Debate over compulsory cycle helmets
Discussion
Our Police have plenty to do without spending even more of their time as tax collectors.
I personally think kids should wear them, maybe up to the age of 16, when they can make their own decisions.
Disclosure: I wear a lid most of the time, but quite like going for a slow ride along the tow path in the summer, with the missus and feel the wind in my hair.
I personally think kids should wear them, maybe up to the age of 16, when they can make their own decisions.
Disclosure: I wear a lid most of the time, but quite like going for a slow ride along the tow path in the summer, with the missus and feel the wind in my hair.
Needs to be considered against the additional health benefits from cycling. I cycled thousands of miles as a kid without a helmet, and without landing on my head (though managed to slip off the pedals on to the crossbar once! Ouch!)
Having said that I would have had a fair few clouts on the head from branches in recent years had I not been wearing a helmet, plus the peak on the front helped prevent my face from meeting the ground head-on when I took a bad tumble a couple of weeks back. Mountain biking for you!
Leave it up to the individual, perhaps with the disclaimer that the rider is responsible for any injury sustained through not wearing a helmet.
Having said that I would have had a fair few clouts on the head from branches in recent years had I not been wearing a helmet, plus the peak on the front helped prevent my face from meeting the ground head-on when I took a bad tumble a couple of weeks back. Mountain biking for you!
Leave it up to the individual, perhaps with the disclaimer that the rider is responsible for any injury sustained through not wearing a helmet.
I'm very much of the opinion that it should be left to the rider (there are even some bits of research suggesting it's safer to ride without a helmet for various reasons) and, while I don't agree that you should automatically be responsible for any injury suffered when not wearing a helmet, I do agree that it should be taken into account as contributory negligence where relevant.
(personally I don't wear a helmet)
(personally I don't wear a helmet)
Funkateer said:
Needs to be considered against the additional health benefits from cycling. I cycled thousands of miles as a kid without a helmet, and without landing on my head (though managed to slip off the pedals on to the crossbar once! Ouch!)
Having said that I would have had a fair few clouts on the head from branches in recent years had I not been wearing a helmet, plus the peak on the front helped prevent my face from meeting the ground head-on when I took a bad tumble a couple of weeks back. Mountain biking for you!
Leave it up to the individual, perhaps with the disclaimer that the rider is responsible for any injury sustained through not wearing a helmet.
I understand that perspective, but it could be argued that in the end it is the taxpayer who is ultimatly responsible for the rider's injuries as they are going to have to be collected, treated and possibly cared for by the NHS, which is paid out of the taxpayers money. I can't see the NHS deciding to charge people for treatment if they were riding a bike without a helmet, imagine the precedent it would set for them to limit what they could cover.Having said that I would have had a fair few clouts on the head from branches in recent years had I not been wearing a helmet, plus the peak on the front helped prevent my face from meeting the ground head-on when I took a bad tumble a couple of weeks back. Mountain biking for you!
Leave it up to the individual, perhaps with the disclaimer that the rider is responsible for any injury sustained through not wearing a helmet.
I always wondered how they worked out that "helmet wearers more likely to have an accident" thing. I would think that cyclists who do more road riding would be more likely to wear a helmet, but since they're on the road so much it stands to reason they're more likely to have an accident...
davepoth said:
I always wondered how they worked out that "helmet wearers more likely to have an accident" thing.
Here's a link to one bit of research. I'm not going to try to pretend it's perfect, but it did give some interesting results.http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overta...
http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/
chrisispringles said:
Funkateer said:
Needs to be considered against the additional health benefits from cycling. I cycled thousands of miles as a kid without a helmet, and without landing on my head (though managed to slip off the pedals on to the crossbar once! Ouch!)
Having said that I would have had a fair few clouts on the head from branches in recent years had I not been wearing a helmet, plus the peak on the front helped prevent my face from meeting the ground head-on when I took a bad tumble a couple of weeks back. Mountain biking for you!
Leave it up to the individual, perhaps with the disclaimer that the rider is responsible for any injury sustained through not wearing a helmet.
I understand that perspective, but it could be argued that in the end it is the taxpayer who is ultimatly responsible for the rider's injuries as they are going to have to be collected, treated and possibly cared for by the NHS, which is paid out of the taxpayers money. I can't see the NHS deciding to charge people for treatment if they were riding a bike without a helmet, imagine the precedent it would set for them to limit what they could cover.Having said that I would have had a fair few clouts on the head from branches in recent years had I not been wearing a helmet, plus the peak on the front helped prevent my face from meeting the ground head-on when I took a bad tumble a couple of weeks back. Mountain biking for you!
Leave it up to the individual, perhaps with the disclaimer that the rider is responsible for any injury sustained through not wearing a helmet.
I'd suspect it is more a case of cyclists who wear helmets are cyclists and do reasonable mileages, cyclists without helmets are likely to be split between serious cyclists who choose not to wear them and people with bikes who ride down the tow path to the pub or short rides round their estate.
chrisispringles said:
Funkateer said:
Needs to be considered against the additional health benefits from cycling. I cycled thousands of miles as a kid without a helmet, and without landing on my head (though managed to slip off the pedals on to the crossbar once! Ouch!)
Having said that I would have had a fair few clouts on the head from branches in recent years had I not been wearing a helmet, plus the peak on the front helped prevent my face from meeting the ground head-on when I took a bad tumble a couple of weeks back. Mountain biking for you!
Leave it up to the individual, perhaps with the disclaimer that the rider is responsible for any injury sustained through not wearing a helmet.
I understand that perspective, but it could be argued that in the end it is the taxpayer who is ultimatly responsible for the rider's injuries as they are going to have to be collected, treated and possibly cared for by the NHS, which is paid out of the taxpayers money. I can't see the NHS deciding to charge people for treatment if they were riding a bike without a helmet, imagine the precedent it would set for them to limit what they could cover.Having said that I would have had a fair few clouts on the head from branches in recent years had I not been wearing a helmet, plus the peak on the front helped prevent my face from meeting the ground head-on when I took a bad tumble a couple of weeks back. Mountain biking for you!
Leave it up to the individual, perhaps with the disclaimer that the rider is responsible for any injury sustained through not wearing a helmet.
I wear a cycle helmet, largely out of habit, but I'd be opposed to it being law.
From what I've read there are accidents where it may help; linear knocks to the head. But they can make other accidents far worse, rotational forces are exaggerated causing far more severe injury. They also seem to be manufactured in such a way that the polystyrene is meant to compress, but in most accidents it does not seem to (and is too hard to do so), thus transferring much of the impact directly to the head.
Some info here:
http://cyclehelmets.org/1209.html
From what I've read there are accidents where it may help; linear knocks to the head. But they can make other accidents far worse, rotational forces are exaggerated causing far more severe injury. They also seem to be manufactured in such a way that the polystyrene is meant to compress, but in most accidents it does not seem to (and is too hard to do so), thus transferring much of the impact directly to the head.
Some info here:
http://cyclehelmets.org/1209.html
Parrot of Doom said:
They're a bunch of idiots. Nobody in the Netherlands wears a helmet.
If any such law is introduced in England I'll purposely ignore it.
I don't wear a helmet when I go jogging, I wear one on my motorbike, I wear one when I'm racing, I don't wear one when I'm touring or going to the pub. I wear an open face lid on my MTB and a full face on my DH bike. Appropriate protection relative to the activity. A blanket law saying all bicycle users must wear helmets is missing the point entirely. I'd also stand up and ignore it.If any such law is introduced in England I'll purposely ignore it.
Parrot of Doom said:
They're a bunch of idiots. Nobody in the Netherlands wears a helmet.
If any such law is introduced in England I'll purposely ignore it.
This is what i was thinking.If any such law is introduced in England I'll purposely ignore it.
Could somebody please explain to me, why in the UK, which has the safest roads in the world just about, it seems necessary for cyclists to dress up like complete idiots what with helmets and body armour and hi-viz and the like, whereas in the Low Countries and elsewhere you can see millions and millions and *millions* (it seems, sometimes
) of cyclists, *none* of whom are dressed like a complete tit.In a similar vein, how come in Belgium and Holland where there are no mountains nobody rides a mountain bike, but in England where there are also virtually no mountains almost everyone who rides rides a mountain bike of one sort or another (whilst often dressing like a tit).
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff