Cycle Helmet
- Thread starter steve keay
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
That is quite spectacularly stupid and offensive.
And I fail to see the relevance of Clinton's little incident.
I am so relieved about that - for a moment I thought that being hit by the car was the cause.
It is just as well the t we have such enlightened souls to correct us.
Thank you, that would be very useful. You didn't answer the question why one is right and the other wrong. Particularly in choosing the earlier conclusion over the subsequent one.
The clues led to the later paper. The later paper did not reference the earlier study by the same author. If he did not think it of significance why should I? In fact, if it does come to a different conclusion is it not misleading to ignore/obscure a previous different conclusion?
Is that not a really childish statement? We have read different papers. It took BenB and me to establish there were two papers. Had you not read the other one and hence did not spot the issue either?
Are you not genuinely concerned by the apparent difference in these papers? Is it something we should be trying to bring into the light of open discussion rather than silly point scoring. I have no agenda but honest enquiry. Do you share that?
It's good to see this subject is allowed to be discussed here. I made a comment on an Australian forum about seeing a couple of cyclist's without helmets, which started a debate and the moderators put a stop to the thread. Helmets are compulsory in Australia and the majority of cyclists are happy to conform.
threebikesmcginty
Corn Fed Hick...
- Location
- ...on the slake
That's interesting because I thought that numbers (of cyclists) had fallen since helmets became mandatory, or is it just that those that still cycle are happy to wear them?
Helmets have been compulsory here in Australia since 1991. I don't know if cyclist numbers have fallen since the law was introduced but there are statistics that say fatalities and head injuries have not been reduced and statistics that say they have. I suppose it's all down to how you manipulate them. There are a very small number of people who still refuse to comply.
By the way User, where in north somerset do you live. I use to live in Weston-super-Mare.
By the way User, where in north somerset do you live. I use to live in Weston-super-Mare.
Oh come on, surely it is time
Not the case, I am afraid.
If the majority were happy to conform, why did the number of cyclists drop by 30%?
Secondly surveys in Australia show that between 18 - 20% of non cyclists state that having to wear a helmet is the single reason that do not cycle. the outcome of one such research project was that:
The most worrying thing about the Australian experience is that the real evidence is being ignored as it does not fit a pro helmet agenda.
In the 1980's there were a series of draconian clampdowns on illegal driving, antisocial driving, speeding, drink driving and other road safety measures. This produced a massive drop in head injuries, and a far greater drop than was seen by the helmet legislation.
So what we should gain from the Australian experience is that driver training and clamping down on poor driving is the way forward if we really want to reduce the number of head injuries.
There is also a very interesting case where the Judiciary has come down on the side of the non-helmet wearers
A lady called Sue Abbott was taken to court for not wearing a helmet. However the verdict was quashed by the Judge on the grounds that:
'
He also found that Abbott had:
She still does not wear a helmet and the decisions by the Judge are now being used in similar cases.
smokeysmoo
Legendary Member
- Location
- Bolton, not very far from Nob End
Who wants to see my new helmet? It's a beauty 
Who wants to see my new helmet? It's a beauty
A triumph of appearances over function.
smokeysmoo
Legendary Member
- Location
- Bolton, not very far from Nob End
FTFY. What do I think? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not personally qualified to say
My reason for wearing one is based on personal accident experience, however, I fully support anyone's right not to wear one if that is what they wish
I know better than to even attempt to convert a non-helmet wearer, (and vice versa), and as such I'm certainly not getting dragged into a helmet debate, (life's too short and I'm too busy).
If you want to wear one do, (but don't preach about it), if you don't, don't, (but don't preach about that either)
[EDIT] Ladies & Gentlemen, smokeysmoo has left the building
FTFY. What do I think? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not personally qualified to say.
My reason for wearing one is based on personal accident experience, however, I fully support anyone's right not to wear one if that is what they wish
I know better than to even attempt to convert a non-helmet wearer, (and vice versa), and as such I'm certainly not getting dragged into a helmet debate, (life's too short and I'm too busy).
If you want to wear one do, (but don't preach about it), if you don't, don't, (but don't preach about that either)
I wasn't preaching about your choice to wear one or not. I was commenting on the helmet design. Those big bits sticking out the back may look sexy but they are the things that catch on the ground or other objects and wrench the head round. And the big vents compromise the integrity in an accident. More polystyrene and less big holes would be better. But the aesthetics have been given priority over the function and that is not just IMO.
- Status
