Wrongheaded - taking a stand against helmet compulsion

meanredspider

EdinburghFixed wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Yeah - reading the data they quote shows that deaths from head injuries did come down so, on the surface, it's a Good Thing. The problem is that it's offset by other things and the links they make are pretty tenuous as, almost by definition, there's no control group.

I'm not sure I follow you here - to what are you referring? .

What I'm saying is that correlation isn't causation. Because bike use came down, was it caused by the helmet law or the more pervasive sedentary lifestyle?

It does actually talk about helmets being effective just not as effective as you'd expect.

EdinburghFixed wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Working in diabetes as I do, I'm aware that diabetes is growing by epidemic proportions and the diseases related to it (heart disease for instance) are growing accordingly. To say that there's been a growth in these diseases following a ban means nothing on its own. Which leaves us with the conclusion that serious head injuries are reduced by compulsory helmet wearing. It's not a convincing arguement against compulsion.

Again, I don't follow exactly. Does the literature not demonstrate that exercise is valuable both in terms of the prevention and management of diabetes? Does the literature not demonstrate that helmet legislation reduces regular exercise, in the form of cycling?

It seems quite uncontroversial to draw a link between the two - so much so that we are now seeing studies in Australia etc. which put hard figures on the health *cost* of helmet laws?

Perhaps you need to offer a more specific criticism of the literature (are all the studies showing reduced cycling in each jurisdiction which passed a law systematically wrong? In what way?) for this to be a convincing rejection.

Well, as above - correlation isn't causation. My point is that illness caused by diabetes and its co-morbities is on the increase everywhere. How do we know that it was caused by helmet laws? I agree that it might put casual cyclists off because they can't be bothered to wear or can't afford to wear a helmet. It's a big step from there to say that it causes health issues at a time when many other confounding factors (related to poor diet, alcohol use and sedentary lifestyles) are far more widespread. I'm impressed, if it's really the case, that they are able to filter out these causes. If the data was that clear, the legislators would, I'm (failrly) sure, take note - but it simply isn't.

This whole debate has no solid data. Intuitively I'd say helmets provide more benefit in an accident than they do harm. Equally, intuitively, I'd say helmet compulsion will reduce cycle use (it won't increase it). How all this balances up, I don't know. I don't think anybody can say. Hence I'm not in favour of compulsion.

EdinburghFixed

Paulie W wrote:

Maybe the answer to this question is somewhere in the link provided by the OP but I would be interested in unpicking why compulsion leads to a fall in the number of people cycling.

Is this about casual cyclists simply not wishing to invest in a helmet and therefore 'giving up'?

Is it about people making a stand on prinicple?

Or is it about a shift in individual's perception of the dangers of cycling? i.e. if you have to wear a helmet it must be dangerous so I'm not going to do it

I think it's a combination of many things - for example, more and more places are going down the lines of the Boris bikes. The whole idea that you are out and about and hop on a bike doesn't work if you will get busted for not wearing a helmet - and sure enough, cities with Velib-style programmes and helmet compulsion aren't working, *by their own admission*.

Then you have things like this proposed law in NI. The introduction of fines will be preceded by three years of intensive advertising to, in the words of the sponsors, "emphasise that cycling is far too dangerous to do bareheaded".

Suppose your kid wants to ride to school instead of being driven. You think of all the adverts of cyclists being hit by cars and do you think "well, it'll be OK because the helmet will protect them", or is the overall impression simply that it's too dangerous?

However, understanding *why* helmet laws put people off is not necessary to know that they do, and act accordingly. Imagine we didn't know about lung cancer, only that people who smoked had a much higher mortality rate. You could still make decisions about cutting down on smoking without understanding the causative link.

Don't get me wrong - I'd love to know why, exactly, cyclist numbers drop by about 1/3 when a helmet law is passed. But I don't need to know what people are thinking to know that I oppose the law ;-)

EdinburghFixed

meanredspider wrote:

EdinburghFixed wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Yeah - reading the data they quote shows that deaths from head injuries did come down so, on the surface, it's a Good Thing. The problem is that it's offset by other things and the links they make are pretty tenuous as, almost by definition, there's no control group.

I'm not sure I follow you here - to what are you referring? .

What I'm saying is that correlation isn't causation. Because bike use came down, was it caused by the helmet law or the more pervasive sedentary lifestyle?

I appreciate that. What persuaded me was the fact that each Australian territory introduced their laws at different times, and each reported a reduction in cycling correlated with their local law. Australia sedentary lifestyle, we can assume, was similar throughout - so we can exclude that as a factor.

Even more interestingly, one territory effectively repealed their law and the decline in cycling reversed. Did the sedentary lifestyle also coincidently reverse there at the same time? The co-incidences start to pile up.

If you look at Hill's Criteria you can make a pretty convincing case, although of course it cannot be proven. There's even a dose-response relationship; areas which promote helmets more heavily see reduced numbers of cyclists, although not as much as those areas which pass laws. However, not all laws are created equally and some (which are not enforced, or enforced only partially) result in less observed reduction in participation than the others.

meanredspider wrote:

It does actually talk about helmets being effective just not as effective as you'd expect.

It seems to me that the Wrongheaded argument would apply equally well whether helmets made you invulnerable, or were as effective as a buff. After all, cycling is so dangerous that even doing it bareheaded increases your life expectancy - here we are in 2011 with no deaths since 2008 (and no child deaths since 2005) and a very small number of serious injuries - the site doesn't strike me as making any claims about the efficacy of helmets one way or another, except to dispel the old myth that they can prevent 88% of brain injury by quoting the recent DfT study.

For what it's worth that's what I personally believe - that even if helmets made you invulnerable to left-turning HGVs, it still wouldn't make sense to pass a law. In that sense, arguments about whether or not they work (well/sometimes/once in a million) are quite irrelevant *to the compulsion argument*.

meanredspider wrote:

My point is that illness caused by diabetes and its co-morbities is on the increase everywhere. How do we know that it was caused by helmet laws? I agree that it might put casual cyclists off because they can't be bothered to wear or can't afford to wear a helmet. It's a big step from there to say that it causes health issues at a time when many other confounding factors (related to poor diet, alcohol use and sedentary lifestyles) are far more widespread. I'm impressed, if it's really the case, that they are able to filter out these causes. If the data was that clear, the legislators would, I'm (failrly) sure, take note - but it simply isn't.

On a purely anecdotal level, it is hard for me to believe that a reduction in cycling would *not* contribute to sedentary disease. Consider that in Melbourne over a decade after the helmet law was passed, the rate of women cycling to work was still less than half the pre-law level. That's two, say, 30 minute exercise sessions *per day* less for a large number of people.

Sure, that's not evidence that people are actually doing less exercise - they might be spending 30 minutes each way in their car and then adding an hour of exercise to their schedule each night. But ask yourself truthfully - are they really?

In the literature there is one study of particular relevance - looking at 30,000 people over a period of 15 years. It's important to note that unlike many studies, this was not a piece of bike helmet research or even a piece of cycling research - yet one of their headline conclusions was "Bicycling to work decreased risk of mortality in approximately 40% after multivariate adjustment, including leisure time physical activity.".

Again, (and this is a genuine offer for my own education) I'd welcome a criticism of this paper if anyone thinks they know better.

EdinburghFixed

As an interesting aside - few people are aware that more cyclists die in the Netherlands than in the UK, however much we think of it as an unobtainable paradise. That being so, you'd think that the introduction of helmets there would be very popular, as there are a larger number of lives to save.

Yet, the government there are not only against compulsion, they're actually against helmet promotion too.

Funny what perspective does, isn't it? If you think of cycling as normal, even a higher absolute death toll is not an argument for helmet use at all, whereas here we are talking about Northern Ireland where there have been *no deaths* for years, and whether or not that justifies compulsion! :shock:

meanredspider

The thing that frustrates me with all of this is the inability (without forking out serious cash) to read all of the studies. My working life has exposed me to an awful lot of medical research seeking to prove a certain position. It's all too easy to prove one thing or another.

There's no doubt that cycling is good for you. It's why I do it.. But there's so many confounding factors in the helmet arguement. I also can't live with not knowing why, either, if helmet compulsion does indeed lead to lower cycle use. Why not aim to get people to cycle AND wear helmets? There's plenty of us that do to know that it's possible.

It doesn't surprise me that Holland is anti-compulsion - it's a pretty liberal country (soft drugs being legal n all). I'd imagine that there are far more cyclists in Holland than the UK (half of them stoned ;-)

dilemna

The ting that pisses me off is that these supposed studies are likely carried out by people who have never been near a bicycle let alone sat on one. Ok you say but to conduct a study it doesn't matter if some one or a group of people do not cycle. I take them all with a pinch of salt. From my own exprerience I have formed a pragmatic view that on balance helmets are beneficial in protecting one's head, face or keeping one's hair in place. On the few occasions I have set off without my helmet, which is when I have been pre-occupied, I have noticed pretty quickly and returned home to put it on. I don't expect it to save me when I am crushed by a Thames Materials tipper truck anymore than my car would offer me sufficient protection. But if I meet with a low or medium impact collision how ever caused then my chances of walking away hopefully will be increased against being killed or suffering a brain injury without a hemet. I would prefer to walk away and can't understand why everyone doesn't see this; neither do I want to spend the rest of my life communicating through a straw. Of course one might suffer any number of other very serious injuries such as a serious spinal or adbominal injury or lose the use of ones legs which would be awful having been a very sporting person. But wearing some protection on one's head may reduce injury to the most important organ of your body. Why would you not want to protect it? F*ck freedom of choice and all that crap. You are going to be thinking in your PVS in your hospital bed - bummer I can't communicate with anyone, not even raise an eyelid or eyebrow, but at least I maintained my freedom of choice not to wear a helmet. Life decision FAIL.

Mike Healey

EdinburghFixed wrote:

As an interesting aside - few people are aware that more cyclists die in the Netherlands than in the UK, however much we think of it as an unobtainable paradise.

http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/p ... stible.pdf: contains the following figures:
Averaged over the years 2002 to 2005, the number of bicyclist fatalities per 100 million km cycled was 5.8 in the USA and 3.6 in the UK, compared to 1.7 in Germany, 1.5 in Denmark, and 1.1 in the Netherlands (see Figure 10). Thus, cycling is over five times as safe in the Netherlands as in the USA and more than three times as safe as in the UK. That might explain why the Dutch do not perceive cycling as a dangerous way to get around. Cycling in Germany and Denmark is not quite as safe as in the Netherlands, but it is three to four times safer than in the USA and twice as safe as in the UK.

Helmets are a substitute for a safe cycling policy. Infrastructre is more effective

EdinburghFixed

Mike, the rate of death is quite different to the absolute number of deaths(as I'm sure you're aware). The point about there being more deaths in the Netherlands is simply that - there are more deaths.

The amount of cycling going on in the Netherlands means that they have more cyclists killed than we do, even though there are four times as many people living in the UK. If what we're told is true, they could save a LOT of lives by enforcing a helmet law - per head of population (*not* per KM travelled) the Netherlands has almost 500% as many fatalities as the UK.

Yet, they won't countenance helmet promotion on the grounds that it fearmongers people off their bikes - *not* because they feel the death rate per km is below a certain threshold, so helmets aren't worth it.

Think about it - people advocating a helmet law here say there is no downside. If that's the case, why on earth do countries with a high rate of cycling participation opposite laws so firmly? They could save a larger number of lives than we can, irrespective of the accident rate - and there is apparently no downside.

EdinburghFixed

dilemna wrote:

The ting that pisses me off is that these supposed studies are likely carried out by people who have never been near a bicycle let alone sat on one. .

Hmm. Most studies into cancer drugs are not carried out by cancer patients. Most studies into heart attacks are not carried out by heart attack victims. I think if anything, it's much more likely that researchers in the field of transportation have been cyclists - although I can't see how it would change the outcome of 30,000 people's lives over 15 years, frankly.

Do you argue with your doctor about "supposed" studies in other areas of medicine, when he tries to prescribe you something? I think it requires a bit more than "I don't like the results" to invalidate a study. If you have a specific criticism, I'm all ears

dilemna wrote:

I would prefer to walk away and can't understand why everyone doesn't see this; neither do I want to spend the rest of my life communicating through a straw.

Neither does anyone else. Of course, the chance of this happening on a bike is incredibly low. So low that in Northern Ireland, nobody has hit their head hard enough to die over the last 3 years and no child has hit their head that hard in the last 6 years.

For sure, you're entitled to buy a helmet and wear it wherever you like - in bed, on the bus, going round the supermarket, riding your bike. Good on you. But the point is that the majority of cyclists have chosen *not* to do this.

However dangerous cycling is, it's just not that dangerous compared with all sorts of things that are totally legal - smoking, drinking a bottle of vodka a day, being a winter mountaineer, the list goes on. Nobody proposes to ban these things, because they are the choice of the individual. Do you feel angry that nobody is banning you from smoking or drinking or ice climbing on Ben Nevis?

For every former cyclist communicating with a straw, there are hundreds of fatties who can't even get out of bed without a crane and thousands of wheezy businessmen heading for an early heart attack. It costs the taxpayer a fortune to support all the people who aren't cyclists - the handful of cyclists who get unlucky aren't even a drop in the ocean by comparison.

FJS

EdinburghFixed wrote:

Yet, they won't countenance helmet promotion on the grounds that it fearmongers people off their bikes - *not* because they feel the death rate per km is below a certain threshold, so helmets aren't worth it..

Both - going to the shops etc in town is so much safer there (risk per km done) that people would never consider wearing a helmet. There is also cycling promoting policy (mostly through infrastructure), atcively aimed at making bikes replace cars for in-town transport, and helmet compulsion wouldn't fit with that. But the bottom line is that it would be simply ridiculous for the kind of quick functional everyday in-town trips people take. A helmet compulsion discussion in The Netherlands would come close to a pedestrian helmet compulsion discussion in terms of impact. I'm just very sad that a situation is not even considered as a possibility in such discussion in the UK.

EdinburghFixed

FJS wrote:

EdinburghFixed wrote:

Yet, they won't countenance helmet promotion on the grounds that it fearmongers people off their bikes - *not* because they feel the death rate per km is below a certain threshold, so helmets aren't worth it..

Both - going to the shops etc in town is so much safer there (risk per km done) that people would never consider wearing a helmet.

I don't think it's based on any estimation of disk. Think about it - in the Netherlands you'd expect to cycle 6.5 million km before recieving a head injury (of which the vast majority are things like concussion). The picture in the UK is worse - more like every 2 million km cycled.

But even for us, that figure is so large as to be abstract. Cranking out 100km a week, every single week (which is a huge amount for someone who's not a keen cyclist, just getting about the place) it would take you thirty lifetimes.

No, the Netherlands does not have a lot of people cycling, and feel like a safe place to cycle out of the statistical rate difference; rather it's simply that people have a realistic opinion of how likely they are to die doing something which is considered "normal".

Everyone would laugh at the dire warnings of living through a straw in the event of a bike crash, just like we'd laugh at the same story trying to persuade us to wear pedestrian helmets

FJS wrote:

But the bottom line is that it would be simply ridiculous for the kind of quick functional everyday in-town trips people take. A helmet compulsion discussion in The Netherlands would come close to a pedestrian helmet compulsion discussion in terms of impact. I'm just very sad that a situation is not even considered as a possibility in such discussion in the UK.

+1.

dilemna

EdinburghFixed wrote:

FJS wrote:

EdinburghFixed wrote:

Yet, they won't countenance helmet promotion on the grounds that it fearmongers people off their bikes - *not* because they feel the death rate per km is below a certain threshold, so helmets aren't worth it..

Both - going to the shops etc in town is so much safer there (risk per km done) that people would never consider wearing a helmet.

I don't think it's based on any estimation of disk. Think about it - in the Netherlands you'd expect to cycle 6.5 million km before recieving a head injury (of which the vast majority are things like concussion). The picture in the UK is worse - more like every 2 million km cycled.

But even for us, that figure is so large as to be abstract. Cranking out 100km a week, every single week (which is a huge amount for someone who's not a keen cyclist, just getting about the place) it would take you thirty lifetimes.

No, the Netherlands does not have a lot of people cycling, and feel like a safe place to cycle out of the statistical rate difference; rather it's simply that people have a realistic opinion of how likely they are to die doing something which is considered "normal".

Everyone would laugh at the dire warnings of living through a straw in the event of a bike crash, just like we'd laugh at the same story trying to persuade us to wear pedestrian helmets

FJS wrote:

But the bottom line is that it would be simply ridiculous for the kind of quick functional everyday in-town trips people take. A helmet compulsion discussion in The Netherlands would come close to a pedestrian helmet compulsion discussion in terms of impact. I'm just very sad that a situation is not even considered as a possibility in such discussion in the UK.

+1.

You are a class act. I hope that when you are knocked down which will happen at some point if you cycle any significant distance on UK roads that cycle helmet compulsion will have come into effect as it might just save your life. Your family will be grateful you did. Pretty much every cyclist I see on the roads is now wearing a helmet and I don't see that many. The arguments and flimsy studies I read and hear against wearing a cycling helmet bare striking resemblence to those that were against motorcyclist wearing crash helmets and to those against compulsory use of seat belts. Get over it. Whether deep down you realise it or not any legislation compelling the wearing of a cycling helmet whilst cycling will be for your benefit.

downfader

dilemna wrote:

EdinburghFixed wrote:

FJS wrote:

EdinburghFixed wrote:

Yet, they won't countenance helmet promotion on the grounds that it fearmongers people off their bikes - *not* because they feel the death rate per km is below a certain threshold, so helmets aren't worth it..

Both - going to the shops etc in town is so much safer there (risk per km done) that people would never consider wearing a helmet.

I don't think it's based on any estimation of disk. Think about it - in the Netherlands you'd expect to cycle 6.5 million km before recieving a head injury (of which the vast majority are things like concussion). The picture in the UK is worse - more like every 2 million km cycled.

But even for us, that figure is so large as to be abstract. Cranking out 100km a week, every single week (which is a huge amount for someone who's not a keen cyclist, just getting about the place) it would take you thirty lifetimes.

No, the Netherlands does not have a lot of people cycling, and feel like a safe place to cycle out of the statistical rate difference; rather it's simply that people have a realistic opinion of how likely they are to die doing something which is considered "normal".

Everyone would laugh at the dire warnings of living through a straw in the event of a bike crash, just like we'd laugh at the same story trying to persuade us to wear pedestrian helmets

FJS wrote:

But the bottom line is that it would be simply ridiculous for the kind of quick functional everyday in-town trips people take. A helmet compulsion discussion in The Netherlands would come close to a pedestrian helmet compulsion discussion in terms of impact. I'm just very sad that a situation is not even considered as a possibility in such discussion in the UK.

+1.

You are a class act. I hope that when you are knocked down which will happen at some point if you cycle any significant distance on UK roads that cycle helmet compulsion will have come into effect as it might just save your life. Your family will be grateful you did. Pretty much every cyclist I see on the roads is now wearing a helmet and I don't see that many. The arguments and flimsy studies I read and hear against wearing a cycling helmet bare striking resemblence to those that were against motorcyclist wearing crash helmets and to those against compulsory use of seat belts. Get over it. Whether deep down you realise it or not any legislation compelling the wearing of a cycling helmet whilst cycling will be for your benefit.

Class act? Jesus, pal.. you dont half have a negative attitude about you. :roll:

You see, you've been provided with evidence and you argue "flimsy".You argue about motorcycle helmets - a parallel not worth drawing due to the design differences and testing standards being different also. Add in to that equasion that WAY more motorcyclists die than cyclists, many with head injuries, that I feel you've missed the point about motorcycle helmets, even.

And seatbelts. There is evidence that theres corrolation with motor KSIs being reduced, but pedestrian and cyclists KSIs rose in the same period shortly after seatbelt compulsiion. Seatbelts also cause laceration to skin and internal organs at times, and many have failed in side impacts.

Second MAJOR point about seatbelts: they have been tested and retested, with exotic machinery and callibrated sensory equipment (crash test dummies being a prime example of that). Cycle helmets, even motorcycle helmets, recieve(d) no where near the same level of testing and analysis. If they did my guess is a few truths would come out. Ask yourselves: why have cycle helmets not been tested in such a way on callibrated equipment? Is it a financial cost? Or are the manufacturers trying hold back on their own fears as to their product?

dilemna

downfader wrote:

dilemna wrote:

EdinburghFixed wrote:

FJS wrote:

EdinburghFixed wrote:

Yet, they won't countenance helmet promotion on the grounds that it fearmongers people off their bikes - *not* because they feel the death rate per km is below a certain threshold, so helmets aren't worth it..

Both - going to the shops etc in town is so much safer there (risk per km done) that people would never consider wearing a helmet.

I don't think it's based on any estimation of disk. Think about it - in the Netherlands you'd expect to cycle 6.5 million km before recieving a head injury (of which the vast majority are things like concussion). The picture in the UK is worse - more like every 2 million km cycled.

But even for us, that figure is so large as to be abstract. Cranking out 100km a week, every single week (which is a huge amount for someone who's not a keen cyclist, just getting about the place) it would take you thirty lifetimes.

No, the Netherlands does not have a lot of people cycling, and feel like a safe place to cycle out of the statistical rate difference; rather it's simply that people have a realistic opinion of how likely they are to die doing something which is considered "normal".

Everyone would laugh at the dire warnings of living through a straw in the event of a bike crash, just like we'd laugh at the same story trying to persuade us to wear pedestrian helmets

FJS wrote:

But the bottom line is that it would be simply ridiculous for the kind of quick functional everyday in-town trips people take. A helmet compulsion discussion in The Netherlands would come close to a pedestrian helmet compulsion discussion in terms of impact. I'm just very sad that a situation is not even considered as a possibility in such discussion in the UK.

+1.

You are a class act. I hope that when you are knocked down which will happen at some point if you cycle any significant distance on UK roads that cycle helmet compulsion will have come into effect as it might just save your life. Your family will be grateful you did. Pretty much every cyclist I see on the roads is now wearing a helmet and I don't see that many. The arguments and flimsy studies I read and hear against wearing a cycling helmet bare striking resemblence to those that were against motorcyclist wearing crash helmets and to those against compulsory use of seat belts. Get over it. Whether deep down you realise it or not any legislation compelling the wearing of a cycling helmet whilst cycling will be for your benefit.

Class act? Jesus, pal.. you dont half have a negative attitude about you. :roll:

You see, you've been provided with evidence and you argue "flimsy".You argue about motorcycle helmets - a parallel not worth drawing due to the design differences and testing standards being different also. Add in to that equasion that WAY more motorcyclists die than cyclists, many with head injuries, that I feel you've missed the point about motorcycle helmets, even.

And seatbelts. There is evidence that theres corrolation with motor KSIs being reduced, but pedestrian and cyclists KSIs rose in the same period shortly after seatbelt compulsiion. Seatbelts also cause laceration to skin and internal organs at times, and many have failed in side impacts.

Second MAJOR point about seatbelts: they have been tested and retested, with exotic machinery and callibrated sensory equipment (crash test dummies being a prime example of that). Cycle helmets, even motorcycle helmets, recieve(d) no where near the same level of testing and analysis. If they did my guess is a few truths would come out. Ask yourselves: why have cycle helmets not been tested in such a way on callibrated equipment? Is it a financial cost? Or are the manufacturers trying hold back on their own fears as to their product?

So it's a conspiracy now ? Unbelievable.

northstar

Pretty much every cyclist I see on the roads is now wearing a helmet and I don't see that many

That's funny, I see loads in London (naturally) and i'd say i see more not wearing a helmet than wearing a helmet, personally that's preferable but at the end of the day as long as people have the choice, that's all that matters.

meanredspider

downfader wrote:

Ask yourselves: why have cycle helmets not been tested in such a way on callibrated equipment?

They have been tested on calibrated equipment. And by the same people (Snell) that test my (and Michael Schumacher's) motor racing lid and that the MSA and FIA use to approve these lids. And they are also the people that test

Horse riding lids
Skateboard lids
Motorbike lids
Wintersport lids
etc etc

So they know a little bit about head injuries.

Sure, it's not as rigorous as car crash testing but it's the whole cost-benefit equation again. You pay far more for a car, the risks are much higher, there's far more of them (especially when you consider 4-5 seatbelts per car) so there's the economy of scale not to mention the whole regulatory environment.

EdinburghFixed

The efficacy of helmets is a big fat red herring.

Even if they made you invulnerable, look at NI - nobody has died since 2008 (and no child since 2005). It's just not that dangerous.

Look a bit closer to home - something like 85% of women cyclists killed in London go under HGVs. (Try popping an old helmet under an artic trailer at the lights and see whether you think it would protect all the rest of your vital organs :roll: )

But even that is not the point - if we put just a fraction of all the heat and light about helmets into the problem of HGVs, we could potentially cut deaths by 85%. But nobody is willing to come out and say to London women - "hey, you don't need to worry about wearing a helmet. But you probably should have a careful think about HGVs"...

(This is not to say that I think people run over by HGVs somehow get what they deserve. But the gender disparity indicates that people can help or hinder their chances, IMO).

mmuk

well!

In about 45 years, I've come off 4 times

1 scrapped knee
1 broken thumb
2 bruised hips/1 bruised elbow

so far, no head banging, no helmet.

I've cycled round the UK, and bits of France, Holland, Germany, Czech Rep, Spain (b4 law) - and I've never considered it dangerous.

However, in my view, it's up to you - I like the feel of the wind in (what's left of) my hair...

MM

Ron Stuart

Enough, enough, enough!

Pretend the corner of a wall is a kerb at 90 deg, go bang your head even fairly lightly against that corner, now put yor cycle helmet on and repeat.

Get the idea yet?

Cycle helmet use should not be mandatory but should be encourged, something the CTC refuse to do by the way.

tonyf34

Ron Stuart wrote:

Enough, enough, enough!

Pretend the corner of a wall is a kerb at 90 deg, go bang your head even fairly lightly against that corner, now put yor cycle helmet on and repeat.

Get the idea yet?

Cycle helmet use should not be mandatory but should be encourged, something the CTC refuse to do by the way.

Your analogy is feeble at best, I'd like to see some stats on heads being bashed in by kerbs, really really not happening is it?

Ron Stuart

tonyf34 wrote:

Ron Stuart wrote:

Enough, enough, enough!

Pretend the corner of a wall is a kerb at 90 deg, go bang your head even fairly lightly against that corner, now put yor cycle helmet on and repeat.

Get the idea yet?

Cycle helmet use should not be mandatory but should be encourged, something the CTC refuse to do by the way.

Your analogy is feeble at best, I'd like to see some stats on heads being bashed in by kerbs, really really not happening is it?

What a moronic reply, an utter baffoon, worrying this level of intelligence on a bike.

Fabio Casartelli who died in a crash on the descent of the Col de Portet d'Aspet, he died as a result of hitting his head on a kerb stone as did Fausto Coppi's brother Serse, numb nut.
Of course it wouldn't kill you would it? as your skulls to dam thick. :roll:

Crapaud

Ron Stuart wrote:

tonyf34 wrote:

Ron Stuart wrote:

Enough, enough, enough!

Pretend the corner of a wall is a kerb at 90 deg, go bang your head even fairly lightly against that corner, now put yor cycle helmet on and repeat.

Get the idea yet?

Cycle helmet use should not be mandatory but should be encourged, something the CTC refuse to do by the way.

Your analogy is feeble at best, I'd like to see some stats on heads being bashed in by kerbs, really really not happening is it?

What a moronic reply, an utter baffoon, worrying this level of intelligence on a bike.

Fabio Casartelli who died in a crash on the descent of the Col de Portet d'Aspet, he died as a result of hitting his head on a kerb stone as did Fausto Coppi's brother Serse, numb nut.
Of course it wouldn't kill you would it? as your skulls to dam thick. :roll:

Keep the asinine comments and comparisons coming, Ron. I, for one, like a good laugh. :roll:

bompington

Nothing like informed and intelligent debate, is there? :roll:

bails87

Ron Stuart wrote:

Enough, enough, enough!

Pretend the corner of a wall is a kerb at 90 deg, go bang your head even fairly lightly against that corner, now put yor cycle helmet on and repeat.

Get the idea yet?

Cycle helmet use should not be mandatory but should be encourged, something the CTC refuse to do by the way.

Or....

I'll swng an iron bar at your head, but I'll miss it by a few mm, maybe ruffle a few hairs.

Then you put a helmet on and I swing the same iron bar at your head, again, a few mm away from your head. Which one will be more painful/injury-causing?

I think the key point is that cycling is safe. Ron, do you also want helmets to be encouraged for when people walk up and down stairs, or have a drink?

EdinburghFixed

Thanks for a good laugh, Ron.

Take a pencil and poke yourself in the eye. Now try the same thing with glasses on.

Mandatory glasses law for the win? Surely you'd at least agree that the government should run glasses promotion and we should badger people who walk around bare-eyed, right?

:roll:

downfader

Ron Stuart wrote:

tonyf34 wrote:

Ron Stuart wrote:

Enough, enough, enough!

Pretend the corner of a wall is a kerb at 90 deg, go bang your head even fairly lightly against that corner, now put yor cycle helmet on and repeat.

Get the idea yet?

Cycle helmet use should not be mandatory but should be encourged, something the CTC refuse to do by the way.

Your analogy is feeble at best, I'd like to see some stats on heads being bashed in by kerbs, really really not happening is it?

What a moronic reply, an utter baffoon, worrying this level of intelligence on a bike.

Fabio Casartelli who died in a crash on the descent of the Col de Portet d'Aspet, he died as a result of hitting his head on a kerb stone as did Fausto Coppi's brother Serse, numb nut.
Of course it wouldn't kill you would it? as your skulls to dam thick. :roll:

Jesus wept, Ron..

How about if you're actually engaging your brain for second. The kerb accounts for about 10cm of road space. The chances of your head hitting that specific corner at exactly the right angle to cause injury isnt even on the radar. You prolly have more chance or cracking your temple on a pothole around most roads. Its a surface area of around 10mm in an average of a 4000mm space.

How often do you personally fall off, Ron?
How often have you been hit?
How many times did you jar your head?
What are the stats on cyclists specifically hitting that 10mm of road space with their head?
:roll:

dilemna

EdinburghFixed wrote:

Thanks for a good laugh, Ron.

Take a pencil and poke yourself in the eye. Now try the same thing with glasses on.

Mandatory glasses law for the win? Surely you'd at least agree that the government should run glasses promotion and we should badger people who walk around bare-eyed, right?

:roll:

Should a gone to SpecSavers .

meanredspider

2 people in Cambridge died in the space of one year hitting their heads on kerbs without helmets. I'm not in favour of compulsion but as for the 10mm and 4m bollox - please! :roll:

downfader

meanredspider wrote:

2 people in Cambridge died in the space of one year hitting their heads on kerbs without helmets. I'm not in favour of compulsion but as for the 10mm and 4m bollox - please! :roll:

Are you really trying to suggest that space has little to do with risk. Next you'll be saying environment has little to do with risk. Change the environment if its a problem, not whats on your head.

Pross

From memory didn't Casartelli hit a bloody big lump of rock (positioned to stop people running off the edge of a mountain) at about 80kph rather than a kerb? It's obviously impossible to tell but I'm doubtful that a cycling helmet would have saved him. Low speed impacts against kerbs are exactly what helmets are designed for but very few accidents of that type happen.