a linky

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/make+bike+helmets+aposcompulsory+for+childrenapos/3347312

Now, I'm off to work on a bike :-)

This doesn't suggest there's been any new research published that would actually help to move the "debate" forward. I didn't see the broadcast item but this link above only restates the stats that the original authors no longer support!!

Any idea why this has come up again, now? There still doesn't seem to be any actual evidence to support the contention that mandating helmets would save lives, or even reduce serious head injuries: "doctors say they can reduce direct skull impact" doesn't really add up to a case for law-making!

Cheers,
W.

Wallace1492

Not sure I see the downside of wearing a helmet.
Is the only problem the loss of personal choice?

Porgy

Wallace1492 wrote:

Not sure I see the downside of wearing a helmet.
Is the only problem the loss of personal choice?

depends if you want cycling to be a mass form of transport or an elitist activity...

Porgy

WGWarburton wrote:

Fireblade96 wrote:

Just to, ahem, stimulate debate, here's a linky

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/make+bike+helmets+aposcompulsory+for+childrenapos/3347312

Now, I'm off to work on a bike :-)

This doesn't suggest there's been any new research published that would actually help to move the "debate" forward. I didn't see the broadcast item but this link above only restates the stats that the original authors no longer support!!

Any idea why this has come up again, now? There still doesn't seem to be any actual evidence to support the contention that mandating helmets would save lives, or even reduce serious head injuries: "doctors say they can reduce direct skull impact" doesn't really add up to a case for law-making!

Cheers,
W.

I couldn;t find any figures - only that 20% of all head injuries are caused by cycling - with no actual source - and no indication if this is serious head injuries or not.

It does appear that the vast majority of head injuries are caused by car accidents - so why not make kids where helmets in cars?

Unless they present some sort of evidence as to why this is necessary then I'm not going to believe it is necessary.

Seems to me that most responsible parents make their kids wear helmets anyway. Penalising those that don;t is not going to help anything - kids will be more likely to walk or accept lifts in cars which is just as if not more dangerous...and become less healthy in later life...vastly more dangerous.

All I want is some rationality and a bit of joined up thinking.

Is that too much to ask?

hoolio

depends if you want cycling to be a mass form of transport or an elitist activity...

Exactly. This is what happened when they made seat belts compulsory in cars.

Porgy

hoolio wrote:

depends if you want cycling to be a mass form of transport or an elitist activity...

Exactly. This is what happened when they made seat belts compulsory in cars.

is that sarcasm?

hoolio