Another little nugget for the helmet debate!
Comments
-
dueceone wrote:
I'm not clear where you question the objectivity... are you asserting that there isn't a basic human drive toward the preservation of one's life or that society enjoys supporting those who're left incapacitated by their own willful stupidty? Or were you suggesting that we can't objectively assume that there are people who don't wear helmets based on looks, regardless of whether anyone here claimed that as a reason not to... Or perhaps you're saying that you disagree with my assertion that people fail to wear helmets because they're hot? Although you then go on to apparently agree with me in your whole 'some people are more averse to getting sweaty' statement??rjsterry wrote:Where to start? So do you think pedestrians should wear helmets because cars are 'exponentially' heavier than them (by the way, exponentially doesn't mean 'a large amount')? If we are going to talk statistics and probability, the fact that some people sustain brain injuries in cycling accidents does not prove that helmets are a good idea any more than some people not having accidents proves that helmets are unneccessary.
Maybe some people think helmets look stupid, but nobody on here has proposed that as a serious argument. Similarly, I don't think anyone is suggesting that wearing a helmet could cause hyperthermia, just that in hot weather, they might be a bit sweaty - some people are more averse to getting sweaty than others.
I don't think there's anything remotely objective about your analysis or conclusions. You're pro-helmet - great! I wear one too, but if you want to try and convince others of the merits of your choice, then calling them wankers won't get you very far.
Bottom line, the two most often cited reasons for not wearing a helmet are appearance and temperature, period. We can objectively evaluate those reasons against the basic human desire for survival, which is factually proven to be statistically lessened by riding without a helmet, as well as the basic implications of a social contract that dictates it's inappropriate for someone to require assitance based on their own stupidity. If someone is tragically injured or born with a defect, society doesn't mind lending a hand but to be incapacitated as a result of nothing more than your own willfulness is not considered acceptable.
So, as I said, we can objectively see that (setting my own opinion that helmets should be worn) anyone who refuses to wear a helmet is either a try hard wanker who likes to pretend he's out racing on every ride and is actually dumb enough to think that the potential discomfort of additional sweat or the possible seconds gained on the road outweigh the value of protecting your life and ambulatory capacity... or they're basically an unshaven douchebag on his way to the coffee shop to discuss the latest indie films who considers his 'style' more important that the potential for loss of life and ambulatory capacity. Either way... we can actually add to my earlier statement that, by simple act of not wearing a helmet, a person is effectively identify themselves (speaking strictly from an objective standpoint) as a complete moron.
Edit - I almost forgot to respond to all your smart ass comments... Yes, I realize what exponential means... as in 150lb rider is 150x150 for 22,500lbs... you know, like an underloaded semi truck. Sorry, I should've assumed it'd be troublesome in a group with an intellect that advocates not wearing helmets and done the math for everyone in the first place. And if we're going to talk statistics, and really anything else, the fact that helmets are proven to reduce the significance of an impact to the head and that impacts to the head are a possibility in cycling actually DOES prove that helmets are a good idea. As for the pedestrian comment... Do your average pedestrians dance among traffic for hours on end? My last ride out, I was on the road among cars and trucks for four hours... my last walk, I was in the road only to cross the street at stoplights and spent perhaps 2 minutes total in the road. That's just a brilliant analogy you worked up there though... right up there with the brilliance of defending not wearing a helmet. It should also be noted that the disabled, you know... those who were dumb enough to ride without helmets and then went down, they actually do wear helmets pretty often and I'd bet if they had it to do over they'd have rather just worn it on the bike so... its a matter of being intelligent enough to recognize that, no matter how good you think you are at riding, or at falling, the simple fact is that the speeds at which you travel and the basic laws of physics dictate that there are potentially catastrophic energy levels present for even a minor crash.
I'm saying you weren't and aren't being objective - it was a very subjective post. The little prejudices against facial hair and indie cinema are what spring to mind here - what if a clean shaven, beer drinking lover of mainstream films were to not wear a helmet?You keep using phrases like "scientifically proven", but actually, the scientific evidence is somewhat ambiguous, with various conflicting findings. Not really surprising as the number of factors involved in a cycling accident make it very difficult to separate out the effect of a helmet from everything else. I've looked at these and my own experience and come to the conclusion that a helmet is a good idea for me, but others have come to the opposite conclusion, perhaps because their cycling circumstances are different - maybe they live in Copenhagen, where helmets are almost unheard of.
I think you are right that some people might use the aesthetic or comfort arguments you suggest as reasons not to wear a helmet, but I don't think you'll find many posting on here, so I'm not sure why you raised them.
To return to pedestrians, your example illustrates my point above quite well. Your circumstances mean that you don't spend very much time walking on the road. Over here in London (I'm assuming that you are in the US), pedestrians wander around in the road a lot more (you'll find lots of references to it in various threads) and many more pedestrians are injured by motor vehicles than cyclists. There are also instances of pedestrians falling badly - whether from a trip or being pushed over by another pedestrian - and sustaining serious head injuries. But nobody has seriously suggested that pedestrians should wear helmets in this country.
ETA: I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve here. If you just want to state your view that helmets are a good idea and people who don't wear them are idiots, then why the lengthy posts? If you want to try and persuade people to wear a helmet then resorting to insults is never going to work. If you want to join in the debate - futile as it might be - then maybe try and be a bit more constructive.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
fnegroni wrote:Jay dubbleU wrote:I had an off on Sunday which I suspect would have been a lot more serious if I hadn't been wearing a helmet.
I didn't realise until I got home 15 miles later that <snip> the side that had hit the ground had a split in the outer casing and that it had dents caused by individual lumps of gravel which would otherwise have dug into my head.
I am glad the helmet helped you lessen the severity of your injury.
But may I remind you, and everyone else for that matter, that if a law to make helmets compulsory had been in force at that time, you could have been stopped and fined by a police officer for:
a) failing to wear a suitable passive safety device
and
b) riding without due care due to the damaged helmet
In which case, to avoid such penalty, you should have stopped riding after the accident.
I am not trying to say that the helmet didn't help, or that you were riding irresponsibly. Just that a compulsory helmet law has many more consequences than what most people advocating such requirement realize.
Hence why it is of the utmost importance we keep the matter of helmets as personal choice.
Please don't misunderstand me - I am quoting a single incident not advocating compulsory helmet use - in this case I was wearing a helmet because I was taking part in an event which required me to do so.
I probably was riding faster than normal because of the competitive element and I'm just grateful that in the circumstances I was not picking gravel out of my scalp. This doesn't mean however that I think wearing a helmet would have been useful in collision with a car for example, and there are stats out there which show that vehicles give more space to riders not wearing helmets - I'm with Buns on this - it should be a matter of personal choice not a decision for the nanny state0 -
Wow, there's been alot of activity on here since my post yesterday. I think on the whole it was well received which is nice.
I think the main issue with the helmet/no helmet debate boils down to risk perception. I think most people agree on this?
In a professional capacity I am deemed competent to assess risk and put in place measures to make the level of risk acceptable.
At the moment there is no legal compulsion to wear a cycling helmet. Therefor everybody makes an individual choice on whether this is the smart thing to do or not and everyone comes to their own decision by essentially carrying out a risk assessment, some more thoroughly than others!
Would it however not make sense to get people with the right skills together to decide whether or not cycle helmets should be worn? When I do a risk assessment at work I involve the manager of the area, at least two operators of any equipment and myself. We should then have all the necessary knowledge to carry out a thorough assessment which takes into account all of the hazards, the way anything works and baring in mind that we are there to get a job done, and put in place appropriate control measures.
I can't help but think, if this was done for cycling there would still be people who would question the findings purely because it is their nature to question anything that has been done by anyone other than themselves. I feel sorry for these people as I have found one of the most valuable skills in life, not just work is to be able to admit when your own knowledge or experience is lacking and look for help from others.0 -
I can see where you're coming from on this but personally I want to retain the freedom to decide whether to wear a helmet or not.0
-
I totally agree with Dueceone on this. And I think anyone with anything worth protecting inside their noggin would do the same. And I too weary of the tired old argument that they look silly - and as was said above, that one is too stupid even to bother with - and that they are too hot. I do a lot of remote touring in some very, very hot and tropical places (well over 40C) and have never, not once, found that a helmet was uncomfortable or an inconvenience that way. In all I suppose I have ridden about a third of a million miles in a good many countries and always wear a helmet.
As for the facile comparison with pedestrians - come on, get real. Do pedestrians whiz down hills at 30mph? Not often. Do they cruise at 15mph, or 20mph in traffic? Nope. When - if - they stumble over a curb, they are traveling at, what? One or two mph? Four if they are moving at a brisk march. And even then they are already on their feet, not perched on the saddle of a bicycle - the distance and manner of falling is considerable (and obviously) different.
By all means feel free to go out without a helmet - that's your right and I wouldn't want to deprive you of it, or your opportunity to improve the gene pool by your early absence.0 -
Jay dubbleU wrote:I can see where you're coming from on this but personally I want to retain the freedom to decide whether to wear a helmet or not.
So if it was scientifically proven beyond any doubt that helmets were or weren't a good idea you would like to retain the right to decide otherwise despite people who know better than yourself having come to an unquestionable conclusion?
I appreciate that this unquestionable conclusion doesn't exist and maybe never will as one of the beauties of the human race is to have many perspectives and opinions on one matter, but if it was proven one way or another you would like to be able to go your own way?
If a doctor prescribes you medicine for a condition do you question it and decide to take some other form of medication, after all that is your right and you could do that, or do you accept that the doctor knows better than you do and take his prescription?
I think alot of this debate has to do with the fact that those who don't see helmets as a good idea not wanting or not willing to be told something by certain people.0 -
Hoopdriver wrote:I totally agree with Dueceone on this. And I think anyone with anything worth protecting inside their noggin would do the same. And I too weary of the tired old argument that they look silly - and as was said above, that one is too stupid even to bother with - and that they are too hot. I do a lot of remote touring in some very, very hot and tropical places (well over 40C) and have never, not once, found that a helmet was uncomfortable or an inconvenience that way. In all I suppose I have ridden about a third of a million miles in a good many countries and always wear a helmet.
As for the facile comparison with pedestrians - come on, get real. Do pedestrians whiz down hills at 30mph? Not often. Do they cruise at 15mph, or 20mph in traffic? Nope. When - if - they stumble over a curb, they are traveling at, what? One or two mph? Four if they are moving at a brisk march. And even then they are already on their feet, not perched on the saddle of a bicycle - the distance and manner of falling is considerable (and obviously) different.
By all means feel free to go out without a helmet - that's your right and I wouldn't want to deprive you of it, or your opportunity to improve the gene pool by your early absence.
Remarkable! I wear a helmet and think it is probably on balance a good idea to do so and yet your pompous post and the earlier posts of Dueceone have me wanting to defend those who choose not to! Well done!0 -
Keith1983 wrote:Jay dubbleU wrote:I can see where you're coming from on this but personally I want to retain the freedom to decide whether to wear a helmet or not.
So if it was scientifically proven beyond any doubt that helmets were or weren't a good idea you would like to retain the right to decide otherwise despite people who know better than yourself having come to an unquestionable conclusion?
Define 'good idea'
0 -
So if it was scientifically proven beyond any doubt that helmets were or weren't a safety benefit you would like to retain the right to decide otherwise despite people who know better than yourself having come to an unquestionable conclusion?
Does this help dhope?
Ofcourse the rest of my post needs to be considered with this paragraph as it doesn't express my viewpoint accurately as a stand alone paragraph.0 -
Keith1983 wrote:Jay dubbleU wrote:I can see where you're coming from on this but personally I want to retain the freedom to decide whether to wear a helmet or not.
So if it was scientifically proven beyond any doubt that helmets were or weren't a good idea you would like to retain the right to decide otherwise despite people who know better than yourself having come to an unquestionable conclusion?
I appreciate that this unquestionable conclusion doesn't exist and maybe never will as one of the beauties of the human race is to have many perspectives and opinions on one matter, but if it was proven one way or another you would like to be able to go your own way?
If a doctor prescribes you medicine for a condition do you question it and decide to take some other form of medication, after all that is your right and you could do that, or do you accept that the doctor knows better than you do and take his prescription?
I think alot of this debate has to do with the fact that those who don't see helmets as a good idea not wanting or not willing to be told something by certain people.
But, Keith, surely the problem here - and why this ruddy debate goes on and on and on - is that we are a long way from any such 'unquestionable' conclusion. The debate seems to swing on a small number of conflicting statistical studies at population level, anecdotes from riders and opinions based on 'common sense' arguments rather than any solid evidence base.0 -
Paulie W wrote:Hoopdriver wrote:I totally agree with Dueceone on this. And I think anyone with anything worth protecting inside their noggin would do the same. And I too weary of the tired old argument that they look silly - and as was said above, that one is too stupid even to bother with - and that they are too hot. I do a lot of remote touring in some very, very hot and tropical places (well over 40C) and have never, not once, found that a helmet was uncomfortable or an inconvenience that way. In all I suppose I have ridden about a third of a million miles in a good many countries and always wear a helmet.
As for the facile comparison with pedestrians - come on, get real. Do pedestrians whiz down hills at 30mph? Not often. Do they cruise at 15mph, or 20mph in traffic? Nope. When - if - they stumble over a curb, they are traveling at, what? One or two mph? Four if they are moving at a brisk march. And even then they are already on their feet, not perched on the saddle of a bicycle - the distance and manner of falling is considerable (and obviously) different.
By all means feel free to go out without a helmet - that's your right and I wouldn't want to deprive you of it, or your opportunity to improve the gene pool by your early absence.
Remarkable! I wear a helmet and think it is probably on balance a good idea to do so and yet your pompous post and the earlier posts of Dueceone have me wanting to defend those who choose not to! Well done!
+1 to all of this. Despite some sensible posts in this thread the helmet debate always brings out the green ink brigade !
Carry on chaps. :twisted:0 -
Keith1983
The point there is that you're making an individual decision based on a single environment, a small group of operators and a single machine.
Sure, do that with cyclists, have a neurosurgeon, professors of physics and biology, and a Dept of Transport statistician come to my house before I set off to approve any journey where I'm planning on not wearing a helmet.
But to pass a compulsory helmet law would be the equivlent of passing a law stating that anyone in any workplace using any machine must wear a hard hat and fire retardent gloves.
Just to state my own approach, I wear a helmet if I'm on the road bike or MTB, I feel like it's most useful on the MTB due to low branches, flying rocks etc, and the more likely low speed falls. But if I'm riding into town on my 'hack' bike, I won't wear one, because what I'm doing is very, very safe. Riding in 'slow' (20-30mph) traffic in a cyclelane just isn't dangerous, statistically speaking.0 -
Paulie W wrote:But, Keith, surely the problem here - and why this ruddy debate goes on and on and on - is that we are a long way from any such 'unquestionable' conclusion. The debate seems to swing on a small number of conflicting statistical studies at population level, anecdotes from riders and opinions based on 'common sense' arguments rather than any solid evidence base.
I completely agree Paulie, I still think that even given conclusive unquestionable evidence there are people out there that feel they are achieving something by "rebelling". And whilst I am an advocate of helmet wearing if I were presented with conclusive evidence to the contrary I would be more than happy to stop wearing my helmet in light of such.0 -
Keith1983 wrote:Jay dubbleU wrote:I can see where you're coming from on this but personally I want to retain the freedom to decide whether to wear a helmet or not.
So if it was scientifically proven beyond any doubt that helmets were or weren't a good idea you would like to retain the right to decide otherwise despite people who know better than yourself having come to an unquestionable conclusion?
I appreciate that this unquestionable conclusion doesn't exist and maybe never will as one of the beauties of the human race is to have many perspectives and opinions on one matter, but if it was proven one way or another you would like to be able to go your own way?
If a doctor prescribes you medicine for a condition do you question it and decide to take some other form of medication, after all that is your right and you could do that, or do you accept that the doctor knows better than you do and take his prescription?
I think alot of this debate has to do with the fact that those who don't see helmets as a good idea not wanting or not willing to be told something by certain people.
I think you would find it very difficult to prove scientifically that helmets are or are not a good idea, but really you are missing the point of the argument - its not about safety its about personal choice.
In the case of a medical condition I'm sure I wouldn't necessarily take the opinion of a single doctor without checking what other options were available.
And yes - there is a certain element of 'stuff you' involved particularly when it comes to H&S - largely because I suspect things have been done in the name of H&S which actually have nothing to do with either0 -
bails87 wrote:Keith1983
The point there is that you're making an individual decision based on a single environment, a small group of operators and a single machine.
Sure, do that with cyclists, have a neurosurgeon, professors of physics and biology, and a Dept of Transport statistician come to my house before I set off to approve any journey where I'm planning on not wearing a helmet.
But to pass a compulsory helmet law would be the equivlent of passing a law stating that anyone in any workplace using any machine must wear a hard hat and fire retardent gloves.
Just to state my own approach, I wear a helmet if I'm on the road bike or MTB, I feel like it's most useful on the MTB due to low branches, flying rocks etc, and the more likely low speed falls. But if I'm riding into town on my 'hack' bike, I won't wear one, because what I'm doing is very, very safe. Riding in 'slow' (20-30mph) traffic in a cyclelane just isn't dangerous, statistically speaking.
I think the reason we haven't got such a law is the point you make. There are too many variables, as you mention road surface, speed, type of other traffic etc. Ofcourse it could be the case that any research could show that helmets are not a safety benefit?0 -
Keith1983 wrote:Jay dubbleU wrote:I can see where you're coming from on this but personally I want to retain the freedom to decide whether to wear a helmet or not.
So if it was scientifically proven beyond any doubt that helmets were or weren't a good idea you would like to retain the right to decide otherwise despite people who know better than yourself having come to an unquestionable conclusion?
I appreciate that this unquestionable conclusion doesn't exist and maybe never will as one of the beauties of the human race is to have many perspectives and opinions on one matter, but if it was proven one way or another you would like to be able to go your own way?
If a doctor prescribes you medicine for a condition do you question it and decide to take some other form of medication, after all that is your right and you could do that, or do you accept that the doctor knows better than you do and take his prescription?
But "you've got kidney failure and will die if you don't take X" is very different from "you are participating in a SAFE activity and your risk of certain types of head injury in the result of an incredibly unlikely collision may be reduced by wearing Y".0 -
Jay dubbleU wrote:And yes - there is a certain element of 'stuff you' involved particularly when it comes to H&S - largely because I suspect things have been done in the name of H&S which actually have nothing to do with either
You have hit the nail on the head there! Most of the stories which are in the press with any sort of H&S tag line are poor decisions made by those who are uneducated on the matter but who are scared of someone putting in a claim for something ridiculous.
I do think that the "stuff you" attitude is always going to be counter productive and shows a narrow minded attitude towards whatever it is aimed at though. It's hardly an adult response to anything is it. (Although I would have rather burned my old house down than let the ex get her grubby fingers on it!, so I can understand how the stuff you attitude comes about!)0 -
-
bails87 wrote:But "you've got kidney failure and will die if you don't take X" is very different from "you are participating in a SAFE activity and your risk of certain types of head injury in the result of an incredibly unlikely collision may be reduced by wearing Y".
My point exactly, you have decided that cycling is safe by your own accord, you are ofcourse entitled to that opinion, but that's all it is. If the decision to wear or not wear a helmet was purely scientific would you still question it?0 -
Hoopdriver wrote:As for the facile comparison with pedestrians - come on, get real. Do pedestrians whiz down hills at 30mph? Not often. Do they cruise at 15mph, or 20mph in traffic? Nope. When - if - they stumble over a curb, they are traveling at, what? One or two mph? Four if they are moving at a brisk march. And even then they are already on their feet, not perched on the saddle of a bicycle - the distance and manner of falling is considerable (and obviously) different.
Well you'd think wouldn't you. Everyone thinks that walking down the road is safe, but look at some statistics and it seems it's easier than you'd think to kill or seriously injure yourself by tripping over and banging your head on the way down - e.g. the case of the girl knocked over by a cyclist on the pavement (not travelling very fast), who died from her head injuries. That's before we include all the people who are knocked down by motorists when crossing the road. My point was that we think of walking as 'safe' and so choose not to wear any protective equipment despite the possibility (which is not as small as we might think) that we might sustain a serious head injury. We have decided that the small risk does not merit the additional protection. Some people have come to the same conclusion about cycling based on how and where they cycle. You may come to the opposite conclusion (like me) based on your differing set of circumstances, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong or that you are right.
As for the gene pool cliché, if one has already had children, then genetically, one's work is done. The survival instinct is only a means of propagating one's genes.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
Or taking your argument to a logical conclusion perhaps we should be looking at the wearing of helmets by pedestrians since statistically a pedestrian is 5 times more likely to die as a result of an RTA than a cyclist0
-
Jay dubbleU wrote:
That's interesting, it's nice to see that they acknowledge that cyclist safety is a combination of factors which includes organisational measures such as driver and cyclist training.0 -
I always wear a helmet, and have never been hit by a car.
So that proves they work.0 -
Keith1983 wrote:Wow, there's been alot of activity on here since my post yesterday. I think on the whole it was well received which is nice.
A balanced perspective is a rare and welcome thing on this topic! :-)...Would it however not make sense to get people with the right skills together to decide whether or not cycle helmets should be worn? When I do a risk assessment at work I involve the manager of the area, at least two operators of any equipment and myself. We should then have all the necessary knowledge to carry out a thorough assessment which takes into account all of the hazards, the way anything works and baring in mind that we are there to get a job done, and put in place appropriate control measures.
Have a look at this:
http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/repor ... idence.htm
Which is as close as I've seen. It has some flaws, I believe- for example it discusses the possible risk of an increase in rotational injuries (this is proposed as a potential reason why helmets might make some head injuries worse, BTW) and then largely ignores it on the grounds that there is insufficent evidence to draw a conclusion. That's a perfectly reasonable position but not terribly helpful!I can't help but think, if this was done for cycling there would still be people who would question the findings purely because it is their nature to question anything that has been done by anyone other than themselves. I feel sorry for these people as I have found one of the most valuable skills in life, not just work is to be able to admit when your own knowledge or experience is lacking and look for help from others.
The problem seems to be a lack of reliable evidence from which to draw a conclusion- many of the studies are limited or flawed and the conclusions they draw are contradictory (hospital admissions, necessarily a small and arguably unrepresentative sample, suggest helmets are effective, population studies don't).
The conclusions I've drawn from this are no doubt coloured by my own experience and prejudices, as would those of others, hence the ongoing debate. As you say in your subsequent post, one of the main reasons that the debate carries on is that those who've investigated and concluded that there's not a strong case object to being told they are idiots by people who come across as very badly informed... Particularly since widespread acceptance of this misinformation may support the case for compulsion!
Cheers,
W.0 -
I think I'd go along with most of what Keith1983 says except the bit about 'unquestionable' I don't think scientific findings, however rigorous, are ever unquestionable. Also, to follow on from the free will aspect, lots of activities which we know (or as near as we can get to knowing) to be harmful - smoking, drinking, poor diet, lack of exercise - have a far bigger effect on individual and population health, so if we are going to start legislating, then these things should be much further up the list than bike helmets.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
WGWarburton wrote:Keith1983 wrote:Wow, there's been alot of activity on here since my post yesterday. I think on the whole it was well received which is nice.
A balanced perspective is a rare and welcome thing on this topic! :-).
Ha ha, I don't know what you're getting at there has been alot of activity! (by well received I mean someone has responded to it, if their resposne is positive or negative may be open to interpretation!)0 -
rjsterry wrote:Also, to follow on from the free will aspect, lots of activities which we know (or as near as we can get to knowing) to be harmful - smoking, drinking, poor diet, lack of exercise - have a far bigger effect on individual and population health, so if we are going to start legislating, then these things should be much further up the list than bike helmets.
I agree with your point on smoking, drinking etc but maybe that's a debate for another place, after all the helmet issue has come to the fore here as we are all cyclists in one form or another.
I agree that no scientific study's are ever infalible however there must be a point where results of studies are deemed conclusive, but unfortunately there isn't a conclusive study on this issue.0 -
Jay dubbleU wrote:Please don't misunderstand me - I am quoting a single incident not advocating compulsory helmet use - in this case I was wearing a helmet because I was taking part in an event which required me to do so.
I didn't mean to imply that you were advocating for making helmets compulsory.
I was using your accident to make a case and remind us of what a compulsory helmet law could imply.
Apologies for the misunderstanding.0 -
fnegroni wrote:Jay dubbleU wrote:Please don't misunderstand me - I am quoting a single incident not advocating compulsory helmet use - in this case I was wearing a helmet because I was taking part in an event which required me to do so.
I didn't mean to imply that you were advocating for making helmets compulsory.
I was using your accident to make a case and remind us of what a compulsory helmet law could imply.
Apologies for the misunderstanding.
No worries
0
