Compulsory wearing of helmets.

spen666

WGWarburton wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

....the question is whether the possibility that a helmet will reduce the severity of an injury is greater than the possibility that it will increase the severity of an injury. ...

I don't agree, I'm afraid. The question of whether or not helmets "work" or "are effective" or whatever continues to be secondary to the question of whether cycling is dangerous enough to warrant the discussion.

Fundamentally, cycling's no more dangerous than lots of other everyday activities which people don't consider to need special safety gear.
In discussing whether or not they should be mandated we implicitly support the contention that they are necessary.

Now, I don't go as far as to suggest that wearing a helmet is misguided, because it implies they are needed, but I do think we should challenge the underlying assumption that cycling is dangerous.

People should not feel that they are putting themselves in danger by cycling without a helmet.
Articles like the DMs one about BojoBikes are irresponsible.

Cheers,
W.

I'm afraid, your question is flawed.

It is not is cycling dangerous, it should be "IS CRASHING? FALLING OFF YOUR BIKE DANGEROUS"

CiB

spen666 wrote:

I'm afraid, your question is flawed.

It is not is cycling dangerous, it should be "IS CRASHING? FALLING OFF YOUR BIKE DANGEROUS"

And the answer is in virtually all cases 'No', and in the remainder, I'll take a punt thanks.

It can hurt, take a bit of skin off your elbows and or knuckles, and maybe rip half your face off like I did once when I face-planted the road and ripped my left cheek off down to the jaw. Helmet wouldn't have made much difference, not unless it had a 6" peak to hold my head off the road, but then it would have probably broken my neck. Hey - not wearing a helmet saved my life. There.

neiltb

Daily Mail, irresponsible? what's the world coming to?

I would vote no, but then I do wear one and recommend to others to wear one.

deptfordmarmoset

I wanted ''cycling isn't dangerous, badly-driven motors are.''

But I guess the middle box is closest to the reason I wear one.

EDIT: this now makes no sense since you've changed the options. Ah sod it, there are 2 different threads....

Jay dubbleU

I have to say, as resident old git that I was cycling long before the invention of the cycle helmet - I have therefore never worn one except when riding in events where they are compulsory - as far as I am concerned they are uncomfortable, sweaty and make the wearer look like a complete wally.

Agent57

I wear a helmet most of the time. That's my choice. If it were made compulsory, I'd protest and stop wearing it.

Agent57

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

I wanted ''cycling isn't dangerous, badly-driven motors are.''

And ice. Badly-driven motors and ice. Hrm, and manhole covers in the wet. And diesel spills. And white lines in the wet. And tram lines, especially in the wet.

Those are the kinds of things I wear my helmet to protect against. I'm not so bothered about accidents with other traffic; it's more just falling off my bike and hitting my head on the ground. I doubt a helmet would really help much in a high-speed collision anyway.

But unlike some, I don't think I lose anything by wearing my helmet. I don't find it too hot, and I rather like the design of mine (although it could be better); a Giro Atmos in red & black.

rclarke2

Wonder how James Cracknell would vote?

shouldbeinbed

iPete wrote:

Aren't you statistically far more likely to die from boredom during helmet debates. Always a good stat I tell people, just can't remember my source!

fixed that for you

EKE_38BPM

I think I might start a hybrid Vs road bike thread. I don't think that has been done to death yet.

rolf_f

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I think I might start a hybrid Vs road bike thread. I don't think that has been done to death yet.

When I go cycling, I always wear a hybrid on my head. Better safe than sorry.......

jeremyrundle

I agree that you may need choice, therefore I propose that any cyclist injured as a direct result of chosing not to wear a helmet pay for all their own medical expenses and not expect the NHS to.

And a fact is that in Tavistock a woman cyclist died as a direct result of head injuries and not wearing a helmet, amazing, it was found on her handlebars....

I think the same should also apply to smokers, the clinically obese and others, who chose.... not to help themselves.

jds_1981

jeremyrundle wrote:

I agree that you may need choice, therefore I propose that any cyclist injured as a direct result of chosing not to wear a helmet pay for all their own medical expenses and not expect the NHS to.

Perhaps also the cyclists who incur greater injuries due to wearing a cycle helmet shouldn't get treated on the NHS?
How about the pedestrians who don't wear cycle helmets - after all, they're more likely to get injured.
How about the drivers and car passengers who don't wear 4 point seat belts and helmets?

How about you go and read some of those nice links provided (in this thread and others) & then get back to the thread?

Finally, we pay the NHS to treat us, it doesn't conjure the money by magic.

rolf_f

jds_1981 wrote:

jeremyrundle wrote:

I agree that you may need choice, therefore I propose that any cyclist injured as a direct result of chosing not to wear a helmet pay for all their own medical expenses and not expect the NHS to.

Perhaps also the cyclists who incur greater injuries due to wearing a cycle helmet shouldn't get treated on the NHS?
How about the pedestrians who don't wear cycle helmets - after all, they're more likely to get injured.
How about the drivers and car passengers who don't wear 4 point seat belts and helmets?

How about you go and read some of those nice links provided (in this thread and others) & then get back to the thread?

Finally, we pay the NHS to treat us, it doesn't conjure the money by magic.

And what about not treating respiratory problems for people who choose to live in citys? The list is endless and the trolls post ridiculous!

notsoblue

jeremyrundle wrote:

I agree that you may need choice, therefore I propose that any cyclist injured as a direct result of chosing not to wear a helmet pay for all their own medical expenses and not expect the NHS to.

And a fact is that in Tavistock a woman cyclist died as a direct result of head injuries and not wearing a helmet, amazing, it was found on her handlebars....

I think the same should also apply to smokers, the clinically obese and others, who chose.... not to help themselves.

Ugh, what an unpleasant opinion. Should we also withdraw treatment from mothers who choose not to abort babies who have been diagnosed in the womb with congenital defects like Cystic Fibrosis, Downs, or Spina Bifida? What about drug addicts and the homeless? Just let them die by the roadside? They've clearly chosen not to help themselves and deserve what comes to them. And those awful families that choose to live in crowded conditions in terrible housing and end up with respiratory diseases... why should society have to shoulder the cost? Hmm? I pay tax, I don't want people I don't know or approve of to benefit from it!!!

Ugh....

_Brun_

jeremyrundle wrote:

I agree that you may need choice, therefore I propose that any cyclist injured as a direct result of chosing not to wear a helmet pay for all their own medical expenses and not expect the NHS to.

Jeremy, you are an utter berk*.

*preferred language not being allowed on here, this was the best I could come up with.

squired

I have a problem when I exercise that I get severe heat rash (so bad that I feel too embarrassed to exercise in a gym). Wearing a helmet in the winter is fine, but at other times of the year it can be unbearable. This morning, for example, I wore my helmet. After about 5km my head was already feeling hot and the itching was extremely distracting. I would happily wear a helmet all year, but when the temperature is above 10 degrees it really is a struggle. Mind you, what I experience isn't exactly common.

tailwindhome

I'm afraid I'm 100% with JeremyRundle on this one.

Cyclist should be compelled by law to wear helmets.

This would reduce the carnage on our roads and provide mounting points for bicyclist license plates.

kurako

I propose the cumpulsory wearing of helmets and protective knee/ arm pads for anyone foolish enough to be in the vicinity of jeremyrundle and his bicycle/ airhorn combo.

wgwarburton

TailWindHome wrote:

I'm afraid I'm 100% with JeremyRundle on this one.

Cyclist should be compelled by law to wear helmets.

This would reduce the carnage on our roads and provide mounting points for bicyclist license plates.

I know you've given up emoticons, but don't you think this might have warranted an exception? ...or maybe some creative punctuation, at least... ?
Cheers,
W.

lost_in_thought

jeremyrundle wrote:

I apologize if this has been discussed before, I searched and could not find it.

Really? Did you really?

Do you know how the search works?

benno68

I voted no.

I always wear a helmet and I believe that it saved me from a certain head injury a month or so back.

I think there could be a case for children having to wear helmets. But adults should certainly have the choice in my view.

d.n.f

I read at teh weekend that you are more likely to be killed by being shot than in a bike accident,(I think this was based in the US though)

So maybe the question should be weather bullet proof vests should be compulsory when cycling, or at all times even...?

Just in case.

PBo

d.n.f wrote:

I read at teh weekend that you are more likely to be killed by being shot than in a bike accident,(I think this was based in the US though)

So maybe the question should be weather bullet proof vests should be compulsory when cycling, or at all times even...?

Just in case.

I understand your point, but using THAT particular comparator, from THAT particular country really doesn't do your argument any favours.

d.n.f

PBo wrote:

d.n.f wrote:

I read at teh weekend that you are more likely to be killed by being shot than in a bike accident,(I think this was based in the US though)

So maybe the question should be weather bullet proof vests should be compulsory when cycling, or at all times even...?

Just in case.

I understand your point, but using THAT particular comparator, from THAT particular country really doesn't do your argument any favours.

Ah I forgot the

I was just suprised that 'statistically' it was the case. something like 1 in 800 compared to 1 in 4000 IIRC

gtvlusso

It's up to the cyclist - take responsibility for yourself, IMHO.

bails87

jeremyrundle wrote:

I agree that you may need choice, therefore I propose that any cyclist injured as a direct result of chosing not to wear a helmet pay for all their own medical expenses and not expect the NHS to.

And a fact is that in Tavistock a woman cyclist died as a direct result of head injuries and not wearing a helmet, amazing, it was found on her handlebars....

I think the same should also apply to smokers, the clinically obese and others, who chose.... not to help themselves.

But going out on a bike in the first place increases the chances of falling off it....

Perhaps we should all just stay inside and drink tofu paste through a tube for the rest of our lives. Much safer.

Fireblade96

gtvlusso wrote:

It's up to the cyclist - take responsibility for yourself, IMHO.

+many.

Take responsibility for your own actions, your own mistakes, stop looking for someone to make decisions for you and someone to blame if it all goes wrong.

simon_e

jeremyrundle wrote:

I searched and could not find it.

Which part of your navel did you not look in? This subject is thrashed out repeatedly on here and many other cycling forums without resolution, hence the sarcastic response.

jeremyrundle wrote:

Regardless of personal beliefs I feel the need to dictate to all people using one form of transport that strapping a piece of polystyrene to your head is compulsory and those not wearing said carapace will be forced to clean town centre toilets for a week.

Fixed that for you.

jeremyrundle wrote:

I propose that any cyclist injured as a direct result of chosing not to wear a helmet pay for all their own medical expenses and not expect the NHS to.

Stupid alert!

Are you a regular Daily Mail reader? BTW it's spelt 'choosing'.

I wear a helmet for daily commuting (4,000+ miles a year) because my family nagged me to do it. But I don't for trundling into town to the cinema or a gig or when out on a pootle with the kids. I don't like wearing one, I prefer riding without it but recognise that lots of miles riding at busy times is more risky for falling/being knocked off than when I'm doing <10mph alongside my 7 year old on the cyclepath through our estate. I still don't know if it can save my head in a fall, though I'm sure it won't if I get hit by a HGV.

jeremyrundle wrote:

Living near the Camel Trail I see many families who have never ridden before with children jumping on a bike for the first time and hitting the road (once literally) and yet they take no helmet, (and are not offered one).

Ooh, emotive language, can't imagine you being objective. Are you saying one child fell off? Did they die or suffer brain damage? Or did they cry for a bit before having another go?

Most people who have never ridden find cycling quite difficult and are incapable of going fast enough to seriously hurt themselves. All kids fall off swings, slides, roundabouts and out of trees without a helmet or any training yet no-one insists they should wear a helmet for these activities. My kids have had more cuts and bruises from running in the playground than anything else. Should they be made to walk?

Outside school it's parental choice whether kids wear helmets. Several kids in our road ride along on the wrong side, weaving around and shoot in and out of side roads, blissfully unaware of the potential risks they face. They don't usually wear helmets. However so far (fingers crossed) they have not been hurt riding around. But there is no point me trying to warn them or their parents about it.

Equally I'm not going to stand outside nightclubs lecturing people about the hazards of drinking too much, or loiter by the fag counter in Tesco or tell fat people they should eat fewer pies and exercise more. I won't go to a football or rugby match and hand out private insurance info to the guys carried off clutching a leg or shoulder. I'm not going to visit A&E on a busy day and say "I told you so" to the people waiting there or deny treatment to my mate's teenage son who has visited that facility more times than is good for him.

arthur_scrimshaw

Arthur Scrimshaw wrote:

after reading a few of Jeremy's posts I'm drawn towards the opinion he is a troll having a laugh with us.
But it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong (or for that matter the last)

Just in case you all missed it the first time.