Helmets

pickled

DaveMoss wrote:

I am not an advocate of helmets for normal use, . anyone inclined to wear a helmet for town commuting should really wear one all the time, when walking, when in a car, when going down stairs, because the risks are very similar and the helmet might just one day save a nasty injury (but probably won't. on or off the bike).

What a load of garbage.

freehub

hopper1 wrote:

freehub wrote:

andyp wrote:

Sadly whenever someone says they don't wear a helmet, or always wear a helmet, someone, somewhere will have to share their opinion of why they are a crazy fool.

The winner of craziest fool on this thread has to be Freehub, who gets all het up about helmet wearing only to then be outed as someone who doesn't wear a helmet some of the time. :roll:

You're an adult, helmets are optional, make up your own mind.

I like how you single me out due to the threads in Cake stop, nothing wrong with my opinions and they're in line with plenty of other peoples opinions, just I find it silly when no one gives a reason, just makes them sound like they're being childish and he's now not able to do sportives due to them, so it's his loss over some silly reason.

I don't get het up about someone not wearing a helmet, it's the stupid reasons and posts like yours that gets me all het up, and I think your post is foolish as you singled me out.

When he gave his reason I left it at that, but then some people had to have another dig.

Would you like some rolleyes with that sir?

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... :roll:

amaferanga

pickled wrote:

DaveMoss wrote:

I am not an advocate of helmets for normal use, . anyone inclined to wear a helmet for town commuting should really wear one all the time, when walking, when in a car, when going down stairs, because the risks are very similar and the helmet might just one day save a nasty injury (but probably won't. on or off the bike).

What a load of garbage.

Motorists and pedestrians can die from head injuries if they crash/fall so why would they not benefit from wearing a helmet?

Nuggs

freehub wrote:

andyp wrote:

Sadly whenever someone says they don't wear a helmet, or always wear a helmet, someone, somewhere will have to share their opinion of why they are a crazy fool.

The winner of craziest fool on this thread has to be Freehub, who gets all het up about helmet wearing only to then be outed as someone who doesn't wear a helmet some of the time. :roll:

You're an adult, helmets are optional, make up your own mind.

I like how you single me out due to the threads in Cake stop, nothing wrong with my opinions and they're in line with plenty of other peoples opinions, just I find it silly when no one gives a reason, just makes them sound like they're being childish and he's now not able to do sportives due to them, so it's his loss over some silly reason.

I don't get het up about someone not wearing a helmet, it's the stupid reasons and posts like yours that gets me all het up, and I think your post is foolish as you singled me out.

When he gave his reason I left it at that, but then some people had to have another dig.

Would you like some rolleyes with that sir?

Will, your responses were disproportionate to the questions asked. I suspect that is why andyp 'singled you out' rather than any other reason.

Don't take the thread in Cake Stop too seriously. It just shows that you're one of the characters on here and help to make Bike Radar a more interesting place. We would be worse off without you.

But please try to keep a sense of proportion and a sense of how your posts will be perceived by others. We have enough keyboard warriors on here and the kind of approach you'vge adopted in this thread doesn't suit you.

TheStone

owenlars wrote:

Matthammond

If you come a cropper on a sportive then the organisers are only liable if they are negligent in some way. If you stack it going down a hill because you are going too fast it's your problem not anyone elses. You can't sue the organiseres because if they hadn't organised the sportive you wouldn't have crashed. If someone is actually negligent then a waiver isn't worth the paper it is written on, but you will have to prove they are negligent to make that case.

That's my understanding.

You need to show negligence to override the waiver. Unless someone dies, in which
case they're not even considered.

bigmat

TheStone wrote:

owenlars wrote:

Matthammond

If you come a cropper on a sportive then the organisers are only liable if they are negligent in some way. If you stack it going down a hill because you are going too fast it's your problem not anyone elses. You can't sue the organiseres because if they hadn't organised the sportive you wouldn't have crashed. If someone is actually negligent then a waiver isn't worth the paper it is written on, but you will have to prove they are negligent to make that case.

That's my understanding.

You need to show negligence to override the waiver. Unless someone dies, in which
case they're not even considered.

If you organise a sporting event, you have a duty of care to ensure that the event is reasonably safe for the participants. If any of the participants suffer injury or death you will be held responsible if you are shown to have been in breach of that duty and that breach of duty has caused the injury / death. You cannot exclude liability for this in UK law. Obviously if the injury / death occurs as a result of something that is in no way the responsibility of the organisers then that is a different matter. But consider the many risks involved in a sportive - dangerous descents, dangerous junctions, uneven road surfaces etc.etc. The organisers are under a duty to take reasonable steps to minimise these risks. On the issue of helmets, it could be argued that failing to specify that helmets be worn is in itself a negligent failure to ensure adequate health and safety. More to the point, however, the wearing of helmets will (certainly in the mind of insurers) limit the quantum of any claim being pursued against the organisers.

hopper1

freehub wrote:

hopper1 wrote:

freehub wrote:

andyp wrote:

Sadly whenever someone says they don't wear a helmet, or always wear a helmet, someone, somewhere will have to share their opinion of why they are a crazy fool.

The winner of craziest fool on this thread has to be Freehub, who gets all het up about helmet wearing only to then be outed as someone who doesn't wear a helmet some of the time. :roll:

You're an adult, helmets are optional, make up your own mind.

I like how you single me out due to the threads in Cake stop, nothing wrong with my opinions and they're in line with plenty of other peoples opinions, just I find it silly when no one gives a reason, just makes them sound like they're being childish and he's now not able to do sportives due to them, so it's his loss over some silly reason.

I don't get het up about someone not wearing a helmet, it's the stupid reasons and posts like yours that gets me all het up, and I think your post is foolish as you singled me out.

When he gave his reason I left it at that, but then some people had to have another dig.

Would you like some rolleyes with that sir?

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... :roll:

Simple enough comment.
If you don't wear a helmet every time you ride, it's best to refrain from commenting, otherwise you run the risk of being judged a hypocrit...

zoomcp

DaveMoss wrote:

And as an organiser can i dispell the idea that it's ok to ride round in an event without an entry. Legally you cannot be stopped, but if you do you are a total plonker and a pest, and you jepardise the future of the whole sport. don't do it.

+1 to that; events fill up partly for safety reasons, if parasites come along and join in after it fills up they are definitely spoiling it.

Anbody who says "it's a public ride why should I pay to ride along it?" is welcome to go and ride those same public roads another day.

TheStone

MatHammond wrote:

More to the point, however, the wearing of helmets will (certainly in the mind of insurers) limit the quantum of any claim being pursued against the organisers.

What they need is a good loss adjuster

bigmat

TheStone wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

More to the point, however, the wearing of helmets will (certainly in the mind of insurers) limit the quantum of any claim being pursued against the organisers.

What they need is a good loss adjuster

No such thing!

owenlars

MattH

I think we are in violent agreement!

John Stevenson

maander wrote:

Am I right in thinking that the waivers aren't/wouldn't be enforceable because wearing of
helmets aren't compulsory in law?

No. Waivers are meaningless in UK law because there is no situation in which you can waive your right to sue if you are the victim of someone's negligence, when that someone owes you a duty of care.

This sensibly prevents the courts from having to determine whether someone signed a waiver of their own free will or under duress.

Note that this only applies to situations where you can establish negligence, and where the situation was reasonably foreseeable. If you crash because some loonie has scattered tacks across the road, and it happened minutes before you got there, then you won't have a case - it's not a reasonably foreseeable circumstance and the organiser had no chance to exercise his duty of care by closing the road and sweeping up the tacks.

But if you crash because the organiser has negligently left a bunch of signage round a blind downhill bend where you could not possibly avoid it, then no waiver on earth will protect him.

Cunobelin

MatHammond wrote:

TheStone wrote:

owenlars wrote:

Matthammond

If you come a cropper on a sportive then the organisers are only liable if they are negligent in some way. If you stack it going down a hill because you are going too fast it's your problem not anyone elses. You can't sue the organiseres because if they hadn't organised the sportive you wouldn't have crashed. If someone is actually negligent then a waiver isn't worth the paper it is written on, but you will have to prove they are negligent to make that case.

That's my understanding.

You need to show negligence to override the waiver. Unless someone dies, in which
case they're not even considered.

If you organise a sporting event, you have a duty of care to ensure that the event is reasonably safe for the participants. If any of the participants suffer injury or death you will be held responsible if you are shown to have been in breach of that duty and that breach of duty has caused the injury / death. You cannot exclude liability for this in UK law. Obviously if the injury / death occurs as a result of something that is in no way the responsibility of the organisers then that is a different matter. But consider the many risks involved in a sportive - dangerous descents, dangerous junctions, uneven road surfaces etc.etc. The organisers are under a duty to take reasonable steps to minimise these risks. On the issue of helmets, it could be argued that failing to specify that helmets be worn is in itself a negligent failure to ensure adequate health and safety. More to the point, however, the wearing of helmets will (certainly in the mind of insurers) limit the quantum of any claim being pursued against the organisers.

Helmets are NOT a health and safety item they are excluded form regulaions applyingto PPE..... when the Royal Mail tried to imposse helmet the HSE stated:

* "Cycle helmets used on the public highway are specifically excluded from the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) at work regulations. This means that it would be very hard for an employer to force an employee to wear a cycle helmet on health and safety grounds.HSE has no remit to dictate the uniform policy of a company unless it falls within the scope of PPE. Ultimately the wearing of cycle helmets is a matter on individual choice, and any stance to the contrary could potentially be challenged on human rights grounds. With regards to the use of cycle helmets on the public roads by members of the public, this is a policy area that falls totally within the remit of the Department for Transport."

bigmat

Cunobelin wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

TheStone wrote:

owenlars wrote:

Matthammond

If you come a cropper on a sportive then the organisers are only liable if they are negligent in some way. If you stack it going down a hill because you are going too fast it's your problem not anyone elses. You can't sue the organiseres because if they hadn't organised the sportive you wouldn't have crashed. If someone is actually negligent then a waiver isn't worth the paper it is written on, but you will have to prove they are negligent to make that case.

That's my understanding.

You need to show negligence to override the waiver. Unless someone dies, in which
case they're not even considered.

If you organise a sporting event, you have a duty of care to ensure that the event is reasonably safe for the participants. If any of the participants suffer injury or death you will be held responsible if you are shown to have been in breach of that duty and that breach of duty has caused the injury / death. You cannot exclude liability for this in UK law. Obviously if the injury / death occurs as a result of something that is in no way the responsibility of the organisers then that is a different matter. But consider the many risks involved in a sportive - dangerous descents, dangerous junctions, uneven road surfaces etc.etc. The organisers are under a duty to take reasonable steps to minimise these risks. On the issue of helmets, it could be argued that failing to specify that helmets be worn is in itself a negligent failure to ensure adequate health and safety. More to the point, however, the wearing of helmets will (certainly in the mind of insurers) limit the quantum of any claim being pursued against the organisers.

Helmets are NOT a health and safety item they are excluded form regulaions applyingto PPE..... when the Royal Mail tried to imposse helmet the HSE stated:

* "Cycle helmets used on the public highway are specifically excluded from the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) at work regulations. This means that it would be very hard for an employer to force an employee to wear a cycle helmet on health and safety grounds.HSE has no remit to dictate the uniform policy of a company unless it falls within the scope of PPE. Ultimately the wearing of cycle helmets is a matter on individual choice, and any stance to the contrary could potentially be challenged on human rights grounds. With regards to the use of cycle helmets on the public roads by members of the public, this is a policy area that falls totally within the remit of the Department for Transport."

Good point, although we aren't talking about employers' liability here. I did say it was arguable, and based on your quote that argument might well fail!

zoomcp

would this be the case where the CTC tried to get Royal Mail cyclists to sign a petition against their use and the workers' own union had to get involved to tell them to mind their own business?

anyway; it's another irrelevance to this thread, please stick to the subject

road novice

Can't understand anybody who wants to ride a bike without a helmet.

A doctor friend from a few years back did a ride in Jordan (middle east) and someone smacked their head on a rock. He says they would have been killed without the protection of a helmet.

Won't save everybody but will make a difference between being a serious injury and a none serious injury, just not worth the risk, you need your brains.

Cunobelin

road novice wrote:

Can't understand anybody who wants to ride a bike without a helmet.

A doctor friend from a few years back did a ride in Jordan (middle east) and someone smacked their head on a rock. He says they would have been killed without the protection of a helmet.

Won't save everybody but will make a difference between being a serious injury and a none serious injury, just not worth the risk, you need your brains.

Which is true for every single pedestrian, car driver, footballer, rugby player (etc) that is seen in Casualty... can you understand how they can want to undertake these activities without a helmet?

hopper1

Cunobelin wrote:

road novice wrote:

Can't understand anybody who wants to ride a bike without a helmet.

A doctor friend from a few years back did a ride in Jordan (middle east) and someone smacked their head on a rock. He says they would have been killed without the protection of a helmet.

Won't save everybody but will make a difference between being a serious injury and a none serious injury, just not worth the risk, you need your brains.

Which is true for every single pedestrian, car driver, footballer, rugby player (etc) that is seen in Casualty... can you understand how they can want to undertake these activities without a helmet?

I think this is getting petty, now... :roll:

Cunobelin

hopper1 wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

road novice wrote:

Can't understand anybody who wants to ride a bike without a helmet.

A doctor friend from a few years back did a ride in Jordan (middle east) and someone smacked their head on a rock. He says they would have been killed without the protection of a helmet.

Won't save everybody but will make a difference between being a serious injury and a none serious injury, just not worth the risk, you need your brains.

Which is true for every single pedestrian, car driver, footballer, rugby player (etc) that is seen in Casualty... can you understand how they can want to undertake these activities without a helmet?

I think this is getting petty, now... :roll:

Not petty at all really.....

Same evidence analysed using the same logic to reach the same conclusion........ and raising the same question.

palmersperry

MatHammond wrote:

On the issue of helmets, it could be argued that failing to specify that helmets be worn is in itself a negligent failure to ensure adequate health and safety.

Does it work the other way though? If you get a head injury that either wouldn't have been so bad, or wouldn't have occured at all except for the helmet is the organiser negligent for insisting you wore one?

bigmat

palmersperry wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

On the issue of helmets, it could be argued that failing to specify that helmets be worn is in itself a negligent failure to ensure adequate health and safety.

Does it work the other way though? If you get a head injury that either wouldn't have been so bad, or wouldn't have occured at all except for the helmet is the organiser negligent for insisting you wore one?

If you could prove that to be the case than I imagine so. I'm struggling to come up with many clear cut scenarios where wearing a helmet could be proved to have caused an accident, or even to have made the injury worse.

oldwelshman

damoando wrote:

I'm with you on this one botboiler. I wasted £100 on one and all it took was to crash and smack it on the tarmac and its now a write-off. I can tell you I wont be wasting my money on buying another!

Well if you sent it back you normally get a new one, or at least 50% off, as for wasting money, well lets hope you do not crash on your head to see if the cost is justified or not,, riding alone or in bunch, no difference, one puncture or one deer runnng across road is all it needs to get you off.

oldwelshman

ledburyloafer wrote:

btb most may ask, many wont enforce, you will always see riders who don't wear them. Though as someone who dumped his bike at speed not wearing a helmet,same reasons as you, and booked a ride in an ambulance in the process, I never ride without now, realising how lucky i was to get away with it.
As the bike went down, I clearly remember thinking f*** why am I not wearing a helmet' this is going to hurt!
Have to say bit niave toi think this thread wouldn't trigger the response it has! :roll:

+1

oldwelshman

Cunobelin wrote:

road novice wrote:

Can't understand anybody who wants to ride a bike without a helmet.

A doctor friend from a few years back did a ride in Jordan (middle east) and someone smacked their head on a rock. He says they would have been killed without the protection of a helmet.

Won't save everybody but will make a difference between being a serious injury and a none serious injury, just not worth the risk, you need your brains.

Which is true for every single pedestrian, car driver, footballer, rugby player (etc) that is seen in Casualty... can you understand how they can want to undertake these activities without a helmet?

Oh come on get real will you please.
Are you trying to claim that you have the same risk of head injury, and level of head injyry being a pedestrian, playing rugby, as some one commuting? If you are then you really are nust.
The odds on getting a head injury playing rugby and walking are far less than commuting by bike, it is more about prevention. You no doubt would advocate cyclist wear no helmets then when the number of serious head injuries increase as a result you would have your precious eveidence!!
I expect you are one of thos who claim the right to smoke in public as theres no evidence of passive smoking cancer? In fact you probably would claim smoing does not cause cancer as it took years to gather evidence for that also, prevention is always better than the cure and it is only abecause so many cyclist wear helmets there not so much evidence of head injuries!!
Go speak to A7E staff!!

Tom Butcher

20 years ago people would have laughed if someone suggested you would attract criticism for not wearing a cycle helmet - who knows perhaps in another 20 we will see pedestrians or toddlers (you can buy these) or some other group expected to wear them. I've already seen kids on micro scooters wearing helmets - I mean they are travelling slower than running pace at a height about 2 inches higher than if they were walking - why is that more risky than them running ? We have charities such as headway wanting sports such as kickboxing and boxing banned. Should kids on play equipment on the park be required to wear them ?

I just think it should be down to your own judgement whether you wear one or not - and that includes on a sportive. A sportive isn't a race - I don' t take risks in a sportive any more than I would on a club run. Personally I prefer not to wear one and I would certainly be more likely to enter a sportive where helmets aren't compulsory - though for a quiet life I don't think I'd make a stand on the issue and ride one bareheaded where they are required I certainly wouldn't criticise anyone that did. It is part of creeping helmet compulsion and if you disagree with that then it seems a valid way of making the point.

amaferanga

oldwelshman wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

road novice wrote:

Can't understand anybody who wants to ride a bike without a helmet.

A doctor friend from a few years back did a ride in Jordan (middle east) and someone smacked their head on a rock. He says they would have been killed without the protection of a helmet.

Won't save everybody but will make a difference between being a serious injury and a none serious injury, just not worth the risk, you need your brains.

Which is true for every single pedestrian, car driver, footballer, rugby player (etc) that is seen in Casualty... can you understand how they can want to undertake these activities without a helmet?

Oh come on get real will you please.
Are you trying to claim that you have the same risk of head injury, and level of head injyry being a pedestrian, playing rugby, as some one commuting? If you are then you really are nust.
The odds on getting a head injury playing rugby and walking are far less than commuting by bike, it is more about prevention. You no doubt would advocate cyclist wear no helmets then when the number of serious head injuries increase as a result you would have your precious eveidence!!
I expect you are one of thos who claim the right to smoke in public as theres no evidence of passive smoking cancer? In fact you probably would claim smoing does not cause cancer as it took years to gather evidence for that also, prevention is always better than the cure and it is only abecause so many cyclist wear helmets there not so much evidence of head injuries!!
Go speak to A7E staff!!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that compulsion in Australia didn't actually lead to any reduction in the number of serious head injuries. If so, what's your point?

oldwelshman

Ok forget stats and evidence, just try the following and see what happens:
test 1) Stick a cycle helmet on and headbutt a wall, then headbutt the floor.
test 2) Remove the helmet and repeat the above test.

Once you have done this you can report back here and say if you had no difference in level of injuries received.

Prevention is better than cure!!

Unfortunately I have a large scar on my head which could have been prevented had I wore a helmet.

Some people are missing the poin, it does not matter whether you ride alone, take your time etc, not everything is within your control when riding and it only takes one puncture, or one brush with a car, one wet slippery drain to pull you off.

As others have said it is up to individuals to decide, I am just pointing out that helmets do reduce the risk of serious head injury and it is pretty silly to think otherwise, stats or no stats.

Anyway in Oz they have thicker heads than in UK

amaferanga

oldwelshman wrote:

Ok forget stats and evidence, just try the following and see what happens:
test 1) Stick a cycle helmet on and headbutt a wall, then headbutt the floor.
test 2) Remove the helmet and repeat the above test.

Once you have done this you can report back here and say if you had no difference in level of injuries received.

Prevention is better than cure!!

Unfortunately I have a large scar on my head which could have been prevented had I wore a helmet.

Some people are missing the poin, it does not matter whether you ride alone, take your time etc, not everything is within your control when riding and it only takes one puncture, or one brush with a car, one wet slippery drain to pull you off.

As others have said it is up to individuals to decide, I am just pointing out that helmets do reduce the risk of serious head injury and it is pretty silly to think otherwise, stats or no stats.

Anyway in Oz they have thicker heads than in UK

An interesting appoach

palmersperry

oldwelshman wrote:

Ok forget stats and evidence, just try the following and see what happens:
test 1) Stick a cycle helmet on and headbutt a wall, then headbutt the floor.
test 2) Remove the helmet and repeat the above test.

Or alternatively. Keep your head very still whilst getting a hammer swung past it 1cm away from your skin. Then repeat the experiment with a helmet on, then report back as to which hurt more.

My point? Wearing a helmet is not a one-way bet! (Except in impacts at speeds exceeding ~50mph, where it's a one-way bet in the bad direction as the extra kinetic energy due to the weight of the helmet is more than the helmet can absorb even if it works perfectly. Which at that speed, it probably won't.)

palmersperry

MatHammond wrote:

If you could prove that to be the case than I imagine so. I'm struggling to come up with many clear cut scenarios where wearing a helmet could be proved to have caused an accident, or even to have made the injury worse.

Any accident with injuries due to rapid rotation of the skull will have been made worse by the presence of the helmet. Any impact in excess of ~50mph (I forget the exact figure) will have been made worse by the mass of the helmet. Any impact which would not have occured except for the increase size of the head+helmet combination ...