Helmets??

cooldad

RockmonkeySC wrote:

How much do you think it costs the emergency services when someone is killed or seriously injured on the road?
Helmets help reduce deaths on roads so should be compulsory.

I think it's cheaper to shovel a dead person off the road, so by that logic helmets should be banned.

rockmonkeysc

I forget the exact amount but each death on the road costs several hundred grand by the time its all cleaned up, investigated and counselling for relatives and other people involved in the accident has all been paid for.

prawny

RockmonkeySC wrote:

How much do you think it costs the emergency services when someone is killed or seriously injured on the road?
Helmets help reduce deaths on roads so should be compulsory.

Surely then we should ban cycling on the road then that would save loads more. And motorcycling, and driving, and walking if its icy.

rockmonkeysc

Or just do them as safely as is practical

Daz555

RockmonkeySC wrote:

How much do you think it costs the emergency services when someone is killed or seriously injured on the road?
Helmets help reduce deaths on roads so should be compulsory.

And if compulsory helmet use reduces the numbers who cycle? What impact does that have on the nation's health - more unfit people, more pollution etc. How much does this cost?

I'd wager it would result in more lives being lost and more cost overall.

Helmets have benefits but we should not be compelled to wear them.

Besides if live was ONLY about health and safety then we'd just ban the lot - or make it compulsory to wear helmets when driving for example - afterall the pro's ALL wear helmets when they drive so it must be for a good reason.

paulneenan76

RockmonkeySC wrote:

I forget the exact amount but each death on the road costs several hundred grand by the time its all cleaned up, investigated and counselling for relatives and other people involved in the accident has all been paid for.

Unfortunately it costs the tax payer more like £1m for sorting out a fatility on our roads. That's a great deal of money to pay for such an horrific thing.

YeehaaMcgee

How does it cost that much? I mean, where does all the money actually go?

YeehaaMcgee

Thongs?

cooldad

Flip flops/slops - sandal type things. Not what you were hoping for.
Australians are weird.

rockmonkeysc

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

How does it cost that much? I mean, where does all the money actually go?

Paramedics, police and fire brigade who attend the accident. Police accident investigation, autopsy, court costs, lawyers, councillors, road repairs and probably lots of other things.

Daz555

cyd190468 wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

How much do you think it costs the emergency services when someone is killed or seriously injured on the road?
Helmets help reduce deaths on roads so should be compulsory.

And if compulsory helmet use reduces the numbers who cycle? What impact does that have on the nation's health - more unfit people, more pollution etc. How much does this cost?

I'd wager it would result in more lives being lost and more cost overall.

Helmets have benefits but we should not be compelled to wear them.

Besides if live was ONLY about health and safety then we'd just ban the lot - or make it compulsory to wear helmets when driving for example - afterall the pro's ALL wear helmets when they drive so it must be for a good reason.

The Australian experience would suggest that making helmets compulsory had no effect on participation rates as the majority just went and bought a helmet and those that were strongly opposed to helmets were generally people who didn't ride all that much. Now the only people you see without one are people on what you would call Tescos Bikes probably wearing thongs and carrying a case of beer on their shoulder and Hipsters on fixies cause they don't want their hair messed up.

I'd need to dig out some stats (can't be bothered now) but a few years ago I recall reading that helmet law in Oz had indeed reduced participation....and more importantly done nowt in terms of safety stats.

Helmet laws kill city bike hire schemes stone dead as well - which is a real shame because they have real potential to influence how "non cyclists" move about our cities.

YeehaaMcgee

RockmonkeySC wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

How does it cost that much? I mean, where does all the money actually go?

Paramedics, police and fire brigade who attend the accident. Police accident investigation, autopsy, court costs, lawyers, councillors, road repairs and probably lots of other things.

even with a list like that, a million seems extravagant. I don't doubt the fact as much, I just think that money is being pis*ed away through inefficiency and cashing in. I mean, a million should go a very long way, even today when money is as valued as toilet paper.

cooldad

The average cruddie could sort it out in ten minutes with a spade, and a ditch in return for half an hour with Sheeps mum. Total cost £10.

rockmonkeysc

Thats a lot of people spending a lot of time on each case and a lot of them are highly paid professional type people. 1 million doesn't go far.

YeehaaMcgee

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Thats a lot of people spending a lot of time on each case and a lot of them are highly paid professional type people. 1 million doesn't go far.

Evidently, but it still seems like gross over charging. Or, basically, cashing in on death.

YeehaaMcgee

cooldad wrote:

The average cruddie could sort it out in ten minutes with a spade, and a ditch in return for half an hour with Sheeps mum. Total cost £10.

or even 10 minutes with a sheep, in my case.
Although, 10 minutes is probably optimistic, and is asking for too much, just like people already do.
well damn, that seems to make me part of the over-charging problem, eh?

rockmonkeysc

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Thats a lot of people spending a lot of time on each case and a lot of them are highly paid professional type people. 1 million doesn't go far.

Evidently, but it still seems like gross over charging. Or, basically, cashing in on death.

There are lawyers involved so yes, gross overcharging and cashing in on death are to be expected.

YeehaaMcgee

that doesn't make it right, or any less ridiculous.

Horton

RockmonkeySC wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Thats a lot of people spending a lot of time on each case and a lot of them are highly paid professional type people. 1 million doesn't go far.

Evidently, but it still seems like gross over charging. Or, basically, cashing in on death.

There are lawyers involved so yes, gross overcharging and cashing in on death are to be expected.

You'll probably find that the million quid figure is not so much the physical cost, but the "economic cost" which then factors in the lost productivity of the casualty as well as putting a financial cost on a family's grief and other non-financial factors. No idea who decides how much grief costs but that's why we have economists...

Thewaylander

Personally I say let people do what they want,

it's called survival of the fittest and in todays over populated world we could do with losing a few people from the numbers

YeehaaMcgee

Thewaylander wrote:

Personally I say let people do what they want,

it's called survival of the fittest and in todays over populated world we could do with losing a few people from the numbers

totally agree. We'll protect ourselves to extinction if we carry on like this

rockmonkeysc

Why should seat belts be compulsory and helmets optional? I don't see the difference.

YeehaaMcgee

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Why should seat belts be compulsory and helmets optional? I don't see the difference.

Helmets go on your head.
You must be wearing your seatbelt incorrectly.

welshkev

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Why should seat belts be compulsory and helmets optional? I don't see the difference.

I don't wear a helmet to drive my car or wear a seat belt on my bike, is that where i'm going wrong?

YeehaaMcgee

welshkev wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Why should seat belts be compulsory and helmets optional? I don't see the difference.

I don't wear a helmet to drive my car or wear a seat belt on my bike, is that where i'm going wrong?

Well you're definitely going to die then.

Thewaylander

One less mouth to be fed on the scheme of things.

Can only be a good thing

YeehaaMcgee

Thewaylander wrote:

One less mouth to be fed on the benfit scheme.

jairaj

I don't understand why people are bring road accident statistics into a discussion about wearing helmets while off road cycling? Its a totally different situation and don't those stats they apply to this.

From my personal point of view I always wear a helmet. I often have little bumps and grazes while mountain biking from low hanging branches or front wheel washing out on a slipperly root or .. etc ... My helmet and pads help ward the little knocks of to allow me to carry on riding as if nothing ever happened. Where as unprotected even a small knock can be quite painful.

As for the big hits eg crashing into a tree at 20mph, I don't think there is a practical solution that is fail safe. Wear as much protection you think is reasonable and hope luck is on your side if you have a big crash. Its very hard to protect against every eventuality but I like to cover the common ones eg helmet and knee pads.

welshkev

the arguments about a helmet not helping if run over by a bus or something are stupid as well.

will a seat belt stop you being squashed by a lorry..nope.

but as I've been told:



and as wylander says, I guess natural selection is almost redundant unless you let the people make the mistakes

welshkev

this jusr popped up on my yahoo feed lol

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/david-attenbor ... ml#XFgnrHf