Wear that helmet!
Discussion
Mr Will said:
What's so bad about reducing speed limits and sticking up speed cameras everywhere? There are plenty of people in this country who think that's the answer to road safety. Speed Kills after all...
That's a different issue. Having read Giszmoish and Gaspode's comments, I do see the Freedom of Choice thing in a slightly different light. However, I notice that no-one has replied to my comments about compulsory seat belts in cars and helmets for motor bike riders - there were Freedom of Choice arguments about those too.I would think the kind of casual cyclist who would be put off riding if helmets were compulsory is probably the kind that goes through red lights, and doesn't use lights after dark etc etc.
I started wearing a helmet in the 90's after an incident where some fooker in a Suzuki Rascal van close passed me repeatedly, eventually so close I had to crash up the kerb and just missed a lamp post to avoid being smeared against the side of his van. The Boys in Blue paid him a visit but it showed me however skilled/competent/cautious you are, there are some people and conditions you just can't allow for.
Mr Will said:
What's so bad about reducing speed limits and sticking up speed cameras everywhere? There are plenty of people in this country who think that's the answer to road safety. Speed Kills after all...
That's a different issue. Having read Giszmoish and Gaspode's comments, I do see the Freedom of Choice thing in a slightly different light. However, I notice that no-one has replied to my comments about compulsory seat belts in cars and helmets for motor bike riders - there were Freedom of Choice arguments about those too.I would think the kind of casual cyclist who would be put off riding if helmets were compulsory is probably the kind that goes through red lights, and doesn't use lights after dark etc etc.
I started wearing a helmet in the 90's after an incident where some fooker in a Suzuki Rascal van close passed me repeatedly, eventually so close I had to crash up the kerb and just missed a lamp post to avoid being smeared against the side of his van. The Boys in Blue paid him a visit but it showed me however skilled/competent/cautious you are, there are some people and conditions you just can't allow for.
lepetitoeuf said:
garyhun said:
I fail to see why the subject of helmet wearing has to be discussed at all...
Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing.
But freedom of speech is something you'd rather cut out?Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing.
garyhun said:
You need to learn to read my friend. I never said people CAN'T discuss it, just that I fail to see the reason. Where you have a contentious issue that neither side are willing to budge on, what's the point of bringing it up, time and time again?
Because debates lead to outcomes. That's how it works, provided participants can resist digging at one another. So what does the data say? I'm guessing it's heavily favourable with the caveat that it puts off certain demographics like casual riders, teenagers & people inexplicably placing hair style above brain integrity.I mean, if Jimmy Savile won one argument, it seems it was clunk click & we don't hear much from the freedom loving anti seatbelt brigade these days, do we?
Daveyraveygravey said:
That's a different issue
How so? Both are based on naive views of road safety and focus on enforcing a single factor rather than addressing the real issues.Daveyraveygravey said:
However, I notice that no-one has replied to my comments about compulsory seat belts in cars and helmets for motor bike riders - there were Freedom of Choice arguments about those too.
Both of those have proven safety benefits though. Everywhere that has introduced mandatory cycle helmet laws has seen an increase in the percentage of cyclists injured - precisely the opposite effect to the one intended.Daveyraveygravey said:
I would think the kind of casual cyclist who would be put off riding if helmets were compulsory is probably the kind that goes through red lights, and doesn't use lights after dark etc etc.
I disagree. The chavs on bikes will continue tearing around without helmets - if they don't respect the laws we already have, why will they respect a new one? The kind of person who'll be put off is my mum popping to the shops - pretty much the safest, most cautious cyclist you can imagine. Daveyraveygravey said:
I started wearing a helmet in the 90's after an incident where some fooker in a Suzuki Rascal van close passed me repeatedly, eventually so close I had to crash up the kerb and just missed a lamp post to avoid being smeared against the side of his van. The Boys in Blue paid him a visit but it showed me however skilled/competent/cautious you are, there are some people and conditions you just can't allow for.
I'll confess to a vested interest here. I cannot wear a helmet without suffering weeks of pain afterwards. I am happy that I am safe enough without one but a mandatory helmet law would result in me having to give up cycling. I also get very fed up of being told I should wear one by other cyclists when I'm out riding, many of whom are riding unsafely in a variety of other ways.Justin Cyder said:
Because debates lead to outcomes. That's how it works, provided participants can resist digging at one another. So what does the data say? I'm guessing it's heavily favourable with the caveat that it puts off certain demographics like casual riders, teenagers & people inexplicably placing hair style above brain integrity.
Everywhere it has been tried the number of injuries remains roughly constant despite a reduction in the number of cyclists. The KSI rate per mile cycled jumps upwards significantly. The reasons for this are subject to debate; some say it is due to drivers being less used to cyclists, others say it is because it's the safest cyclists that stop riding and a few other suggestions as well. What is clear though is that it doesn't have anything like the effect than an uneducated guess would predict.
Even if helmets were 100% effective in preventing head injuries, a mandatory law still doesn't make sense, as more people will die from inactivity due to being put off cycling than would possibly be saved due to reduced head injuries.
Whichever way you look at it, mandatory helmet laws are a public health disaster.
Whichever way you look at it, mandatory helmet laws are a public health disaster.
garyhun said:
I never have and never will wear a helmet.
I fail to see why the subject of helmet wearing has to be discussed at all. People like me choose not to - I understand every argument a pro-wearer will make but I understand those arguments already. I just choose to do what I feel comfortable with. Why people cannot accept that is beyond me.
Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing.
That's your freedom of choice. That's all well and good until you come out of a side road without looking into the path of an oncoming vehicle and die from head injuries which you would've survived if you'd been wearing a helmet.I fail to see why the subject of helmet wearing has to be discussed at all. People like me choose not to - I understand every argument a pro-wearer will make but I understand those arguments already. I just choose to do what I feel comfortable with. Why people cannot accept that is beyond me.
Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing.
It doesn't matter that the driver of that vehicle couldn't have done anything to avoid you, you've still deprived them of the freedom of choice not to feel guilty about your death.
Melodramatic maybe, but I've experienced first hand a grown man (and a complete stranger at that) breaking down in tears when I went to thank him for looking after me when I came off my bike (nobody else involved) and almost killed myself thanks to a head injury which would've been little more than concussion if I'd been wearing a helmet. The first words he managed to get out through the tears were "I never thought I'd see you alive again when the ambulance left".
This was the reaction from someone a week after the event who already knew that I'd survived the incident. I'm sure you can imagine how much that reaction would've been magnified if he'd been involved in the accident and/or I hadn't survived.
As far as I'm concerned, your own freedom of choice doesn't extend as far as giving you the freedom to inflict that sort of thing on anyone else, so I've not ridden a bike without a helmet in the 15+ years since. Your selfishness may only be an abstract concept until something happens, but it is selfishness all the same.
Kermit power said:
That's your freedom of choice. That's all well and good until you come out of a side road without looking into the path of an oncoming vehicle and die from head injuries which you would've survived if you'd been wearing a helmet.
Cycle helmets are simply not designed to protect against impacts of that severity (the test for them is a static drop from 1.5m IIRC). If you are run over, a helmet will not save you.ohHello said:
Cycle helmets are simply not designed to protect against impacts of that severity (the test for them is a static drop from 1.5m IIRC). If you are run over, a helmet will not save you.
That may or may not be the case, but surely by far the commonest head injury is caused by banging your head when you fall off your bike, and more or less any sort of hat or helmet would help. Of the cyclists who are hit by cars, I would think that the number who are actually run over is relatively small?Kermit power said:
That's your freedom of choice. That's all well and good until you come out of a side road without looking into the path of an oncoming vehicle and die from head injuries which you would've survived if you'd been wearing a helmet.
It doesn't matter that the driver of that vehicle couldn't have done anything to avoid you, you've still deprived them of the freedom of choice not to feel guilty about your death.
Melodramatic maybe, but I've experienced first hand a grown man (and a complete stranger at that) breaking down in tears when I went to thank him for looking after me when I came off my bike (nobody else involved) and almost killed myself thanks to a head injury which would've been little more than concussion if I'd been wearing a helmet. The first words he managed to get out through the tears were "I never thought I'd see you alive again when the ambulance left".
This was the reaction from someone a week after the event who already knew that I'd survived the incident. I'm sure you can imagine how much that reaction would've been magnified if he'd been involved in the accident and/or I hadn't survived.
As far as I'm concerned, your own freedom of choice doesn't extend as far as giving you the freedom to inflict that sort of thing on anyone else, so I've not ridden a bike without a helmet in the 15+ years since. Your selfishness may only be an abstract concept until something happens, but it is selfishness all the same.
It doesn't matter that the driver of that vehicle couldn't have done anything to avoid you, you've still deprived them of the freedom of choice not to feel guilty about your death.
Melodramatic maybe, but I've experienced first hand a grown man (and a complete stranger at that) breaking down in tears when I went to thank him for looking after me when I came off my bike (nobody else involved) and almost killed myself thanks to a head injury which would've been little more than concussion if I'd been wearing a helmet. The first words he managed to get out through the tears were "I never thought I'd see you alive again when the ambulance left".
This was the reaction from someone a week after the event who already knew that I'd survived the incident. I'm sure you can imagine how much that reaction would've been magnified if he'd been involved in the accident and/or I hadn't survived.
As far as I'm concerned, your own freedom of choice doesn't extend as far as giving you the freedom to inflict that sort of thing on anyone else, so I've not ridden a bike without a helmet in the 15+ years since. Your selfishness may only be an abstract concept until something happens, but it is selfishness all the same.
ohHello said:
Kermit power said:
That's your freedom of choice. That's all well and good until you come out of a side road without looking into the path of an oncoming vehicle and die from head injuries which you would've survived if you'd been wearing a helmet.
Cycle helmets are simply not designed to protect against impacts of that severity (the test for them is a static drop from 1.5m IIRC). If you are run over, a helmet will not save you.WinstonWolf said:
What about compulsory high viz? It's selfish not wearing it after all...
I've not said helmets should be compulsory, just that you're a selfish 
who doesn't care about the consequences your actions could have on others if you ride without one on the roads. Garyhun's response rather proved my point.As for high viz, I'm actually sat here typing in a bright orange high viz top, having just cycled home from work!
I don't, however, think everyone should wear high viz to avoid being selfish, no. It's no hardship to wear light colours if you're cycling after dark, without the need to be bright yellow or orange!
Selfish
land, however, is the special domain of idiots who ride after dark all in black, often enough without lights.Justin Cyder said:
That area, like all others is controlled in the head. At least amongst those of us not from East Angular. 
So, avoid ICU in the first place.
Too late, had quite a stint in one hence preferring to avoid the accident in the first place So, avoid ICU in the first place.Been dead once but I'm feeling much better now...
Mostly wear a helmet but not always.
I recall the resentment to motorcycle helmets becoming compulsory back in 1973. Just as I was about to get my firs moped (Fizzy )
It was mostly open-faced ‘piss pots’ in those days, not very cool. Then when full face helmets came onto the scene they quickly became the must have helmet to be seen in.
One problem with cycling helmets is that they generally look so naff. Change them into a cool looking fashion item and soon even casual cyclists will want one.
)It was mostly open-faced ‘piss pots’ in those days, not very cool. Then when full face helmets came onto the scene they quickly became the must have helmet to be seen in.
One problem with cycling helmets is that they generally look so naff. Change them into a cool looking fashion item and soon even casual cyclists will want one.
BIANCO said:
And please stop posting these bull st story’s about "I had a crash and had a helmet on and I was fine but I would have been dead if I didn’t", You don’t know this. Unless you go back and fall of your bike the exact same way without one.
What is it with people failing to master the basic skills of reading before they post??? Where did I say I would've died had I not been wearing a helmet?t story’s about "I had a crash and had a helmet on and I was fine but I would have been dead if I didn’t", You don’t know this. Unless you go back and fall of your bike the exact same way without one. I said the most serious accident was the one without a helmet, and that was the one which put me in hospital and kept me off work for a month. That was 20-odd years ago when, as you say, people just didn't wear helmets. As you're in the North West and I'm in the South East, I can't invite you over to examine the bloody great dent in my skull for yourself, but you're more than welcome to nominate a closer PHer if you want someone to carry out a custard test on it for you. Swerni might be willing to oblige? Unlike him, I actually still have hair, so there's no point taking a photo of it.
The more recent accident was the one with the helmet. The helmet after the crash looked like my head did after the first one, and I've got a 15 minute / 1.5 mile blackout from the concussion. It still hurt, but going from 20mph to 0mph near enough instantly always will. I never said I'd have died without a helmet, but I would've certainly done myself far, far more damage.
Is it really so difficult to comprehend that it wouldn't have taken much more to kill myself, and that my "freedom of choice" is an absolutely
ish thing to impose on those who love me under those circumstances? Nobody is talking about staying in the house and not walking down the street. We're talking about wearing a bloody bike helmet, for f
k's sake!!! After a few rides, you barely notice it's there, and there's really no excuse or valid reason not to wear one...Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff