Wiggins wants compulsory helmets
Discussion
paranoid airbag said:
If Stephen Hawking said 2+2=5, then he'd still be wrong - being an expert doesn't make you automatically right. If you are right, you should, expert or no, be able to explain to others why you are right.
Quantum physics suggests there's actually a possibility of him being right, but I digress.whoami said:
Many folk said that about seatbelts too.
I fail to see the problem to be honest.
Talk to non cyclists. The image of cycling as something only hyper-fit freaks in funny clothing puts a lot of people off. I fail to see the problem to be honest.
Then talk to assisted suicide campaigners. If people think that doing something that guarantees death should be legal, what do you think they'll say about something with a very slim chance of killing you, that many people prefer?
Then talk to telegraph readers (this one is optional). They seem to go on about 'the nanny state' and 'elfen safety' a fair amount.
I seriously hope you don't support a helmet law when you openly admit you don't understand the objections. If you understand and disagree with them, fair enough, but lawmaking from a position of ignorance is no better than rolling a dice.
HTH
Edited by paranoid airbag on Sunday 5th August 19:35
Had a spill myself at the weekend, lost the front end on a greasy downhill, certainly not a bad off but my lid saved me from one side of my face getting a dose of gravel rash they my knee got. Later on my 5yo did a similar thing, nice face plant on a forest gravel path, now his lid did save him from some bad cuts, no it didn't compress the foam blah blah, but the bit of gravel rash on the end of his nose would have easily been a broken nose and a severely skinned face. He did get a wobbly lip over the face his shiney lid wasn't anymore.
What would people say to compulsary lids for under 16s ? Okay hard to police I know but what issues would people have with it?
What would people say to compulsary lids for under 16s ? Okay hard to police I know but what issues would people have with it?
scrwright said:
Had a spill myself at the weekend, lost the front end on a greasy downhill, certainly not a bad off but my lid saved me from one side of my face getting a dose of gravel rash they my knee got. Later on my 5yo did a similar thing, nice face plant on a forest gravel path, now his lid did save him from some bad cuts, no it didn't compress the foam blah blah, but the bit of gravel rash on the end of his nose would have easily been a broken nose and a severely skinned face. He did get a wobbly lip over the face his shiney lid wasn't anymore.
What would people say to compulsary lids for under 16s ? Okay hard to police I know but what issues would people have with it?
I would say yes to an age limit, maybe not 16, say 12????????What would people say to compulsary lids for under 16s ? Okay hard to police I know but what issues would people have with it?
But at what point should any lid be binned? If you fall does the protection diminish? Can anyone say a lid has not had an impact if they fall?
With regards to comparing cycle helmets with car seat belts, a driver is not required to carry his seat belt when out of the car, and IIRC during the lengthy debate on belts it was never ever suggested that the compulsory use of seat belts would lead to a dramatic decrease of rates of car use with a corresponding reduction in fitness of the population or an increase in rates of child obesity etc.
heebeegeetee said:
With regards to comparing cycle helmets with car seat belts, a driver is not required to carry his seat belt when out of the car, and IIRC during the lengthy debate on belts it was never ever suggested that the compulsory use of seat belts would lead to a dramatic decrease of rates of car use with a corresponding reduction in fitness of the population or an increase in rates of child obesity etc.
Nope, and every car has one, sat there waiting to be used.If (as has happened) I am asked by a work colleague to move his bike from A to B, I have the choice of using his helmet or non.
Being as hygiene and the like may come into it, I may decide to take the latter option.
Zaxxon said:
whoami said:
Getragdogleg said:
The whole thing is marketing led and has no grounds in research or safety criteria.
Why do professionals and competitive cyclists all wear them?
It is not about having a brain and realising it, its about having the choice. I tend to wear a helmet most times, but on occasion may decide to go without, but its a conscious decision, taken knowing the risks and usually taken for a specific reason (like I need to move this bike from a to b and I don't have the helmet with me)
Zaxxon said:
Because they realise that they have a brain worth protecting. Whereas some here realise that they do not.
Personally, before insulting people, I'd check at the very least the page I'm already as to whether this question already has a CORRECT answer. If they want to compete without helmets they'd need to join a race not governed by the UCI. In fact the pros were initially against helmet compulsion:UCI press release said:
The UCI would like to note that in 1991 a proposal to make the wearing of helmets obligatory was rejected by a large majority of professional riders.
(from http://oldsite.uci.ch/english/news/news_2002/20030...)Your answer is demonstrably wrong because you failed to carry out basic checks. Two minutes on wikipedia and google, if that, would have given you an answer. Two minutes on THIS VERY THREAD would have given you an answer. This is a serious question: how do you expect your opinion to be taken seriously, and why are you not embarassed and ashamed by this? If I did that around my friends or colleagues, I'd be mocked for weeks.
Edit: fair enough, epic sarcasm awareness fail on my part. Sorry. Although it's till a somewhat unfair joke.
Edited by paranoid airbag on Monday 6th August 11:10
From The UK’s National Cyclists’ Organisation in April 2012:
HERE's a download link for the full paper. It makes interesting reading.
CTC said:
Conclusion
From the evidence available, it is possible that helmets might perhaps provide some limited protection in the event of certain types of impact occurring (e.g. minor falls). However, any such benefits might also be undermined or even outweighed by a variety of ways in which helmetwearing may increase the likelihood of such impacts occurring in the first place. There are some places (e.g. New South Wales and Nova Scotia) where increased helmet-wearing appears to have been associated not only with reduced cycle use but also with an increased risk of injury for those cyclists who remain. There is also some evidence that helmet use increases the risks of neck injuries, and of brain injuries due to ‘rotational force’ impacts. Helmets could therefore be contributing to some of the most serious and permanently disabling spinal and brain injuries. A number of children are known to have been fatally strangled by their helmet straps.
We reiterate the observation from the helmet evidence-review commissioned by the Department for Transport119, which noted that it was ‘impossible to definitively quantify the effectiveness or otherwise of cycle helmets based on the literature reviewed.’
That, in particular the part I've put in bold, pretty much sums it up for me.From the evidence available, it is possible that helmets might perhaps provide some limited protection in the event of certain types of impact occurring (e.g. minor falls). However, any such benefits might also be undermined or even outweighed by a variety of ways in which helmetwearing may increase the likelihood of such impacts occurring in the first place. There are some places (e.g. New South Wales and Nova Scotia) where increased helmet-wearing appears to have been associated not only with reduced cycle use but also with an increased risk of injury for those cyclists who remain. There is also some evidence that helmet use increases the risks of neck injuries, and of brain injuries due to ‘rotational force’ impacts. Helmets could therefore be contributing to some of the most serious and permanently disabling spinal and brain injuries. A number of children are known to have been fatally strangled by their helmet straps.
We reiterate the observation from the helmet evidence-review commissioned by the Department for Transport119, which noted that it was ‘impossible to definitively quantify the effectiveness or otherwise of cycle helmets based on the literature reviewed.’
HERE's a download link for the full paper. It makes interesting reading.
davepoth said:
Wiggins wears one when he's not racing though. For safety purposes. As he said in the interview that has been badly misinterpreted. It was about responsibility, not helmets.
Are classic car owners irresponsible, for choosing to drive cars without the latest safety equipment?The numbers of people suffering severe head injuries through cycling are low. As stated in an earlier post, some 55,000 people die of heart-related problems. If a reduction in cycling figures were to cause just a 1% increase, I believe there would be some 5-10 times the amount of people suffering an early death through heart disease than through not wearing helmets. Survrys have indicated that cycling numbers have been greatly reduced by helmet laws, and all surveys indicate cyclists are in greater danger when in lower numbers.
The arguments for cyclists wearing helmets can be applied equally to pedestrians and car drivers. Were peds and drivers made to wear helmets the actual number of lives saved would almost certainly be higher than the number of cyclists that would be saved.
The whole issue is more complex than simply making cyclists wear helmets. Bradley has possibly been somewhat less than totally responsible himself by making the comments he did.
davepoth said:
Pothole said:
ecause they are compelled to?
Wiggins wears one when he's not racing though. For safety purposes. As he said in the interview that has been badly misinterpreted. It was about responsibility, not helmets.Well, whilst they argue, work out stastics and generally dick around, I think I will continue to wear my helmet.
Personally I dont think they will ever legislatate it, and even if they did, how do you police it?
What would be nice is to make motorists more aware of cyclists, remember the ad on telly some years ago with the hammar and the Peach (I think), caption was something on the lines of "Think once, think bike"
Personally I dont think they will ever legislatate it, and even if they did, how do you police it?
What would be nice is to make motorists more aware of cyclists, remember the ad on telly some years ago with the hammar and the Peach (I think), caption was something on the lines of "Think once, think bike"
Edited by Vipers on Monday 6th August 13:21
davepoth said:
Wiggins wears one when he's not racing though. For safety purposes. As he said in the interview that has been badly misinterpreted. It was about responsibility, not helmets.
You could interpret this as a rebuttal, but really it's just an incredibly lovely pic that's vaguely related and serves no argumentative purpose:
Say it with me - d'awwww.
TKF said:
Getragdogleg said:
The whole thing is marketing led and has no grounds in research or safety criteria.
londonbabe said:
It's advertising space.
You're both absolutely right, of course.And seat belts were made mandatory to help struggling buckle manufacturers.
Cuckoo!
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff