'Compulsory cycle helmets' - bbc.co.uk article

hatbeard

how long has man been riding horses?

Kieran_Burns

CiB - just remember: Those who are innocent have nothing to fear....

meanredspider

hatbeard wrote:

how long has man been riding horses?

Not long enough to evolve horse-proof heads If we had, there's be no debate on this.

neiltb

don't use the evolution argument as a reason to wear them, if they work, we won't evolve.

Look at what medicine has done, kept all those useless genes that should have died before reproductive age going and now what do we have, kids that can't eat a snickers bar at school cos little Tommy has a peanut/dairy allergy.

Peanuts are trying to take over the world I tell ya, they already run the schools/food manufacturing plants!!

I choose to wear a lid, I would compel others to consider it, would not legislate it.

rjsterry

One thing that has struck me is the difficulty of making an informed decision when there is relatively little research on the subject, and what there is is very general. Without looking into the data collection methods of each study, I'd imagine that each of them - whether pro or anti - has produced a result for cycling in general. The difference between, say, MRS's commute in which meeting 4 other vehicles counts as busy, and mine in which I've seen more than 4 vehicles by the time I leave the end of the side road I live on, suggest that there is such a wide variation within the category of cyclists that conclusions that are true for cyclists in general cannot necessarily be applied to individuals.

In other words, I don't think I'm an average cyclist; I'm not even sure I'm an average SW London commuter cyclist. Unless the data from this research is broken down by location (and this would need to be really specific), time of day, average speed and so on I don't think one can draw a reliable conclusion as to how safe one's cycling was, and whether the types of incident that a helmet is designed to protect against are more or less likely to occur.

hmbadger

WGWarburton wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

A helmet doesn't make you safer. Other cyclists do. By promoting the former, the latter are discouraged, increasing the risk to those that remain.

.

Interesting view.

Thank you.

meanredspider wrote:

..., frankly, even if I was launched headlong, I'd prefer to be wearing a bobblehat than a bare head.

Might be better to go with the bobble hat, anyway. It'll be lighter and smaller, and also it won't be strapped to your head, so it can slip off, if necessary.

Don't underestimate your head. It's been evolving for a long time to protect your brain against injuries. You instinctively know how big your head is and protect it. Your neck muscles etc have evolved to stop it whacking the ground in a fall. It may not be a good idea firmly to strap a big lump of plastic around it and compromise all that.

Interestingly, and related to the rotational injury theory, your scalp protects your brain by slipping (and your hair, if you have any left, acts as a lubricant- try to turn your head by putting your fingers against the side of it and moving them sideways). There's a researcher trying to use this mechanism to make Motorcycle helmets safer:

http://www.europeanplasticsnews.com/sub ... 1266328469

...perhaps the technology will filter down to cycle helmets one day.

Cheers,
W.

See my previous post about some of the tortuous reasoning around not wearing a helmet! This is one of the best I've seen.

"Your neck muscles etc have evolved to stop it whacking the ground in a fall."

"your hair, if you have any left, acts as a lubricant"

You're not being serious, surely? Do you really seriously imagine that this sort of stuff is, overall, more effective in mitigating head injuries than wearing a cycle helmet?

jonginge

He's always serious and don't call him Shirley

jamesco

WGWarburton wrote:

Interestingly, and related to the rotational injury theory, your scalp protects your brain by slipping (and your hair, if you have any left, acts as a lubricant- try to turn your head by putting your fingers against the side of it and moving them sideways).

Your hypothesis just cries out for experimental testing! Lie down on a quiet stretch road and have a mate grab you by the ankles and drag you for 20 metres as fast as he can. Going up and down a curb or two will really help the experiment. Afterward, repeat the test while wearing a cycle helmet to see if there's any difference in the outcome.

My guess is that the only effect evolution has here is that our brains are now big and heavy enough that we should have worked out that helmets are a good idea. Sadly, this thread has shown that this isn't always the case.

diplomacy

i think the problem with research is there is such a huge variety of ways and means for you to hurt yourself on a bike. people sometimes bring up seatbelts as a comparison but that is a totally different scenario - a fairly standard mechanism for injury and an easily proved countermeasure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7iYZPp2zYY

there is no such thing for cycling, the range of injuries is much closer to what you can get on two feet - you can fall off a ladder, trip over your shoelaces or fall in a wood chipper for example. a helmet will probably make you slightly safer in most situations in life, and that's about the best conclusion we can get to.

on the subject of this topic i have to say that i, as others here, have difficulty seeing why someone would argue in favour of compulsion. perhaps someone could explain - what benefit do you personally get from compulsory helmet laws?

meanredspider

neiltb wrote:

don't use the evolution argument as a reason to wear them, if they work, we won't evolve.
.

That's one way of solving this debate. Let's all put our preferences in a time capsule, bury it for a million years, then dig it up and compare our view on helmet wearing with the number of ancestors we have. The side that has the most ancestors in the winner...

It might actually be quicker than debating it

cee

diplomacy wrote:

- you can fall off a ladder, trip over your shoelaces or fall in a wood chipper for example. a helmet will probably make you slightly safer in most situations in life, and that's about the best conclusion we can get to.

on the subject of this topic i have to say that i, as others here, have difficulty seeing why someone would argue in favour of compulsion. perhaps someone could explain - what benefit do you personally get from compulsory helmet laws?

Good. I have a new woodchipper that needs testing. I'll make sure I wear my helmet!

Agreed about your last point though....If you choose to wear a helmet, then presumably you believe that it gives some protection of some sort or other.

A law making helmet use compulsory will not give you any additional benefits.

On the other hand, if you don't wear a helmet, and follow the rotational injury theory, then being forced to wear a helmet will reduce the benefits you perceive.

Thats lose lose as far as I am concerned.

I like laws that protect people from other people. I don't like laws that protect people from themselves.

notsoblue

cee wrote:

I like laws that protect people from other people. I don't like laws that protect people from themselves.

+1

W1

notsoblue wrote:

cee wrote:

I like laws that protect people from other people. I don't like laws that protect people from themselves.

+1

But what about the anguish to your family?

[runs]

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

cee wrote:

I like laws that protect people from other people. I don't like laws that protect people from themselves.

+1

But what about the anguish to your family?

[runs]

They can get grief councilling on the NHS.

surreyxc

bah to it all, I am going to cycle through the forestry commission no access woods, drunk, in flip flops, with no helmet, swearing, eating chips, whilst on my phone.

W1

This thread is, indeed, ridiculous. There appears to be a misconception that being in favour of wearing a helmet, and compelling others to do so by law, are the same thing.

Can those who want helmet wearing to be made compulsory by LAW please please put their hands up and explain why. NOT those who simply like the idea of a helmet for themselves.

tarquin_foxglove

Classic comment on this letter by the Chair of Headway about compulsion in NI...
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/helmet-plan-shows-someone-is-using-their-head-15079215.html

Kieran_Burns

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Classic comment on this letter by the Chair of Headway about compulsion in NI...
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/letters/helmet-plan-shows-someone-is-using-their-head-15079215.html

You swine I posted as KieranMB 8)

rjsterry

Just to correct one misconception that seems to be floating around: it's expanded polystyrene, not compressed.

CiB

180,000 acquired brain injuries in car & cycle accidents eh? Blimey. Who'd have thought it?

In other news, over 72000 people watched my son & Man Utd play football the other week. I was stunned at the numbers tbh, but you can't argue with facts like that. 72000 eh? We only had 3 blokes watching, 2 of whom were more walking the dog than watching the football but hey, over 72000 - it's certainly an impressive stat.

_Brun_

The current annual death rate in the UK is 9.9 out of every 1,000 people*. I think this is unacceptably high, and the government should do something about it.

*Some of these may not have had anything to do with either cycling or head injuries, but there's no need to let that get in the way of making a point.

neiltb

well if that 180K people are having head injuries, helmets for car drivers too are the obvious thing. Anyone on a bus too (body armour if no seatbelts are available).

PAT ARMSTRONG, Chairperson, Headway Foyle I suspect was one of those 180K and wasn't protecting his noggin!

No better wayto derail your argument than posting preposterous statistics which are not addressed by your point of view.

hmbadger

W1 wrote:

This thread is, indeed, ridiculous. There appears to be a misconception that being in favour of wearing a helmet, and compelling others to do so by law, are the same thing.

Can those who want helmet wearing to be made compulsory by LAW please please put their hands up and explain why. NOT those who simply like the idea of a helmet for themselves.

It's difficult to separate the two though. Many people who argue against compulsion do so on the basis that cycle helmets are useless, or almost useless. Clearly if this was the case then no one would argue for compulsion. Hence it's necessary to argue the case that they are helpful in mitigating injuries before you could argue for compulsion.

And no, I'm not in favour of compulsion. I'm not sure that anyone on the thread is?

W1

hmbadger wrote:

W1 wrote:

This thread is, indeed, ridiculous. There appears to be a misconception that being in favour of wearing a helmet, and compelling others to do so by law, are the same thing.

Can those who want helmet wearing to be made compulsory by LAW please please put their hands up and explain why. NOT those who simply like the idea of a helmet for themselves.

It's difficult to separate the two though. Many people who argue against compulsion do so on the basis that cycle helmets are useless, or almost useless. Clearly if this was the case then no one would argue for compulsion. Hence it's necessary to argue the case that they are helpful in mitigating injuries before you could argue for compulsion.

And no, I'm not in favour of compulsion. I'm not sure that anyone on the thread is?

How have we got to nine pages about making helmets compulsory, if no-one is in favour of doing so? I think that the pro-helmet wearers (such as me) can be pro-helmet without being pro-compulsion.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

W1 wrote:

This thread is, indeed, ridiculous. There appears to be a misconception that being in favour of wearing a helmet, and compelling others to do so by law, are the same thing.

Can those who want helmet wearing to be made compulsory by LAW please please put their hands up and explain why. NOT those who simply like the idea of a helmet for themselves.

It's difficult to separate the two though. Many people who argue against compulsion do so on the basis that cycle helmets are useless, or almost useless. Clearly if this was the case then no one would argue for compulsion. Hence it's necessary to argue the case that they are helpful in mitigating injuries before you could argue for compulsion.

And no, I'm not in favour of compulsion. I'm not sure that anyone on the thread is?

How have we got to nine pages about making helmets compulsory, if no-one is in favour of doing so? I think that the pro-helmet wearers (such as me) can be pro-helmet without being pro-compulsion.

Because people seem to disagree with others on minor points despite the fact that they're broadly in agreement with eachother on the main topic of the thread.

wgwarburton

Hi,
The thing that usually provokes me into posting is when someone (almost always pro-helmet) writes an assertion which implicitly or explicitly states that helmets are effective in reducing injuries, and hence should be worn.

I believe that the first is unproven and the second doesn't follow (even if the first was proven the risks involved don't mean the second holds).
I also think that leaving these assertions unchallenged reinforces the notion that compulsion is desireable... hence I feel compelled to challenge.

Naturally, this leads to debate. Sorry. It'd be much quicker if people simply observed that it was me that was posting and that they could therefore assume that what they read was correct instead of arguing with me... 8)

Cheers,
W.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

W1 wrote:

This thread is, indeed, ridiculous. There appears to be a misconception that being in favour of wearing a helmet, and compelling others to do so by law, are the same thing.

Can those who want helmet wearing to be made compulsory by LAW please please put their hands up and explain why. NOT those who simply like the idea of a helmet for themselves.

It's difficult to separate the two though. Many people who argue against compulsion do so on the basis that cycle helmets are useless, or almost useless. Clearly if this was the case then no one would argue for compulsion. Hence it's necessary to argue the case that they are helpful in mitigating injuries before you could argue for compulsion.

And no, I'm not in favour of compulsion. I'm not sure that anyone on the thread is?

How have we got to nine pages about making helmets compulsory, if no-one is in favour of doing so? I think that the pro-helmet wearers (such as me) can be pro-helmet without being pro-compulsion.

Because people seem to disagree with others on minor points despite the fact that they're broadly in agreement with eachother on the main topic of the thread.

I'd love to hear from those who have quoted Darwin or called others luddites as to whether they are pro-compulsion or pro personal choice. I'm still waiting for "dilema" to tell me where I've twisted logic.

meanredspider

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi,
The thing that usually provokes me into posting is when someone (almost always pro-helmet) writes an assertion which implicitly or explicitly states that helmets are effective in reducing injuries, and hence should be worn.

I believe that the first is unproven and the second doesn't follow (even if the first was proven the risks involved don't mean the second holds).
I also think that leaving these assertions unchallenged reinforces the notion that compulsion is desireable... hence I feel compelled to challenge.

Naturally, this leads to debate. Sorry. It'd be much quicker if people simply observed that it was me that was posting and that they could therefore assume that what they read was correct instead of arguing with me... 8)

Cheers,
W.

And for me it's exactly the other side of the coin. There's some statement along the lines of "Helmets are useless - why should I be forced to use one" that draws me in..

I'm guessing that not many people are pro-compulsion but that's a different question from pro-helmet use. The anti-helmet group will, of course, always be anti-compulsion.