British Medical Journal online poll

shouldbeinbed
shouldbeinbed Posts: 2,660
edited July 2011 in Commuting chat
On helmet compulsion for adults

http://www.bmj.com/

On the right hand side of the page.

Yes or no is all thats needed, not 10 pages of pointless debate on here

Comments

  • jimmypippa
    jimmypippa Posts: 1,712
    left a comment:
    As a cyclist who always wears a helmet, I am against this law as the biggest factor increasing my safety is having more cyclists on the roads; compulsory helmet laws tend to reduce cycling levels. I would also wonder whether this reduction in cycling levels has a greater adverse effect on public health than any potential reduction in head injury rates amongst the remaining cohort of cyclists - many of whom would already have worn helmets.
    http://www.bikehike.co.uk/mapview.php?id=6404
  • deptfordmarmoset
    deptfordmarmoset Posts: 3,118
    My comment as a helmet wearer:
    Cycling in itself isn't dangerous. Motorised vehicles are a danger to cyclists. There's nothing about a helmet that makes motorised vehicles drive less dangerously around cyclists, in fact there may be evidence to the contrary.
    Looking for a cycling buddy?
  • jonny_trousers
    jonny_trousers Posts: 3,588
    Sigh*
  • Confusedboy
    Confusedboy Posts: 287
    I think helmets are, in general, a Good Thing, but I want lighter, easier to carry, and better protection than the current standard requires before compuslsion is considered. Existing models simply do not perform well enough to be worthwhile.
  • rf6
    rf6 Posts: 323
    posted my vote. thanks for the heads up.
  • mouth
    mouth Posts: 1,195
    Voted yes. Couldn't imagine my son riding in the road without one and personally I will kick his arse if he's ever caught without one.
    The only disability in life is a poor attitude.
  • Jay dubbleU
    Jay dubbleU Posts: 3,159
    Jonny_Trousers wrote:
    Sigh*

    +1 :roll:
  • NGale
    NGale Posts: 1,866
    the helmet debate is simple. It's personal choice. end of.
    Officers don't run, it's undignified and panics the men
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    Mouth wrote:
    Voted yes. Couldn't imagine my son riding in the road without one and personally I will kick his ars* if he's ever caught without one.

    Will he be wearing an arse helmet? He might be injured otherwise?
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • mouth
    mouth Posts: 1,195
    bails87 wrote:
    Mouth wrote:
    Voted yes. Couldn't imagine my son riding in the road without one and personally I will kick his ars* if he's ever caught without one.

    Will he be wearing an ars* helmet? He might be injured otherwise?

    Nah, he's got enough padding there already - that's why I bought him a bike........

    Also, as a 10 year old I split my head clean open requiring a number of stitches due to a bike accident, and I immediately started wearing a helmet. Until I was 15 or so when I decided I was harder than the road. This was soon disproven with some more stitches and a KO. Had to miss a couple of months of ice hockey. Gutted. This is why I have an inclination towards helmets, at least for kids.
    The only disability in life is a poor attitude.
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 14,647
    NGale wrote:
    the helmet debate is simple. It's personal choice. end of.
    What about children? They are proportionally much more likely to be hurt cycling. Are they making an informed decision? Are their parents?
  • MonkeyMonster
    MonkeyMonster Posts: 4,628
    First Aspect wrote:
    NGale wrote:
    the helmet debate is simple. It's personal choice. end of.
    What about children? They are proportionally much more likely to be hurt cycling. Are they making an informed decision? Are their parents?

    It's the personal choice of their parents.
    Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
    The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 14,647
    MonkeyMonster wrote:
    First Aspect wrote:
    NGale wrote:
    the helmet debate is simple. It's personal choice. end of.
    What about children? They are proportionally much more likely to be hurt cycling. Are they making an informed decision? Are their parents?
    It's the personal choice of their parents.
    And if their parents don't cycle, or aren't informed, or make the decision based on cost, for example?
  • CiB
    CiB Posts: 6,098
    The poll question relates to compulsion for adults. No need for further discussion / debate.
  • asprilla
    asprilla Posts: 8,440
    First Aspect wrote:
    MonkeyMonster wrote:
    First Aspect wrote:
    NGale wrote:
    the helmet debate is simple. It's personal choice. end of.
    What about children? They are proportionally much more likely to be hurt cycling. Are they making an informed decision? Are their parents?
    It's the personal choice of their parents.
    And if their parents don't cycle, or aren't informed, or make the decision based on cost, for example?

    If the decision is based on cost then mandatory helmet wearing will may well put them off getting bikes for the kids in the first place.

    Which is better, more people cycling or fewer people cycling but more of them wearing helmets?

    See, now I've gone and contributed to a helmet thread; I'm going to feel unclean for the rest of the day. I'm now off to the shoe to scrub myself with bleach.
    Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
    Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
    Sun - Cervelo R3
    Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX
  • Down the Road
    Down the Road Posts: 949
    This debate was held 30 years ago for seat belts in cars. then gain about 20 years ago for rear seat belts.

    who here CHOOSES not to wear one. Won't save your life in a 70mph crash yet we all stick one on.

    spend time in A&E and see how many riders come in and need help for head trauma after falling off (not knocked off) and then compare the numbers between helmet wearers and non wearers.

    Then the answer is obvious
    Racing is life - everything else is just waiting
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    Down the Road wrote:
    the answer is obvious
    :lol:
    You haven't been here long have you?!
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,317
    Down the Road wrote:
    spend time in A&E and see how many riders come in and need help for head trauma after falling off (not knocked off) and then compare the numbers between helmet wearers and non wearers.

    Then the answer is obvious

    Well with that conclusive proof I think we can say the debate is finally closed.

    Thanks for coming everyone.
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • asprilla
    asprilla Posts: 8,440
    Down the Road wrote:
    This debate was held 30 years ago for seat belts in cars. then gain about 20 years ago for rear seat belts.

    who here CHOOSES not to wear one. Won't save your life in a 70mph crash yet we all stick one on.

    spend time in A&E and see how many riders come in and need help for head trauma after falling off (not knocked off) and then compare the numbers between helmet wearers and non wearers.

    Then the answer is obvious

    And look at the cost to the NHS of people not taking regular exercise. In every location where helmets have been made mandatory the number of people cycling and (most importantly) number of people taking up cycling plummet.

    Forcing people to wear helmets stops them from cycling and the long term benefits of cycling outweigh costs.
    Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
    Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
    Sun - Cervelo R3
    Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 14,647
    Asprilla wrote:
    In every location where helmets have been made mandatory the number of people cycling and (most importantly) number of people taking up cycling plummet.

    Forcing people to wear helmets stops them from cycling and the long term benefits of cycling outweigh costs.
    Are you sure of your facts? There may be an initial decrease, but what of long term trends? Don't the latest post-legislation statistics in Australia contradict this? What of British Columbia?

    I imagine its important to distinguish between the initial drop off due to people not having a helmet at the time legislation comes into effect and/or stomping off in na huff, and the long term effects once the population comes to regard helmets and cycling as inseperable.
  • Down the Road
    Down the Road Posts: 949
    Asprilla wrote:
    Down the Road wrote:
    This debate was held 30 years ago for seat belts in cars. then gain about 20 years ago for rear seat belts.

    who here CHOOSES not to wear one. Won't save your life in a 70mph crash yet we all stick one on.

    spend time in A&E and see how many riders come in and need help for head trauma after falling off (not knocked off) and then compare the numbers between helmet wearers and non wearers.

    Then the answer is obvious

    And look at the cost to the NHS of people not taking regular exercise. In every location where helmets have been made mandatory the number of people cycling and (most importantly) number of people taking up cycling plummet.

    Forcing people to wear helmets stops them from cycling and the long term benefits of cycling outweigh costs.


    They're not riding now so I don't see how making a safety item compulsory is going to deter people too lazy to get off their backsides from riding.

    If you want to remember how is easy it is to be killed or seriously hurt by not wearing a helmet look in to the death of Andrei Kivilev. The guys he touched wheels with walked away from this as they had helmets on.
    Racing is life - everything else is just waiting
  • bails87
    bails87 Posts: 12,998
    Down the Road wrote:
    Asprilla wrote:
    Down the Road wrote:
    This debate was held 30 years ago for seat belts in cars. then gain about 20 years ago for rear seat belts.

    who here CHOOSES not to wear one. Won't save your life in a 70mph crash yet we all stick one on.

    spend time in A&E and see how many riders come in and need help for head trauma after falling off (not knocked off) and then compare the numbers between helmet wearers and non wearers.

    Then the answer is obvious

    And look at the cost to the NHS of people not taking regular exercise. In every location where helmets have been made mandatory the number of people cycling and (most importantly) number of people taking up cycling plummet.

    Forcing people to wear helmets stops them from cycling and the long term benefits of cycling outweigh costs.


    They're not riding now so I don't see how making a safety item compulsory is going to deter people too lazy to get off their backsides from riding.

    If you want to remember how is easy it is to be killed or seriously hurt by not wearing a helmet look in to the death of Andrei Kivilev. The guys he touched wheels with walked away from this as they had helmets on.

    Flawed argument #239663
    MTB/CX

    "As I said last time, it won't happen again."
  • MonkeyMonster
    MonkeyMonster Posts: 4,628
    are we doing this again?

    It's their personal choice ultimately. Their isn't enough statistically provable evidence to categorically state they benefit the wearer. If there was, we wouldn't be having this thread.

    I personally wear one. CiB doesn't. We're both right.

    End of
    Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
    The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]

Categories