Debate over compulsory cycle helmets
Discussion
FWDRacer said:
Apologies for poor i-phone pic but the split evident at impact point propogates right back through the lid.
Is this the polystyrene compressed? Because that's how it's supposed to work and apparently often doesn't. The cracking of the shell itself doesn't dissipate very much energy at all.FWDRacer said:
Parrot of Doom said:
Answer my question please. Why do (or did) you drive a Ford Puma when safer replacements are available?
10 years ago when I bought it, the car was new tech. It even had an airbag-so perhaps draw parallels me enjoying cycling and driving the Puma (fun) with ensuring I had a small degree of safety net (bike lid and airbag). The car saw sterling service, it didn't go break or go wrong. I never saw fit to replace it. Satiated?
Back on Topic - do you want me to post pics of the lid that saved my Bacon (20+mph off) last Friday?
Apologies for poor i-phone pic but the split evident at impact point propogates right back through the lid. Just like a motorcycle lid it is all about the energy dissipation. The alternative is that force acting directly on your skull. I was still suffering from mild concussion on Saturday night. Make your own mind up.
Edited by FWDRacer on Tuesday 1st February 20:40
FWDRacer said:
RobM77 said:
Really? If that's the case, then I stand corrected. I know people who don't wear helmets, but it's not because of money, just because they don't see a benefit and prefer the wind in their hair brains splattered all over the road.
EFA. Morons to a man/woman.Let the debate rage. Once in a coma you'll struggle to put your point across.
FWDRacer said:
10 years ago when I bought it, the car was new tech.
The Puma was based on a 1995 design and finished production in 2001, and was by then well behind contemporary crash protection standards. You bought an old, much less safe car than other, newer, cars on the market.
FWDRacer said:
Back on Topic - do you want me to post pics of the lid that saved my Bacon (20+mph off) last Friday?
A single picture of a broken helmet. That surely is statistical proof that the compulsory wearing of helmets is a superb idea! Do you also wear full body armour to protect your spine? If not, why not? Aren't you being stupid, not protecting such a vital area of your body?
I realise that no-one has so far looked at the link I posted on the first page, and my subsequent post, but there really are some fairly strong arguments against wearing bicycle helmets.
Here are some of the for and against research papers:
http://cyclehelmets.org/1052.html
Read it, notice that it is not clear cut, there are many reasons why cycling with a helmet may make you more likely to suffer injury; stop making moronic claims like people are idiots for not wearing one and they'll end up in a coma. The website even addresses the frequent claim that "my helmet saved my life - look at its brokenness and marvel!" - http://cyclehelmets.org/1209.html
I do wear one, but don't assume that everyone who doesn't is doing so irresponsibly.
Here are some of the for and against research papers:
http://cyclehelmets.org/1052.html
Read it, notice that it is not clear cut, there are many reasons why cycling with a helmet may make you more likely to suffer injury; stop making moronic claims like people are idiots for not wearing one and they'll end up in a coma. The website even addresses the frequent claim that "my helmet saved my life - look at its brokenness and marvel!" - http://cyclehelmets.org/1209.html
I do wear one, but don't assume that everyone who doesn't is doing so irresponsibly.
I have worn a helmet for years on both road and MTB. I only one head/brain and what to look after it. Ive had a few tumbles over the years and have had to replace 3 helmets. God knows if Id still be here now if I hadnt been wearing one.
Ok being hit by a car, a helmet isnt going to do a lot to save your swede but when I haved popped to the pub without a helmet it does feel weird. Maybe having to be made to wear it isnt a great idea for some but it wouldnt bother me one bit.
Ok being hit by a car, a helmet isnt going to do a lot to save your swede but when I haved popped to the pub without a helmet it does feel weird. Maybe having to be made to wear it isnt a great idea for some but it wouldnt bother me one bit.
Fluffsri said:
I haved popped to the pub without a helmet it does feel weird. Maybe having to be made to wear it isnt a great idea for some but it wouldnt bother me one bit.
In the recent cold weather I dispensed with the usual helmet/skullcap combo and wore just a thick fleecy hat. It felt really, really nice.I could get used to it.
el stovey said:
I almost understand people not wanting to be made to wear a helmet but trying to argue that they are pointless or actually more dangerous in an accident is just silly.
I don't understand why you think it is silly? What about their tendency to exaggerate rotational injuries in an impact? Their effect on risk compensation amongst cyclists and the motorists who pass them? Or that none of the research comparing cyclist fatalities to cycle helmet uptake have shown any improvement? Or that cycling declined in Australia by 30% in the 90s after mandatory cycle helmet use became law? Are these concerns silly? If, like so much else, the government does decide to step in on this issue, then I'd hope they'd look at all the available information before creating a new law. Overall, I'd prefer people understood the risks on either side and made their own decision.
People often seem happpy to debate the safety aspects of this sort of threatened imposition, apparently oblivious to the more insidious threat of further erosions to personal freedom.
I don't generally wear a lifejacket when sailing, and I don't wear a helmet when cycling because I like to hang on to the sense of carefree pleasure that both pastimes provide. Stupid? Maybe, but who cares.
Nanny says she cares, but sadly nanny has become a monster relentlessly propelled by employees of organisations (charities/govt. departments/quangos) motivated by finding new ways to justify their jobs and salaries. These days it's rarely about 'knowing best'.
Arthur Ransome is good on this sort of thing: "Better drowned than duffers. If not duffers, won't drown."
I don't generally wear a lifejacket when sailing, and I don't wear a helmet when cycling because I like to hang on to the sense of carefree pleasure that both pastimes provide. Stupid? Maybe, but who cares.
Nanny says she cares, but sadly nanny has become a monster relentlessly propelled by employees of organisations (charities/govt. departments/quangos) motivated by finding new ways to justify their jobs and salaries. These days it's rarely about 'knowing best'.
Arthur Ransome is good on this sort of thing: "Better drowned than duffers. If not duffers, won't drown."
Cycling isn't a new thing. Like most people i cycled as a kid carefree and fell off a few times, over the front a couple of times, and into a river once.
I survived. Ok, so I had a broken wrist on one occassion, a smashed tooth, and possibly a broken nose and split lip. But I survived. As did all of my mates who did the same things with reckless abandonment.
Having just got back into cycling I have a choice to wear a helmet or not. If I'm off roading between trees i may wear one. If i'm cycling sedately along a disused railway line i certainly wont.
What I dont need is somebody tell me that I must wear one. I am perfectly able to judge for myself the risks involved and judging my mental capacity based on whether i wear a piece of compressed polystyrene on my head or not.
To the person who had a headache after falling of his bike at a low speed. It may be that the additional weight of your helmet prevented your neck from keeping your head from impacting the ground.
To Gareth Hunt. Get of your high horse. Well done. You have a racing car. That doesnt make you any better than anyone else. Your opinion is no more valued. You are not correct just because you "survived" a fall last week. If anything your posts would lead to the conclusion that you did actually suffer from a bang to the head.
What annoys me about this debate is by far the greatest predictor of safety on a bike is technique.
Technique for negotiating the roads safely is something that can be learned easily, but is apparently lacking from lots of people we see on the roads.
The subtext of the pro-helmet argument is that "accidents happen, and when they happen you'll be safer with a helmet". This leads to a sort of fatalistic attitude which is extremely counter productive to safe cycling - numpties bumbling around in hi-vis and helmets, oblivious to their lack of technique.
As a cyclist (and driver), you can largely control your fate. The powers of authority should be focusing on this aspect, but instead they seek to impose rules, because they are legislators and the thing they find easiest is legislating.
Of course, if you do have an accident having taken all precautions through good technique, then in most cases you won't be any worse off with a helmet, in the same way that having an airbag and side impact protection in a car will most likely help in a crash, but focusing on that one small aspect is counter-productive over all to the road safety message.
I would have thought on PH of all places this wouldn't need spelling out.
If I want airbags I'll buy a car with airbags.
If I want a helmet I'll wear a helmet.
Now leave me alone.
Technique for negotiating the roads safely is something that can be learned easily, but is apparently lacking from lots of people we see on the roads.
The subtext of the pro-helmet argument is that "accidents happen, and when they happen you'll be safer with a helmet". This leads to a sort of fatalistic attitude which is extremely counter productive to safe cycling - numpties bumbling around in hi-vis and helmets, oblivious to their lack of technique.
As a cyclist (and driver), you can largely control your fate. The powers of authority should be focusing on this aspect, but instead they seek to impose rules, because they are legislators and the thing they find easiest is legislating.
Of course, if you do have an accident having taken all precautions through good technique, then in most cases you won't be any worse off with a helmet, in the same way that having an airbag and side impact protection in a car will most likely help in a crash, but focusing on that one small aspect is counter-productive over all to the road safety message.
I would have thought on PH of all places this wouldn't need spelling out.
If I want airbags I'll buy a car with airbags.
If I want a helmet I'll wear a helmet.
Now leave me alone.
As said, road sense is something that no safety gear can compete with.
I often find myself in situations which require quick thinking and at times a high level of bike handling, and this is often nothing to do with me, just London traffic being the way it is and pedestrians being turds. I am certain that if some of the people I know did the same route and found themsevles in the same situation they'd have been on the deck more than once. Possibly under the bus that nearly wiped 3 people out on Putney bridge the other day.
I often find myself in situations which require quick thinking and at times a high level of bike handling, and this is often nothing to do with me, just London traffic being the way it is and pedestrians being turds. I am certain that if some of the people I know did the same route and found themsevles in the same situation they'd have been on the deck more than once. Possibly under the bus that nearly wiped 3 people out on Putney bridge the other day.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff