Compulsory helmet laws

13»

Comments

  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    JamesB5446 wrote:
    freddiegrubb wrote:
    I don't like wearing a helmet, but I do. I personally knew 3 cyclists (dead) who had the misfortune to die of head plus other injuries, none wore helmets, you pays your money!!!!!!!!
    So they would have died even if they wore a helmet.
    Yep, given the evidence offered, I think we can say that is the only conclusion possible :roll:
  • JamesB5446
    JamesB5446 Posts: 471
    Not the only conclusion, but a likely one. No less likely than saying that a helmet would have saved them.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    JamesB5446 wrote:
    Not the only conclusion, but a likely one. No less likely than saying that a helmet would have saved them.
    You're still missing the point - I'm not claiming that either conclusion is more likely: what I'm saying is that, on the evidence presented, there is no likely conclusion
  • Phil Fouracre
    Phil Fouracre Posts: 207
    Full body armour - that's the answer!
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    There's a debate in my professional magazine on this debate this month. One 'leading' expert on highway safety, Lance Fogg, http://www.arena-associates.co.uk/ who has done a lot of work on London's cycle network argued for compulsion and in an attempt to cover the argument that helmets act as a barrier to casual cycling by arguing that it is probably for the best that such cyclists are deterred from the road in any case as we don't want nervous cyclists wobbling around causing danger. (This isn't an exact quote as I've thrown the magazine out but is a reasonable summary).
  • JamesB5446
    JamesB5446 Posts: 471
    bompington wrote:
    JamesB5446 wrote:
    Not the only conclusion, but a likely one. No less likely than saying that a helmet would have saved them.
    You're still missing the point - I'm not claiming that either conclusion is more likely: what I'm saying is that, on the evidence presented, there is no likely conclusion
    You're probably correct.

    I think I (or maybe someone got their first) posted a link a few pages back about autopsies of cyclists killed without helmets on. The vast majority had major trauma to their organs that probably would have killed them too.
  • Phil Fouracre
    Phil Fouracre Posts: 207
    we don't want nervous cyclists wobbling around causing danger
    - beg to differ with this! Can't remember where I read it, but, someone was pushing the benefits of controlled wobbling to slow drivers down. Have experimented with this, and, seems to have some effect. Not sure if it's this, or, the fact that I have a pair of crutches sticking up from my carrier on the back!
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    Pross wrote:
    There's a debate in my professional magazine on this debate this month. One 'leading' expert on highway safety, Lance Fogg, http://www.arena-associates.co.uk/ who has done a lot of work on London's cycle network argued for compulsion and in an attempt to cover the argument that helmets act as a barrier to casual cycling by arguing that it is probably for the best that such cyclists are deterred from the road in any case as we don't want nervous cyclists wobbling around causing danger. (This isn't an exact quote as I've thrown the magazine out but is a reasonable summary).

    Apologies for quoting myself - this debate was taken further in the magazine this month and virtually all of the letters published seemed to be pro helmet but anti-compulsion with the view that more should be done to prevent accidents happening rather than protecting against the damage that occurs as a result. My own contribution got included though sadly with my dig at Mr. Fogg's opinion being editted out!
  • freddiegrubb
    freddiegrubb Posts: 448
    Further to this discussion- as I mentioned in a previous post I don't like wearing a helmet & didn't, daughter an i/c nurse at the time of my "conversion" was nursing 2 cyclists with head injuries & she was giving me serious grief. I was talking to a doc. & I asked him, how thick is your skull ? he replied it wasn't the thickness that counted but the quality of the bone, skull bone varies I guess. now how many of us know the quality of our skulls? If you do you're a better man than I gunga.
  • JamesB5446
    JamesB5446 Posts: 471
    Mine is top quality.
    Hit by a car yesterday. No helmet. Head was fine.

    Scientific evidence right there.
  • Phil Fouracre
    Phil Fouracre Posts: 207
    'Lies, damn lies and statistics' can't remember who said it - still got to agree with freedom to chose. Also agree with the argument about the perceived dangers of cycling if helmets are made compulsory putting potential cyclists off. Speaking to various non-cyclists, general comment is it is too dangerous nowadays!
  • JamesB5446
    JamesB5446 Posts: 471
    They're idiots. I eat loads and if I didn't cycle I would probably be fat, that is dangerous.

    People are very poor at risk analysis.
  • bdu98252
    bdu98252 Posts: 171
    I think I will keep wearing my helmet. Not because it will save me from the type of accidents that a car is likely to inflict upon me. Rather because it will ensure that if the driver is found or politely stops and is found at fault myself or my family will not get a reduction in compensation we deserve.
  • JamesB5446
    JamesB5446 Posts: 471
    Fair point, it's a fucking travesty that you have to think that way.
  • freddiegrubb
    freddiegrubb Posts: 448
    Many years ago views raged about the intro. of car seat belt laws & I thought where are the stats. for chest/head injuries before/after the law. I'm now thinking would this finish the helmet debate if they were made compulsory, hospitals could record the extent of injuries & the condition of any safety equip. & give a considered opinion. To all our readers please don't post the lies - damned lies theory, over to you brothers.
  • Phil Fouracre
    Phil Fouracre Posts: 207
    What would be next? full body armour? or perhaps an all round air-bag? Still recovering from a serious paragliding accident I have got say, unless you know exactly what sort of an accident you are going to have, all discussion is meaningless. Risk is just that and you have to make your own judgement and live with it.
  • Ron Stuart
    Ron Stuart Posts: 1,242
    One thing is for sure though wearing a helmet, hi viz clothing and riding in a manner that doesn't encourage an accident will help in the event of a claim even if the accident wasn't the riders fault.

    Been there done it :!: :wink:
  • essjaydee
    essjaydee Posts: 917
    Contributory negligence...some interesting information here http://ukcyclerules.com/2011/09/08/cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence-an-update/
    Share The Road Event http://www.sharetheroadride.co.uk
    Lancashire Cycle Link Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/126682247491640/
  • Ron Stuart
    Ron Stuart Posts: 1,242
    JamesB5446 wrote:
    Mine is top quality.
    Hit by a car yesterday. No helmet. Head was fine.

    Scientific evidence right there.

    I you sure you haven't incurred some sort of head injury :?:

Categories