Helmets....

The Rookie

Interesting video!
http://www.lifeonbars.co.uk/youve-only- ... oncussion/

rockmonkeysc

Chris Boardman says helmets don't work though. He should know, he's got a range of helmets with his name on them

cooldad

He didn't say that at all. What he said was that the benefits of cycling outweigh the mininal risk of not wearing a helmet, if compulsory helmet wearing would stop some people cycling.

FishFish

We really need to have a full on debate. Hopefully the EU will intervene and put our unsophisticated thoughts right.

rockmonkeysc

I don't understand why helmets are compulsory on mopeds and for horse riding on roads but not for cycling. The risks are very similar so I don't see the difference.

cooldad

You try making Clint Eastwood wear a helmet. Make my day.

rockmonkeysc

He'd have to lose the guns first as well.

Angus Young

cooldad wrote:

He didn't say that at all. What he said was that the benefits of cycling outweigh the mininal risk of not wearing a helmet, if compulsory helmet wearing would stop some people cycling.

Boardman is a bit of a moron when it comes to helmets. He has a strange grasp on logic and seems to think it's an all or nothing game...

http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chri ... cling-safe

rockmonkeysc

Boardman seems to think everyone is responsible for cyclists safety except for cyclists. British Cycling do nothing to attempt to educate cyclists about safety, even little tips through social media would be a good start but I've never seen anything like that.

BloggingFit

Should be compulsory to wear. If you fall on your head from simply standing you can easily do some damage let alone on a bike at speed.

rockmonkeysc

It never just effects the injured person. It costs the police and NHS a shit ton of money and psychologically effects other people involved in the accident, whether they are at fault or not.

BloggingFit

RockmonkeySC wrote:

It never just effects the injured person. It costs the police and NHS a shoot ton of money and psychologically effects other people involved in the accident, whether they are at fault or not.

Yelp, that's a side that is largely forgotten.

rockmonkeysc

The usual excuse is "it's my life, my choice, I'm the one who could get injured"
They forget about all the other people it effects and how much it costs the state. A death on UK roads costs the state around £1million in emergency services, NHS costs, counselling, accident investigation, court costs etc.

rockmonkeysc

A mate of mine is a paramedic. He's attended a fatality on a canal towpath. Cyclist fell off and bashed her head on a wall at walking speed when a dog on a lead shot in front of her. It only takes something very minor.
I never used to wear a helmet for rock climbing thinking if I fell I was dead anyway but after seeing a mate get hit by several tonnes of rock causing some extremely severe injuries. He was certainly saved from death by his helmet which was destroyed. A year of recovery from broken neck, open fractures in arm and femur (luckily femoral artery intact) and several nasty flesh wounds and he was back out climbing.

FishFish

RockmonkeySC wrote:

The usual excuse is "it's my life, my choice, I'm the one who could get injured"
They forget about all the other people it effects and how much it costs the state. A death on UK roads costs the state around £1million in emergency services, NHS costs, counselling, accident investigation, court costs etc.

And it costs a million pounds to train a doctor and a million pounds to train a fighter pilot...... The economics is weak because we have these services in place - we have emergency services, counselling, accident investigation and courts along with their associate costs. We have them irrespective of cycle accidents in particular. We chose to have this infrastructure and to fund it so the accounting cost is just the variable cost such as bandidges, stitches petrol for the ambulance and some postage costs. The fixed costs - salaries, hospitals, ambulances is not attributable.

But the human cost of having someone in hospital, in the grave or on permanent life support is beyond calculation and that is the best reason for my kids wearing a helmet.

Angus Young

oxoman wrote:

There is a time and a place for everything. I personally wear a helmet after a mate spent several minutes unconscious at the side of a trail after coming a cropper, I wear mine on the road, trails etc but not pootling along on local cycle paths with youngest or heaven forbid grandkids. We have to expose our kids to some danger at some stage otherwise they grow up not knowing what danger is. Pet hate is very young kids on scooters with cycle helmets on, once older doing stunts then yes but it shouldn't become the norm. As kids we didn't wear protective gear when we went out tree climbing,playing football, building dens so common sense should prevail. I forgot being members of a civilised society and Europe we haven't got a right to use common sense it has to be looked after by a ruling elite, well for a bit longer anyway.

I was not required to wear a seat belt as a child. Didn't do me any harm. Would I put my child in the car without a seatbelt? No.

larkim

Angus Young wrote:

oxoman wrote:

There is a time and a place for everything. I personally wear a helmet after a mate spent several minutes unconscious at the side of a trail after coming a cropper, I wear mine on the road, trails etc but not pootling along on local cycle paths with youngest or heaven forbid grandkids. We have to expose our kids to some danger at some stage otherwise they grow up not knowing what danger is. Pet hate is very young kids on scooters with cycle helmets on, once older doing stunts then yes but it shouldn't become the norm. As kids we didn't wear protective gear when we went out tree climbing,playing football, building dens so common sense should prevail. I forgot being members of a civilised society and Europe we haven't got a right to use common sense it has to be looked after by a ruling elite, well for a bit longer anyway.

I was not required to wear a seat belt as a child. Didn't do me any hard. Would I put my child in the car without a seatbelt? No.

Spot on. Without thinking twice about it, all four of my kids put their helmets on for every time they are on a bike. They don't even need asking / telling, and haven't needed asking or telling since they first started riding because I wear one, my wife wears one, etc. It's unquestioning and never seen as a hassle by any of them. It won't save them from any accident (each of them has some scars to prove that the ground hurts when you come off a bike), but wearing a lid is second nature to them.

(Though ref seatbelts - I did smash a front windscreen with my head when I took off my belt aged about 9 whilst sat in the front as I knew I was just 200yds from our destination. And that was because I was sat next to my dad who refused to wear a seatbelt most of the time until it became compulsory. But I suppose that its just reinforcing my point about kids).

larkim

oxoman wrote:

We have to expose our kids to some danger at some stage otherwise they grow up not knowing what danger is.

I agree. But that doesn't mean we have to expose them to the consequences of some risks without helping them to understand about the reasonable precautions you can take to mitigate the risk.

I sat at the top of the skills area at Llandegla yesterday watching my 7 year old yet again go too fast, often out of control, and eventually crash and cut his elbow. He got exposed to some danger, was allowed to experiment with it for himself, and discovered one of the consequences. All whilst I could watch knowing that the likelihood of a bad head injury was significantly reduced because he was wearing a well constructed and well fitted helmet. I could live with me letting him do something which results in him breaking an arm. I couldn't live with myself if I let him risk a head injury in the same circumstance.

We absolutely, definitely, must let kids experience risk and not wrap them up in cotton wool. But we're also responsible for teaching them about how to do things safely. We don't ask them to work out the green cross code for themselves by exposing them to busy traffic; we teach it to them. Same goes for safety equipment when cycling.

BloggingFit

I find it absurd when you see families out on their bike where the kids are wearing helmets and the parents do not. Even worse if it's a parent on their own. If they have an accident and smash their head then what about the kids that are with them who are effectively on their own. Never mind the awful example it sets.

rockmonkeysc

FishFish wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

The usual excuse is "it's my life, my choice, I'm the one who could get injured"
They forget about all the other people it effects and how much it costs the state. A death on UK roads costs the state around £1million in emergency services, NHS costs, counselling, accident investigation, court costs etc.

And it costs a million pounds to train a doctor and a million pounds to train a fighter pilot...... The economics is weak because we have these services in place - we have emergency services, counselling, accident investigation and courts along with their associate costs. We have them irrespective of cycle accidents in particular. We chose to have this infrastructure and to fund it so the accounting cost is just the variable cost such as bandidges, stitches petrol for the ambulance and some postage costs. The fixed costs - salaries, hospitals, ambulances is not attributable.

But the human cost of having someone in hospital, in the grave or on permanent life support is beyond calculation and that is the best reason for my kids wearing a helmet.

By that logic, motorcycle helmets, horse riding helmets (high viz also compulsory on horses) and car seatbelts shouldn't be compulsory.

cooldad

I read on the internet that helmets cause more injuries than they prevent.

But there again I also read that Cameron is an Illuminati shape shifting lizard.

When I was a lad racing cyclists wore soft banana shaped things on their heads. The rest of us just made do with thick skulls.

I wear one on trails, when riding to work or with gf on Downslink type paths and bridleways I still rely on my skull.

I think this thread has been hashed through at least a gazillion times before.

Angus Young

BloggingFit wrote:

I find it absurd when you see families out on their bike where the kids are wearing helmets and the parents do not. Even worse if it's a parent on their own. If they have an accident and smash their head then what about the kids that are with them who are effectively on their own. Never mind the awful example it sets.

That's why I always wear mine when I'm out with my daughter, even though, as a man of a certain age, wearing a helmet feels quite alien. I'm not going to be very convincing when I tell her the merits of wearing a helmet if I then don't do so myself.

The odd thing is, even though I feel like a dick with it on, I now feel very odd without it.

rockmonkeysc

I quite often ride at a spot with fairly nasty downhill trails, very rocky, steep and technical with unavoidable gap jumps. I quite often see people ride there without helmets. I've also seen people airlifted out covered in blood from head injuries.
One person who was lifted out returned recently, in a wheelchair and with severe brain damage, needing a carer to push him around to meet his old mates. That's enough to persuade anyone that not wearing a helmet is extremely stupid.

mattyfez

The for/against helmet argument is more absurd than than the brexit debate..it's all anecdotal opinion and no facts.

mattyfez

I should probably qualify that with adding that it's all about risk, if I was riding black trails every day I'd wear a proper moto-x or full face helmet..

Also look at the number of people who die of head injuries in cars.. far more cost to society, but you don't get people putting helmets on for high speed motorway driving.

rockmonkeysc

Cars are designed around occupants not wearing helmets. Things like moving headrests would probably be less effective with helmets.
I did a V max event in my car which was a flat out, top speed run down a 2.5 mile runway. In modern road cars they advised against helmets because they don't work with modern safety features.

rockmonkeysc

mattyfez wrote:

The for/against helmet argument is more absurd than than the brexit debate..it's all anecdotal opinion and no facts.

How would it be any different to moped riders? Similar speeds, similar risks. Do riders have different anatomy?

mattyfez

RockmonkeySC wrote:

mattyfez wrote:

The for/against helmet argument is more absurd than than the brexit debate..it's all anecdotal opinion and no facts.

How would it be any different to moped riders? Similar speeds, similar risks. Do riders have different anatomy?

Well a moped rider can accelerate to 30/40mph pretty rapidly compared to a leg powered device, so I would say it's a different kettle of fish all together..

rockmonkeysc

mattyfez wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

mattyfez wrote:

The for/against helmet argument is more absurd than than the brexit debate..it's all anecdotal opinion and no facts.

How would it be any different to moped riders? Similar speeds, similar risks. Do riders have different anatomy?

Well a moped rider can accelerate to 30/40mph pretty rapidly compared to a leg powered device, so I would say it's a different kettle of fish all together..

Acceleration has no effect on the impact. Cyclists regularly hit the same speeds. 30mph is very easy on only a very slight descent.
Mopeds are if anything much safer at those speeds due to wider tyres and hugely better stability.

mattyfez

RockmonkeySC wrote:

mattyfez wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

mattyfez wrote:

The for/against helmet argument is more absurd than than the brexit debate..it's all anecdotal opinion and no facts.

How would it be any different to moped riders? Similar speeds, similar risks. Do riders have different anatomy?

Well a moped rider can accelerate to 30/40mph pretty rapidly compared to a leg powered device, so I would say it's a different kettle of fish all together..

Acceleration has no effect on the impact. Cyclists regularly hit the same speeds. 30mph is very easy on only a very slight descent.
Mopeds are if anything much safer at those speeds due to wider tyres and hugely better stability.

Well I don't know what you ride mate...but on my bicycle my 0 to 30 times are quite boring, they can be measured in mins rather than seconds.

Of course acceleration play's a part, I've done about 30mph on my mountain bike down hill on a flat road and it's pretty scarey.

My mechanical top speed is about 30.. if im going downhill on a flat road I can probably do 35.

Jonesinamilion

Interesting debate!

I don't wear a helmet (rightly or wrongly) whilst tootling up & down canal paths which is where I do most of my riding (average a heady 13mph with peaks around 30mph, so yes I probably should wear one always). if I'm going on roads or proper off road stuff then I will reluctantly wear one.

Just a couple of points whist sitting on the fence...

Even on the canals etc... I rarely see anyone riding without one.
My mother always used the example... "If you don't wear a helmet and come off, just imagine dropping an egg onto the kitchen floor" (ouch!)