Boy hit by car pushing his bike, mother starts calling for helmet compulsion

[captain nemo1701]

Story in our local Daily mail owned rag:
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Helmet...-says-mother/story-26529401-detail/story.html

Typical reaction from the paper. They carried a story two years ago about a girl who jumped on a bike, failed to check the brakes and hit a coach fracturing her shoulder. Helmet compulsion called for in that story plus the article mentioned the word helmet eight times and brake failure (the real cause of the accident) only once!. A helmet would have never prevented the accident.

In this story, the mother is now calling for compulsion and yet her son was actually walking with the bike. His road crossing skills would seem to leave a lot to be desired too.

 

[Drago]

Local paper in "local person talks b****cks shocker". Nothing to see here.

 

[BigAl68]

I can't even look at it as I know how the Evening post likes this crap...

 

[Drago]

It's rubbish, stories about how Mrs Nobody, 71, fell over in the High Street on Thursday and grazed her knee slightly.

 

[Fab Foodie]

It's rubbish, stories about how Mrs Nobody, 71, fell over in the High Street on Thursday and grazed her knee slightly.

http://www.trousers.co.uk/bracknell/harbinger/index.html

 

[winjim]

One of the arguments on the anti-compulsion side of the debate has been that making pedestrians wear helmets would prevent more injuries...

Anyway, she's the kid's mother. If she thinks her son ought to be compelled to wear a helmet, she ought to do the compelling.


ETA: one of these in case anyone thinks I'm taking this remotely seriously.

 

[Drago]

No one with a brain cell has suggested compulsion for pedestrians. That's the act of sceptics without the vocabulary to express their argument.

 

[winjim]

No one with a brain cell has suggested compulsion for pedestrians. That's the act of sceptics without the vocabulary to express their argument.

I mean it's been used to make a statistical point.

 

[green1]

No one with a brain cell has suggested compulsion for pedestrians.

I suggested to Mrs and family that I might consider wearing one when this happens.

 

[Drago]

I mean it's been used to make a statistical point.

Only by stupid people.

 

[Profpointy]

Only by stupid people.

OK I'll bite - why is it stupid to compare the need or otherwise for helmets between different activities with supposedly similar (within some range) risk profiles? Yes the intent is to ridicule - but that does not make it an invalid question.

 

[Drago]

The human skull, while not infallible, is designed to protect the brain from injury in most typical falls etc that an unassisted human body can manage.

Cycling, even at very low speed, instantly increases the energy available and takes the wonderful engineering of the skull beyond that which it has evolved to protect the brain.

Therefore (pretend for one moment that cycle helmets are highly effective) walking etc are activities for which body has adapted very well, and for the vast majority of people the skull protects the brain throughout their lives very effectively, making helmet use unnecessary for normal activity. Cycling, however, is an unnatural activity and a fall from a bike causing the head to hit the floor or another vehicle is much more likely to exceed the performance parameters of the skull, thus making a helmet of much more utility.

Until a cycle helmet arrives that genuinely works, I am anti compulsion, and the 'well pedestrians should wear helmets then' retort is completely cringeworthy.

 

[Profpointy]

The human skull, while not infallible, is designed to protect the brain from injury in most typical falls etc that an unassisted human body can manage.

Cycling, even at very low speed, instantly increases the energy available and takes the wonderful engineering of the skull beyond that which it has evolved to protect the brain.

Therefore (pretend for one moment that cycle helmets are highly effective) walking etc are activities for which body has adapted very well, and for the vast majority of people the skull protects the brain throughout their lives very effectively, making helmet use unnecessary for normal activity. Cycling, however, is an unnatural activity and a fall from a bike causing the head to hit the floor or another vehicle is much more likely to exceed the performance parameters of the skull, thus making a helmet of much more utility.

Until a cycle helmet arrives that genuinely works, I am anti compulsion, and the 'well pedestrians should wear helmets then' retort is completely cringeworthy.

wow - a reasoned and reasonably put answer on a helmet thread. That'll never do !.

Pish taking aside though - and to challenge your answer - hopefully in the right spirit : I thought the "pedestrian helmet" comparison is argued on the basis of similar head injury rates rather than the "speed" explanation. This doesn't actually mean you shouldn't wear a bike helmet purely because people don't wear a pedestrian helmet - perhaps it logically does make some sense to wear both. Only slightly tongue in cheek, but given in your professional life you have presumable come across quite a few late night head injuries maybe there's an even stronger argument for wearing beer-drinking helmets.

To me at least, the value of these comparisons is to think about why this or that safety measure is desirable. And even if it does actually reduce risk - is it really a bigger risk than something we, perhaps wrongly, regard as not needing the safety measure.

 

[NormanD]

Looking at the size of the kid, maybe that's all he ever done, was "Push the bike"

 

[jnrmczip]

She can't be that Concerned if she never made her little boy have one on