If helmets were optional...

[Fleegle]

The Beaver King said:

I noticed a guy bombing up and down the road on his quad bike today; I'm wondering why it is legal to ride a quad without a helmet, but not a bike?

The guys that ride these on the road are proper 100% nobbers. For every rule there should be exceptions - allowing this should see them wiping themselves out before they reproduce too many times

[The Beaver King]

Fleegle said:

The guys that ride these on the road are proper 100% nobbers. For every rule there should be exceptions - allowing this should see them wiping themselves out before they reproduce too many times

I would make some comment about it being stupid few, but in the case of quads, most of them do genuinely seem like idiots. I have also noticed that 90% of these quads are stupidly loud; I have no idea how they get away with it. If my bike was half as loud as some of these quads, I'd be booked immediately for breach of the peace and being a tt.

[anonymous-user]

Fleegle said:

The Beaver King said:

I noticed a guy bombing up and down the road on his quad bike today; I'm wondering why it is legal to ride a quad without a helmet, but not a bike?

The guys that ride these on the road are proper 100% nobbers. For every rule there should be exceptions - allowing this should see them wiping themselves out before they reproduce too many times

fking bedsteads on the road are a fking pain in the ass. There is a local lad who has one, and his nobby mate actually, they drive like tits and their horrible heaps make huge amounts of farty noise. Then, in winter, said knobhead tows a trailer (no lights obviously) with wood and assorted rubbish piled high. wkers. They need shooting.

[Fleegle]

yonex said:

Fleegle said:

The Beaver King said:

I noticed a guy bombing up and down the road on his quad bike today; I'm wondering why it is legal to ride a quad without a helmet, but not a bike?

The guys that ride these on the road are proper 100% nobbers. For every rule there should be exceptions - allowing this should see them wiping themselves out before they reproduce too many times

fking bedsteads on the road are a fking pain in the ass. There is a local lad who has one, and his nobby mate actually, they drive like tits and their horrible heaps make huge amounts of farty noise. Then, in winter, said knobhead tows a trailer (no lights obviously) with wood and assorted rubbish piled high. wkers. They need shooting.

Don't worry....it won't be long before he is a casualty down to his own making. He could always speed up the process by fitting a gopro to his heap. We all know that people who use GoPro's crash

[cookmysock]

I cannot for the life of me fathom why anyone would not want to wear a helmet in any circumstances. Even if you wear a helmet, you can still suffer serious head injuries - Michael Schumacher wore one when he was skiing and look at how he ended up.

It is this simple:

Risk = Likelihood x Consequence.

No helmet = high consequence during accident.
Helmet = lesser consequence during accident

therefore residual risk is lower with a helmet.

this is one of the most basic approaches taken in all safety risk analysis.

wear a helmet!!

[The Moose]

cookmysock said:

I cannot for the life of me fathom why anyone would not want to wear a helmet in any circumstances. Even if you wear a helmet, you can still suffer serious head injuries - Michael Schumacher wore one when he was skiing and look at how he ended up.

It is this simple:

Risk = Likelihood x Consequence.

No helmet = high consequence during accident.
Helmet = lesser consequence during accident

therefore residual risk is lower with a helmet.

this is one of the most basic approaches taken in all safety risk analysis.

wear a helmet!!

Let's take a scale of risk from 0-100 where 0 is bein wrapped in cotton wool and 100 is certain death several times.

By your calculations, not wearing a helmet is higher up that scale than wearing a helmet. We all agree with that.

What we seem to disagree on is that some people are happy to have this risk profile of nearer 100 than other people. For me, the risk profile changes with many different elements including the weather, time of day, where I'm going etc.

No one is arguing it's safer to ride without a helmet etc.

What is interesting is no one has replied to the question about how a 50% increase in risk (not wearing a helmet) is unacceptable but a 2000% increase in risk is fine (riding a bike instead of a car)?

Riding without a helmet in the summer sun is lovely!

[anonymous-user]

It's really not. Sunburn, assorted crap smashing into your head and the obvious risk of spelling your skull contents should something go wrong. Apart from that, perfect

[Dr Jekyll]

cookmysock said:

I cannot for the life of me fathom why anyone would not want to wear a helmet in any circumstances. Even if you wear a helmet, you can still suffer serious head injuries - Michael Schumacher wore one when he was skiing and look at how he ended up.

It is this simple:

Risk = Likelihood x Consequence.

No helmet = high consequence during accident.
Helmet = lesser consequence during accident

therefore residual risk is lower with a helmet.

this is one of the most basic approaches taken in all safety risk analysis.

wear a helmet!!

That's actually an argument against skiing. We all in know the risk is higher without a helmet, but since the avoidance of risk is not the purpose of life that isn't the whole story.

[LiamB]

I didn't wear my helmet when riding the CR once and it just felt so wrong.. helmet EVERY time for me.

[bogie]

Last time I didnt wear a helmet on a bike that was moving was 1985, off road, just mucking about with mates. I had a minor off, nothing broken but scarred my face for life, and just missed losing an eye.

I learnt that lesson and have worn a helmet since, the best full face I could afford

[cookmysock]

Dr Jekyll said:

cookmysock said:

I cannot for the life of me fathom why anyone would not want to wear a helmet in any circumstances. Even if you wear a helmet, you can still suffer serious head injuries - Michael Schumacher wore one when he was skiing and look at how he ended up.

It is this simple:

Risk = Likelihood x Consequence.

No helmet = high consequence during accident.
Helmet = lesser consequence during accident

therefore residual risk is lower with a helmet.

this is one of the most basic approaches taken in all safety risk analysis.

wear a helmet!!

That's actually an argument against skiing. We all in know the risk is higher without a helmet, but since the avoidance of risk is not the purpose of life that isn't the whole story.

it not about risk avoidance, not an argument against skiing. the point was that even with a helmet, you can still get hurt.

It's working out what is the remaining risk after applying the corrective action to a high risk (in this case a helmet) and assessing if the remaining risk is acceptable. This is why we have governments do it for us because some people are unable to sensibly do it.

[Dr Jekyll]

cookmysock said:

it not about risk avoidance, not an argument against skiing. the point was that even with a helmet, you can still get hurt.

It's working out what is the remaining risk after applying the corrective action to a high risk (in this case a helmet) and assessing if the remaining risk is acceptable. This is why we have governments do it for us because some people are unable to sensibly do it.

Which would be fine if governments were infallible and had our best interests at heart. Instead of being a bunch of power crazed ignoramuses simply interested in manipulating tabloid headlines.

[creampuff]

cookmysock said:

This is why we have governments do it for us because some people are unable to sensibly do it.

So what if people don't do what's in their best interest? Maybe you are a bit fat. Let's have you drinking mandatory celery juice followed by a mandatory detox enema to enema to clean you out.

[Corpulent Tosser]

creampuff said:

cookmysock said:

This is why we have governments do it for us because some people are unable to sensibly do it.

So what if people don't do what's in their best interest? Maybe you are a bit fat. Let's have you drinking mandatory celery juice followed by a mandatory detox enema to enema to clean you out.

I was against the compulsory wearing of helmets at the time, I am generally against governmental interference in our day to day lives. However, what cookmysock says is correct, we often get governmental intervention when sufficient numbers of people won't do the sensible thing themselves, the helmet law being one those interventions.

As for the fat thing, there is already governmental interventions with regard to that, children are assessed at school and weight problems brought up in meetings with parents in an attempt to stem the problem early. Of course irresponsible parents doing nothing about it may lead to further interference from governments.

To answer the oriuginal question - Yes I would still wear a helmet if it was not compulsory, further I think anyone who wouldn't do so is irresponsible.

[rog007]

I've worked in a 'risky business' and taken some risks I shouldn't have, but when it comes to a helmet and all other protection on a bike, it's yes every time.

This stems from being positively influenced by my riding instructor when first learning and then in my days as an instructor wanting to also set an example to my students.

German friend of mine one day on a short trip was wearing a helmet but only a tracksuit. He did come off and caused damage to arms and legs which the insurance company said they would have compensated him for had he been wearing 'recognisable' biking wear safety gear. As he wasn't, they considered he hadn't fulfilled his side of the insurance deal so didn't pay out.

[sc0tt]

rog007 said:

I've worked in a 'risky business' and taken some risks I shouldn't have, but when it comes to a helmet and all other protection on a bike, it's yes every time.

This stems from being positively influenced by my riding instructor when first learning and then in my days as an instructor wanting to also set an example to my students.

German friend of mine one day on a short trip was wearing a helmet but only a tracksuit. He did come off and caused damage to arms and legs which the insurance company said they would have compensated him for had he been wearing 'recognisable' biking wear safety gear. As he wasn't, they considered he hadn't fulfilled his side of the insurance deal so didn't pay out.

This never happened

[creampuff]

sc0tt said:

rog007 said:

I've worked in a 'risky business' and taken some risks I shouldn't have, but when it comes to a helmet and all other protection on a bike, it's yes every time.

This stems from being positively influenced by my riding instructor when first learning and then in my days as an instructor wanting to also set an example to my students.

German friend of mine one day on a short trip was wearing a helmet but only a tracksuit. He did come off and caused damage to arms and legs which the insurance company said they would have compensated him for had he been wearing 'recognisable' biking wear safety gear. As he wasn't, they considered he hadn't fulfilled his side of the insurance deal so didn't pay out.

This never happened

Mmm, how is it that their are so many stories and posts on here with people who never crash, but they take their helmet or their gear off just once.... and immediately have a crash?

[black-k1]

rog007 said:

I've worked in a 'risky business' and taken some risks I shouldn't have, but when it comes to a helmet and all other protection on a bike, it's yes every time.

This stems from being positively influenced by my riding instructor when first learning and then in my days as an instructor wanting to also set an example to my students.

German friend of mine one day on a short trip was wearing a helmet but only a tracksuit. He did come off and caused damage to arms and legs which the insurance company said they would have compensated him for had he been wearing 'recognisable' biking wear safety gear. As he wasn't, they considered he hadn't fulfilled his side of the insurance deal so didn't pay out.

Just occasionally I miss Loon. He'd have loved this one! So many things "wrong" with this!

[Pothole]

creampuff said:

cookmysock said:

This is why we have governments do it for us because some people are unable to sensibly do it.

So what if people don't do what's in their best interest? Maybe you are a bit fat. Let's have you drinking mandatory celery juice followed by a mandatory detox enema to enema to clean you out.

No such thing as detox.

[Arif110]

moanthebairns said:

Unless you car is equipped with a 5 point harness you do know if you lean forward slowly you can touch your toes. It sure as he'll doesn't restrict you at roundabouts.

I can't believe the amount of retarded statements on here, people's views on helmets and seatbelts just shows you why the government have to pass common send laws to protect the retards in society.

You can't have the audacity to call others retards when you yourself haven't even got your basic understanding of seatbelt mechanisms straight. A seatbelt will indeed prevent you from leaning forward whatsoever, when braking - for example as you approach a roundabout. As well as the inertia-arrest mechanism, there is a 'dongle' which wobbles under acceleration or deceleration (or vehicle tilt) - when this dongle is not perfectly upright, it locks the belt. Same reason a belt can lock when stationary but pointed downhill. So there is currency to the argument that a belt can prevent you from adequately checking a blind-spot round the pillar, as you approach something like a roundabout, or any junction.