Complusory helmet law

dennisn

Smokin Joe wrote:

No one is anti-helmet.

The reason these debates last so long and get heated is because of the attitude of some of those who would either like to see compulsory helmet laws or come out with a load of emotional blackmail to try and bully everyone else into wearing one. I have never told someone who wears one that they shouldn't, in fact I have never even commented on another cyclists helmet when they are wearing one.

All we ask is the same in return, wear what you want but leave those of us who have decided that the risk doesn't warrant it to ride in peace. You wouldn't appreciate being told you are irresponsible because you don't were a back protector and knee and elbow pads when you descend a hill at 40 or 50mph.

Right on the money SJ. One thing I've always wondered about is, who are these people
who push for these "compulsory" got to do this or wear that, type of laws? It seems that somehow a small vocal few get these laws "on the books" for no other reason than they THINK they know what is best for the rest of us.

mercsport

It's been ever thus. That's politics, chum.

rick_chasey

Slightly gutted no-one's picked up on or used my public health argument, which I've now posted twice.

Surely that post provides the answer?

Or do you guys just want to have a little gnatter with each other.

oldwelshman

Ok SJ and Dennis, how far would you take this?
I used to work in a coal mine and had to wear a helmet, compulsory, due to the risk.
Are you saying you would not want to wear on in a mine as you are capable of ducking not to bang your head?
What about lots of other regulations with respect to safety at work which have been introduced to minimis risk of injury, some of which have had to be fought to get?
What about seat belts?
I do not care if it becomes law or not , if it does and you dont like it, ride your bike round your gardens with no helmet

northstar

But I don't think it is fair to say that there is no risk involved.

It is very fair because observation and awareness is the first thing that is going to keep you alive.

Cunobelin

oldwelshman wrote:

Ok SJ and Dennis, how far would you take this?
I used to work in a coal mine and had to wear a helmet, compulsory, due to the risk.
Are you saying you would not want to wear on in a mine as you are capable of ducking not to bang your head?
What about lots of other regulations with respect to safety at work which have been introduced to minimis risk of injury, some of which have had to be fought to get?
What about seat belts?
I do not care if it becomes law or not , if it does and you dont like it, ride your bike round your gardens with no helmet

Friend of mine is a postie. They made helmets compulsory in a devious way as a uniform item.

He used to wear a Snell rated helmet and asked if he could use it at work - he couldn't!

As a result he was forced to wear an ill fitting helmet that offered less protection and hence increased his risk of head injury if he came off .........rather an own goal.

What standard do you set the compulsion at - the weak and easily passed EN1078 or something meaningful and worthwhile like Snell?

mercsport

There was a time, a simpler time, when we weren't so much in hoc to the prodnoses of this world. By some act of legerdemain our servants - the pipsqueaks who inhabit the town halls and legislative chambers of these lands - have become our masters. A neat trick, and we let it happen. The mystery to me - 'it's been ever thus' - is, how ?

Anonymous

Rick Chasey wrote:

Slightly gutted no-one's picked up on or used my public health argument, which I've now posted twice.

Surely that post provides the answer?

Or do you guys just want to have a little gnatter with each other.

Nah, it was inconclusive and a bit vague. No hard data to back it up and it looks like they do want to natter without your views. Sorry.

Bikerbaboon

seeing as we have had hardly any stats put up. See below a list of numbers accidents where the head or face where injured. I will list 3 groups. Please place them in order of priority to inforce helmet use.

1)

Year Victims
2000 13,216
2001 13,334
2002 15,970

DIY in the house

2)

Year Victims
2000 15,203
2001 18,296
2002 17,876

General house work (eg cleaning and hoovering.)

3)

Year Victims
2000 5,854
2001 3,159
2002 2,891

Sport non education on road.

so to save the most people from head trauma costing the uk NHS millions in looking after them people that clean the house should be made to ware a helmet. :?

thats why people are so unhappy about laws on the dangers of riding a bike with out a helmet when more people each year are hitting their head doing house work.

(Please note i do use a helmet when out and about on the bike... I dont do DIY and i Dont klean the house as i now feel its unsafe to do so. )

dennisn

oldwelshman wrote:

Ok SJ and Dennis, how far would you take this?
I used to work in a coal mine and had to wear a helmet, compulsory, due to the risk.
Are you saying you would not want to wear on in a mine as you are capable of ducking not to bang your head?
What about lots of other regulations with respect to safety at work which have been introduced to minimis risk of injury, some of which have had to be fought to get?
What about seat belts?
I do not care if it becomes law or not , if it does and you dont like it, ride your bike round your gardens with no helmet

I think you've got me wrong. I wear a helmet because I think it's a good idea. I'm just against OTHER people trying to tell me what I should or shouldn't do. It's sort of as if they are saying that I'm to stupid to understand the risk, however, because they are smarter than myself, they know best. Screw their holier than thou attitude.