|
Getragdogleg
3,667 posts
52 months
|
TKF said: down to the individual and I've already stated my case of being pro-helmet and pro-choice. I think the best comment was when somebody said "I don't wear a helmet but I do wear gloves for protection".   that was me on page one (grown up pages) getragdogleg said: I think people should be treated like grown ups and allowed to make up their own minds about wether or not to strap a piece of overpriced polystyrene on their head.
I don't wear one, I do not deem it necessary, Gloves I do, as any accident I have had has torn my hands up and I don't like picking little bits of gravel out of my hand
|
|
|
Bacon Is Proof
3,021 posts
100 months
|
paranoid airbag said: ironic statement, considering a)I've never heard anyone make that assertion, b) the only studies I've ever seen with positive conclusions about helmet use make the same mistake*.
While we're on the Netherlands, I've still not had it explained to me why the countries with the highest overall cycling rates, and cyclist safety, do not have helmet laws (e.g. Netherlands) and countries with poor safety records and cycle use (Aus, NZ, some parts of US) do (or at least have high social pressure for helmet use).
HBGT is right - helmet laws might suit racers and recreational cyclists. But they do nothing for those who want to use a bike as transport. Cambridge might not have the infrastrucure of Copenhagen, and the less competent students and tourists might be as maddening as everywhere else in the uk, but still: no one thinks cycling is weird. No one feels the need to upload videos of taxi drivers onto youtube, and no one blathers on about road tax - at least, no one who minds looking like a fool in public. People feel safe, and the KSI figues back them up (equal to or better than the rest of the country despite far higher cycle use).
Even ignoring libertarian arguments - why anyone would want to add silly plastic hats to this place is, quite frankly, beyond me.
Ironic that you pick Cambridge as an example, what with cars being banned from the city centre and Cambridge students being disallowed to keep cars, so it is legislation that has led to increased cycle use. With regards to your comment about safer countries and helmet laws, a simple explanation would be that the laws came about because cycling in that country was less safe. I think, for the third time, I should clarify my position: I do not wear a helmet. I am against legislation. I believe helmets can reduce the risk of serious injury in an accident. I am against people using utter bulls  t to try and justify not wearing a helmet. It's your choice, make it. Just cut the crap, please.
|
|
|
Bacon Is Proof
3,021 posts
100 months
|
daz3210 said: So, you say speed is mentioned, well forgive me for being blind, but I cannot see speed mentioned so you will have to show me.
So please do. E4.3 A question for you, put simply as you seem to comfortably assert that helmets are useless beyond 10mph with no evidence to back this up: You are standing on a wall with a safety mat below that you can safely fall onto. Now imagine the wall is twice as high and the mat can no longer guarantee safety, do you: a) Jump down onto the map. b) Jump down without the mat. or c) Fail to answer the question. 
|
|
|
paranoid airbag
1,307 posts
28 months
|
Bacon Is Proof said: stuff pedantic maybe, but cars aren't banned from the city centre - the multistory in the middle would be rather redundant if they were. It is made difficult to get around by car though, just not illegal. I pretty much agree with your position - I'm just suprised you've primarily noticed people justify non helmet use from the correlation of helmet laws with low injury rates, I've never heard that before but I have heard people justify helmet laws from correlation of helmet use with low injury rates. If that is your experience, fair enough, I've no good reason to doubt you.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
Bacon Is Proof said: daz3210 said: So, you say speed is mentioned, well forgive me for being blind, but I cannot see speed mentioned so you will have to show me.
So please do. E4.3 A question for you, put simply as you seem to comfortably assert that helmets are useless beyond 10mph with no evidence to back this up: You are standing on a wall with a safety mat below that you can safely fall onto. Now imagine the wall is twice as high and the mat can no longer guarantee safety, do you: a) Jump down onto the map. b) Jump down without the mat. or c) Fail to answer the question. E4.3 does not mention speed, simply weights and forces. That is not easy for a layman to equate to mph. Incidentally it does mention a 5kg headform being used. OK, my head may weigh 5kg (I never weighed just my head), but it is supported by a 100kg body, which if my head were ejected toward terra firma would undoubtedly follow it thus increasing the load. As for the first part of your question I would suggest that you re-read my comment, I never comfortably asserted anything, I simply said... daz3210 said: Yes but at greater than the 10mph that has been bandied about as the maximum speed at which the helmet is effective. Having said that, it is a commonly held thought that the maximum speed at which these helmets are effective is around that speed, there must be some reason why these thoughts are put out there. And to answer your question re the wall, I would most likely hang by my fingers and drop as gently as possible onto whatever surface was there (either that or seek an alternative route down)
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
heebeegeetee
19,534 posts
117 months
|
daz3210 said: Bacon Is Proof said: daz3210 said: So, you say speed is mentioned, well forgive me for being blind, but I cannot see speed mentioned so you will have to show me.
So please do. E4.3 A question for you, put simply as you seem to comfortably assert that helmets are useless beyond 10mph with no evidence to back this up: You are standing on a wall with a safety mat below that you can safely fall onto. Now imagine the wall is twice as high and the mat can no longer guarantee safety, do you: a) Jump down onto the map. b) Jump down without the mat. or c) Fail to answer the question. E4.3 does not mention speed, simply weights and forces. That is not easy for a layman to equate to mph. Incidentally it does mention a 5kg headform being used. OK, my head may weigh 5kg (I never weighed just my head), but it is supported by a 100kg body, which if my head were ejected toward terra firma would undoubtedly follow it thus increasing the load. As for the first part of your question I would suggest that you re-read my comment, I never comfortably asserted anything, I simply said... daz3210 said: Yes but at greater than the 10mph that has been bandied about as the maximum speed at which the helmet is effective. Having said that, it is a commonly held thought that the maximum speed at which these helmets are effective is around that speed, there must be some reason why these thoughts are put out there. And to answer your question re the wall, I would most likely hang by my fingers and drop as gently as possible onto whatever surface was there (either that or seek an alternative route down) I think all this can be discussed until the cows come home, but the thing is pedestrians also get hit by cars, very often on the pavement come to that, the cars are travelling at a speed and pedestrians very often suffer head injuries. Is there any point in separating cyclists from pedestrians in this matter? Whilst I accept the rates of head injuries suffered may differ, I doubt the actual numbers will differ much.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
heebeegeetee said: I think all this can be discussed until the cows come home, but the thing is pedestrians also get hit by cars, very often on the pavement come to that, the cars are travelling at a speed and pedestrians very often suffer head injuries.
Is there any point in separating cyclists from pedestrians in this matter? Whilst I accept the rates of head injuries suffered may differ, I doubt the actual numbers will differ much. We can discuss it all you want, but the facts will not change:- 1. It is questionable whether helmets offer any great degree of protection 2. It is therefore questionable whether any new legislation is worthwhile 3. Many cyclists would rather have the choice rather than have it made for them
|
|
|
Pothole
18,069 posts
151 months
|
daz3210 said: heebeegeetee said: I think all this can be discussed until the cows come home, but the thing is pedestrians also get hit by cars, very often on the pavement come to that, the cars are travelling at a speed and pedestrians very often suffer head injuries.
Is there any point in separating cyclists from pedestrians in this matter? Whilst I accept the rates of head injuries suffered may differ, I doubt the actual numbers will differ much. We can discuss it all you want, but the facts will not change:- 1. It is questionable whether helmets offer any great degree of protection 2. It is therefore questionable whether any new legislation is worthwhile 3. Many cyclists would rather have the choice rather than have it made for them 4. barring a huge rise in head injury-related cyclist deaths, no government will deem legislation making helmets compulsory worth the effort.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
Pothole said: daz3210 said: heebeegeetee said: I think all this can be discussed until the cows come home, but the thing is pedestrians also get hit by cars, very often on the pavement come to that, the cars are travelling at a speed and pedestrians very often suffer head injuries.
Is there any point in separating cyclists from pedestrians in this matter? Whilst I accept the rates of head injuries suffered may differ, I doubt the actual numbers will differ much. We can discuss it all you want, but the facts will not change:- 1. It is questionable whether helmets offer any great degree of protection 2. It is therefore questionable whether any new legislation is worthwhile 3. Many cyclists would rather have the choice rather than have it made for them 4. barring a huge rise in head injury-related cyclist deaths, no government will deem legislation making helmets compulsory worth the effort. Out of interest, are there any figure out there that detail how many cycling related injuries (and in particular head injuries) there are each year?
|
|
|
HardWorkers
442 posts
79 months
|
I don't like to come back in to this thread but I'd like to point something out about the Snell standard which has been quoted upthread. Having done a bit of research it seems that cycle helmets no longer conform to this standard. The current standard - EN1078 - offers a lower level of protection than the Snell standard. The new standard was introduced largely at the insistence of the helmet manufacturers... make of that what you will. Forget the arguments about whether they should currently be worn or not. Bike helmets need to be better than they are. They need revolutionary new design with sensible safety standards behind them. Then there will be genuine reason to argue in favour of wearing a helmet. Currently there is more than enough ambiguity about them to justify not wanting to wear a helmet. I currently prefer not to myself. Having looked at as much evidence and information as I can, and sifting the out of date stuff from the up to date stuff, I'm not suitably convinced of a net benefit to wearing a helmet. I'd be happy to change my mind. I'd like to feel happy to wear a helmet but that won't happen with any helmet on the market today. These sound like interesting possible developments: http://www.gizmag.com/regenerative-bike-helmet/141...http://www.gizmag.com/mips-helmet-technology/21656...
|
|
|
Vipers
15,531 posts
97 months
|
Notwithstanding all the stats, research etc, and the pros and cons of cycle helmets, I feel safer wearing my helmet when I am hitting 35mph along a single carriageway, (No cars etc) justnin case either a rabbit, or deer jump out, or even a puncture which could throw me off. And of course when I slipped on a frosty road, falling straight over, thats a fall of just over 6ft, my helmet cracked in three places along the side of my head, resulting in no injury to my bonce, but each to their own.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
Vipers said: Notwithstanding all the stats, research etc, and the pros and cons of cycle helmets, I feel safer wearing my helmet when I am hitting 35mph along a single carriageway, (No cars etc) justnin case either a rabbit, or deer jump out, or even a puncture which could throw me off. And of course when I slipped on a frosty road, falling straight over, thats a fall of just over 6ft, my helmet cracked in three places along the side of my head, resulting in no injury to my bonce, but each to their own. But do you prefer having the choice of what to wear or being told?
|
|
|
Pothole
18,069 posts
151 months
|
daz3210 said: Pothole said: daz3210 said: heebeegeetee said: I think all this can be discussed until the cows come home, but the thing is pedestrians also get hit by cars, very often on the pavement come to that, the cars are travelling at a speed and pedestrians very often suffer head injuries.
Is there any point in separating cyclists from pedestrians in this matter? Whilst I accept the rates of head injuries suffered may differ, I doubt the actual numbers will differ much. We can discuss it all you want, but the facts will not change:- 1. It is questionable whether helmets offer any great degree of protection 2. It is therefore questionable whether any new legislation is worthwhile 3. Many cyclists would rather have the choice rather than have it made for them 4. barring a huge rise in head injury-related cyclist deaths, no government will deem legislation making helmets compulsory worth the effort. Out of interest, are there any figure out there that detail how many cycling related injuries (and in particular head injuries) there are each year? Not that I can find. or at least not which don't count grazes and bruises.
|
|
|
Vipers
15,531 posts
97 months
|
daz3210 said: But do you prefer having the choice of what to wear or being told? Are you married  Well we have no choice on seat belts, we have no choice on wearing helmets on motorcycle. (as far as I know apart from a helmet, you can ride naked), if you work offshore, which I did for nearly 30 years, you have to wear safety boots, coveralls and a hard hat, when we used to fly out to the rig by chopper, we had to wear survival suits, and lifejackets . So would it bother me being told I must wear a helmet when I go out on my bike, no. I say no because I think its a safety feature, of course those who dont think its a safety feature would object I am sure. I can only speak for myself. Will it ever be legislated?, I don't think,so.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
No, I don't think legislation is imminent either.
But if it were, if helmets are proven to be rather innefective, where does that leave the legislators if it were ever proven that injuries were increased as a result?
On a side issue, I was out tonight as it was falling dusk, came across two horses with bareback riders accompanied by a horse and cart. None had lights, one of the horses riders had a hi viz vest on. None of the riders had helmets. How do they stand in law?
|
|
|
Vipers
15,531 posts
97 months
|
daz3210 said: No, I don't think legislation is imminent either.
But if it were, if helmets are proven to be rather innefective, where does that leave the legislators if it were ever proven that injuries were increased as a result?
On a side issue, I was out tonight as it was falling dusk, came across two horses with bareback riders accompanied by a horse and cart. None had lights, one of the horses riders had a hi viz vest on. None of the riders had helmets. How do they stand in law? How do they quantify ineffective, we already have a standard EN something or another, if it complies with that what else can you do. Same as motorcycle helmets, they comply to a standard, all safety equipment must comply to a standard, problem I see is the ambulance chasers. On a basis of policing it if it were to be introduced, how often do you see a motoristest stopped for defective lights, how often do you see a cyclists being stopped for no lights, or jumping lights, how often do you see a policeman these days anyway. The only purpose it would serve is for a get out clause by the drivers insurers if a cyclists was hit by a car and sustained brain damage and it was argued a helmet may have prevented it, you dont need much more than a slight knock to sustain brain damage. Anyway, not much else to say on the subject. Take care you PH cyclists out there.
|
|
|
whoami
7,068 posts
109 months
|
daz3210 said: On a side issue, I was out tonight as it was falling dusk, came across two horses with bareback riders accompanied by a horse and cart. None had lights, one of the horses riders had a hi viz vest on. None of the riders had helmets. How do they stand in law? Come on, everybody knows that pie-keys are above the law.
|
|
|
Vipers
15,531 posts
97 months
|
whoami said: Come on, everybody knows that pie-keys are above the law. How many gold post boxes left?
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
Vipers said: How do they quantify ineffective, we already have a standard EN something or another, if it complies with that what else can you do. Same as motorcycle helmets, they comply to a standard, all safety equipment must comply to a standard, problem I see is the ambulance chasers. On a basis of policing it if it were to be introduced, how often do you see a motoristest stopped for defective lights, how often do you see a cyclists being stopped for no lights, or jumping lights, how often do you see a policeman these days anyway. The only purpose it would serve is for a get out clause by the drivers insurers if a cyclists was hit by a car and sustained brain damage and it was argued a helmet may have prevented it, you dont need much more than a slight knock to sustain brain damage. Anyway, not much else to say on the subject. Take care you PH cyclists out there. Many groups and individuals have said (them not me, take note) that at much above 10mph the benefits are pretty much nil. Since most of the time I am travelling above 10mph, I take that as pretty ineffective. As for ambulance chasers using no helmet as a get out, what is to stop that argument being tried now? I have seen a case recently where an employer's insurer was paying out on a claim, where there was potential for medical negligence from the NHS. But the insurer said in part of its consideration of what to offer in settlement that the fact that the accident meant the operation was needed means that the NHS has a get out. Now put that into context of a motor accident with no helmet. If the accident hadn't happened there wouldn't be a question of whether a helmet was necessary.
|
|
|
Bacon Is Proof
3,021 posts
100 months
|
daz3210 said: That is not easy for a layman to equate Congratulations on admitting that you are not qualified to comment. Have a biscuit.
|
|
