Forum home Commuter cycling forum Commuting chat

C4 News now - doctors recommend mandatory helmets for U16s

Fireblade96Fireblade96 Posts: 1,123
edited September 2009 in Commuting chat
Like the title says . Apparently A&E Doctors are recommending that helmets be made mandatory for under 16s.

here we go....


*stands back*
Misguided Idealist
«1

Posts

  • sits down, ooh popcorn...
  • PorgyPorgy Posts: 4,525
    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.
  • jongingejonginge Posts: 5,945
    In other news: locusts proven to fly efficiently. FACT (but bees still can't)
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
  • I missed the news item in the end anyway :lol:

    Loading the car with tools, workstand etc. to go fix a mate's son's bike. Wish me luck !
    Misguided Idealist
  • cjwcjw Posts: 1,889
    I've just started listening to Steve Vai again after many years... really good stuff.
    London to Paris Forum
    http://cjwoods.com/london2paris

    Scott Scale 10
    Focus Izalco Team
  • 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 :-)
    Misguided Idealist
  • PorgyPorgy Posts: 4,525
    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 :cry:
  • prj45prj45 Posts: 2,208
    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.
  • 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
    Believe that a farther shore
    Is reachable from here.
    Believe in miracles
    And cures and healing wells
  • 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.
    Organising the Bradford Kids Saturday Bike Club at the Richard Dunn Sports Centre since 1998
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/eastbradfordcyclingclub/
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/eastbradfordcyclingclub/
  • AidyAidy Posts: 2,015
    Do people's skulls magically become harder when they hit 17?
  • prj45prj45 Posts: 2,208
    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).
  • FlasheartFlasheart Posts: 1,278
    And they can afford to buy their own helmets :D
    The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle. ...Stapp’s Ironical Paradox Law
    FCN3
    http://img87.yfrog.com/img87/336/mycubeb.jpg
    http://lonelymiddlesomethingguy.blogspot.com/
  • 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?
    If you see the candle as flame, the meal is already cooked.
    Photography, Google Earth, Route 30
  • dsmiffdsmiff Posts: 741
    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.
    ______________________________________________
    My Photo\'s
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dsmiff/set ... 588563134/
    My Video\'s
    http://www.youtube.com/dnsmiff
  • cjwcjw Posts: 1,889
    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).
    London to Paris Forum
    http://cjwoods.com/london2paris

    Scott Scale 10
    Focus Izalco Team
  • Obvously the message is sinking in somewhere.
    Helmet%20Fail.jpg
    If you see the candle as flame, the meal is already cooked.
    Photography, Google Earth, Route 30
  • 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.
  • 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.
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
  • elliebellieb Posts: 436
    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:
  • biondinobiondino Posts: 5,990
    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)
  • jongingejonginge Posts: 5,945
    biondino 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. :)
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
  • PorgyPorgy Posts: 4,525
    biondino 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.
  • 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.
  • Not sure I see the downside of wearing a helmet.
    Is the only problem the loss of personal choice?
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
  • PorgyPorgy Posts: 4,525
    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...
  • PorgyPorgy Posts: 4,525
    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?
  • hooliohoolio Posts: 139
    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.
  • PorgyPorgy Posts: 4,525
    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?
  • hooliohoolio Posts: 139
    :D
Sign In or Register to comment.