C4 News now - doctors recommend mandatory helmets for U16s

clanton

Porgy wrote:

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

Is that too much to ask?

Yes.

wgwarburton

Wallace1492 wrote:

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

There's a whole debate as to whether they are actually effective. Much contradictory information and little real evidence. There's even a suggestion (again, I don't think it's actually proven) that they increase the risk of some serious injuries.

More importantly, cycling isn't actually that dangerous, so there's a stack of issues with putting people off cycling by portraying it as such and with promoting helmet wearing instead of devoting that effort to something more productive.

It's a complex issue, with some subtleties that arn't amenable to media debate, and people get very emotional about it, especially when they are ill-informed.

It's easy to spot the ill-informed people- they are the ones that disagree with you :-)

Cheers,
W.

Fireblade96

I don't believe bees can actually fly.

I think they use spiders' webs as little bee-trampolines to launch themselves into the air as I pass, buzzing frantically, in an attempt to bounce painfully off my face.

dirk_van_gently

These reports are simply a waste of tax-pounds.
Reports published to justify someones job, and that erode our freedom.

Sorry I don't want to sound like a Daily Wail editorial :shock:

always_tyred

Dirk Van Gently wrote:

These reports are simply a waste of tax-pounds.
Reports published to justify someones job, and that erode our freedom.

Sorry I don't want to sound like a Daily Wail editorial :shock:

It was a consultant standing outside his hospital being interviewed by a commercial broadcaster, and countered by a representative of a charitable organisation. Not quite sure what you are on about.

Cycle lanes painted underneath rows of parked cars next to cyclist dismount signs - now there's a waste of taxpayer's money.

The BBC are echo-reporting today. Now THAT's a waste of taxper's money as well, come to think of it.

vorsprung

The web articles linked to don't seem to contain any details
But as I understand it the motivation for helmet on children is different to helmets on adults

For accidents with a impact speed of more than 10mph the helmet might help a little but basically it is not a lot of cop. Below 10mph however, it is quite good. The idea is that kids are more likely to have "loss of control" sub 10mph accidents that a helmet can really do some good for.

I suppose there might be something in this. But my nephews seem to exceed 10/20/30 mph on a regular basis, downhill. Without helmets

_Brun_

I fell on me head loads when I were a kid (as I suspect did lots of others) and seem to have come through it unscathed.

wgwarburton

_Brun_ wrote:

I fell on me head loads when I were a kid (as I suspect did lots of others) and seem to have come through it unscathed.

Just think how many helmets would have been ruined "saving your life" during this well-spent youth!

Also:

vorsprung wrote:

...as I understand it the motivation for helmet on children is different to helmets on adults

For accidents with a impact speed of more than 10mph the helmet might help a little but basically it is not a lot of cop. Below 10mph however, it is quite good. The idea is that kids are more likely to have "loss of control" sub 10mph accidents that a helmet can really do some good for.

That's my working assumption, and why I make my kids wear helmets...

Cheers,
W.

dsmiff

Some interesting points on here. I always encourage my kids to wear their helmets and let them know about the dangers of the road / riding etc but still let them out. (They wear piss pots when messing outside, which I think are better for that type of riding and are pretty cool!)

I can also see peoples point that if you make cycling out to be really dangerous and that if your kid's don't wear helmets they're likley to be dead does not do anyone any favours (had not thought of that before!) and judging by some of the parents I know it would be just the accuse they need to keep there kids in.

biondino

If helmets were really coll and desirable objects, rather than being expensive, (potentially) uncomfortable and (usually) silly-looking, I wonder if the people who broadly deny the benefits would expediently adjust their views to make them sound like a wonderful idea? I reckon the vast majority would, as I believe the vast majority feel that somehow, helmets are being forced on them and they're Not Happy with the Destruction of their Personal Freedom for which they Fought in Wars etc.

biondino

(chapeau (hoho) to those of you honest enough to say "no, I don't like them/can't afford them" rather than deny evidence and logic in their spurious anti-helmet arguments)

FeynmanC

cjw wrote:

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

Passion and Warfare - one of my favourite albums!

wgwarburton

biondino wrote:

(chapeau (hoho) to those of you honest enough to say "no, I don't like them/can't afford them" rather than deny evidence and logic in their spurious anti-helmet arguments)

Ah, but your phrasing assumes that there is evidence...

Even if we were presented with convincing evidence that helmets were effective in preventing injury, would that be sufficient to warrant wearing one, given how unlikely it is that you'll actually suffer a head injury?

If so, why are helmets not being promoted for other activities with similar risks? At what point does it become "worth" wearing a helmet?

It's safer to drive in the UK than to cycle, but more dangerous to drive in Germany than either, should a helmet be worn when driving abroad? If not, why not?

Why are such arguments spurious?

Cheers,
W.

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

If so, why are helmets not being promoted for other activities with similar risks? At what point does it become "worth" wearing a helmet?

Age 16 and below?

Rich158

WGWarburton wrote:

biondino wrote:

(chapeau (hoho) to those of you honest enough to say "no, I don't like them/can't afford them" rather than deny evidence and logic in their spurious anti-helmet arguments)

Ah, but your phrasing assumes that there is evidence...

Even if we were presented with convincing evidence that helmets were effective in preventing injury, would that be sufficient to warrant wearing one, given how unlikely it is that you'll actually suffer a head injury?

If so, why are helmets not being promoted for other activities with similar risks? At what point does it become "worth" wearing a helmet?

It's safer to drive in the UK than to cycle, but more dangerous to drive in Germany than either, should a helmet be worn when driving abroad? If not, why not?

Why are such arguments spurious?

Cheers,
W.

I've had one accident on the road and this involved a head injury, it's more likely than you think. Was I glad I was wearing a helmet, you bet your life I was Did the helmet make any difference, god only knows, I still have no memory of what happened. However looking at the state of my face (two black eyes and multiple lacerations) and the fact that I managed to tear my lip completely through, and break a tooth, I suspect I hit the car with some force (or it hit me, who knows).

What still puzzles me is that I wasn't wearing the helmet when strapped to the spine board, and it was completely intact. I've always assumed that the helmet must have come off for two reasons, number one, the paramedics wouldn't surely have made such a basic error as to remove it and then strap me to a spine board, and the fact that it shows no sign of impact whatsoever. It was however on my head at some time post accident as it was covered in blood!

However whether the helmet contributed to, made no diference, or pervented my injuries, I do know that given the same circumstances I'd want to be wearing it just on the small off-chance it did help.

cjw

FeynmanC wrote:

cjw wrote:

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

Passion and Warfare - one of my favourite albums!

Indeed....and Sex and Religion both fantastic.

palaeobore

Have to say I'm with Rich on this one, as I'm recovering from an accident that involved a head injury. Getting knocked out, a black eye and lacerations to my face made me very glad to have been wearing a helmet The injuries to the rest of my body were unfortunately far worse than those to my head and I've been stuck indoors for the whole summer unable to cycle

Rich - my helmet was removed by a passerby who stopped to help - I was in no fit state to object.

downfader

I heard this on the news on Classic FM and became outraged at this nonsense 85% being spouted again. :x For crying out loud, how many times must this figure be discredited?

Secondly I find a few things very interesting about this:

1. Australia has laws for all to wear helmets. Per percentage of cyclists head injuries have actually increased since. Helmets havent helped there then?

2. As much as I hate to raise the Netherlands argument again... no one wears a helmet there - very low percentage of head injury per total of cyclists iirc.

Then 3. Kids. Kids are never taught the bleedin green cross code these days. Even their parents will just saunter straight into the road without so much of a glance.. what hope do their kids have.

So this leads me to wonder... perhaps this is really an issue with education - not helmets. I have said before - Helmets are a stick plaster over a much, much worse problem. :?

Having said that I do wear a helmet, and hiviz too, and use me lights.. why? Because it makes insurance claims a hell of a lot easier!

always_tyred

downfader wrote:

1. Australia has laws for all to wear helmets. Per percentage of cyclists head injuries have actually increased since. Helmets havent helped there then?

What would have happened without helmet laws?

2. As much as I hate to raise the Netherlands argument again... no one wears a helmet there - very low percentage of head injury per total of cyclists iirc.

About 10 times as many cyclists.....

Then 3. Kids. Kids are never taught the bleedin green cross code these days. Even their parents will just saunter straight into the road without so much of a glance.. what hope do their kids have.

It the motorists' job to avoid pedestrians. Its our job to avoid motorists and pedestrians.

downfader

Always Tyred wrote:

What would have happened without helmet laws?

Debatable. It depends on the impact type and a number of other factors I'd suppose. No helmet company will even as much as make a statement about impacts with motorvehicles other than they "dont garantee it". Well duh.

cjw

Please can't you just go re-read all the 10,000 previous helmet threads :roll:

I've got evidence...

Me too, and yours is crap...

No yours is crap...

Blah blah blah...

Can we talk about how great Vai is instead :?: He played on Crossroads you know The karate kid didn't :idea:

downfader

cjw wrote:

Please can't you just go re-read all the 10,000 previous helmet threads :roll:

I've got evidence...

Me too, and yours is crap...

No yours is crap...

Blah blah blah...

Can we talk about how great Vai is instead :?: He played on Crossroads you know The karate kid didn't :idea:

If we REALLY want an argument - Satriani is WAAAYYYY better!!!

roger_merriman

JonGinge wrote:

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.

yup in that vein I still use the 5 sec goldfish one even though it's a load of old tosh as it's just too good to let go.

cjw

downfader wrote:

cjw wrote:

Please can't you just go re-read all the 10,000 previous helmet threads :roll:

I've got evidence...

Me too, and yours is crap...

No yours is crap...

Blah blah blah...

Can we talk about how great Vai is instead :?: He played on Crossroads you know The karate kid didn't :idea:

If we REALLY want an argument - Satriani is WAAAYYYY better!!!

Nahhhh.... but I do like his stuff too (especially surfing and spped of light). I found Vai far more creative.