metro article on helmets

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1846255, member: 45"]Deary me. I'll ignore this additional display of a complete inability to interrogate statistics and ask you the same question again, as you don't appear to understand the point I'm making.

Me - same journey - walking or cycling - which is safest?

To help you, I'll point out that the reason the scenario includes me in both circumstances is that it removes the differences in the stats that you don't understand (this is the interrogation which you're avoiding or not able to carry out). I don't get drunk, I'm not frail, and I don't get into fights -so that removes some more.

So try again...[/quote]

You keep on making these assertions complete with an absence of any evidence whatsoever. You'll have to do better than "proof by assertion" if you want to be seen as more than just a kneejerk gainsayer. So lets see your figures that show what you claim. Ah, I forgot, you don't do figures or evidence do you? Just assertions.

 

[ufkacbln]

Lets assume a helmet lives up to all the claims and then lets ask some very simple questions:

1. A cyclist comes off their bike and hits their head is preventing the head injury beneficial?
2. A pedestrian falls over and hits their head is preventing the head injury beneficial?
3.A driver crashes the car and hits their head is preventing the head injury beneficial?

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 1846255, member: 45"]Deary me. I'll ignore this additional display of a complete inability to interrogate statistics and ask you the same question again, as you don't appear to understand the point I'm making.

Me - same journey - walking or cycling - which is safest?

To help you, I'll point out that the reason the scenario includes me in both circumstances is that it removes the differences in the stats that you don't understand (this is the interrogation which you're avoiding or not able to carry out). I don't get drunk, I'm not frail, and I don't get into fights -so that removes some more.

So try again...[/quote]

As before I am trained, ride a recumbent tricycle, don't take risks so does that mean I made cycling safe enough not to need a helmet?

 

[tt123]

As before I am trained, ride a recumbent tricycle, don't take risks so does that mean I made cycling safe enough not to need a helmet?

You make your own risk assessment, and then you decide if you feel that a helmet would be a worthwhile addition to your cycling gear.

 

[tt123]

Easy - walking.

And this from today's Times:

A blight on Britain
• More that 500,000 people of working age live with permanent disabilities after a head injury
• Each year about one million people attend A&E with head injury
• About half of deaths in the under-40s are due to head injury
• Men are three times more likely to have a brain injury than women; five times more likely in 15-29 age group

Against that the small number of cyclist head injuries are insignificant.

I don't subscribe to the Times. Would you mind quoting the part where it says that these injuries have been sustained by people who have fallen while walking on the pavement.

 

[Red Light]

I don't subscribe to the Times. Would you mind quoting the part where it says that these injuries have been sustained by people who have fallen while walking on the pavement.

It doesn't. You can find that information in RRCGB.

 

[tt123]

The Rhodesian Ridgeback Club of Great Britain?

Surely it's bite wounds you mean rather than head injuries?

 

[benb]

Let's go to the real basics?

Arguing about whether it may happen to you is always going to be unrealistic.

If you are trained then according to ROSPA this is more effective in reducing your risk than wearing a helmet.

If you ride a recumbent trike then you eliminate falling off.........

Does that reduce your risk sufficiently to make a helmet
unnecessary?

And we have the insane situation where training is sometimes being refused to children without helmets!!

 

[ufkacbln]

Because

And we have the insane situation where training is sometimes being refused to children without helmets!!

Yep!

 

[Red Light]

Article in the Evening Standard today. A 19 year old Fiesta passenger suffered severe head injuries when it rolled in a crash. There was no mention of whether he was wearing a helmet or not and not call by the usual suspects for car occupants to be made to wear them. I wonder why?

 

[Boris Bajic]

And we have the insane situation where training is sometimes being refused to children without helmets!!

I agree that this is silly. Two of our children were trained on schemes; I trained the third myself (the school wasn't offering the scheme that year). The two who went on schemes wore helmets. As I recall, so did the third, although I do not and never really have. There were other opinions in my household, not unconnected with the woman I adore, so I went with the flow. Such is love.

Only one of our children now wear a helmet. It wasn't a big deal for me or for them.

A thought: If making helmets compulsory for cycle training seems so utterly wrong, why not start up a scheme that doesn't require students to wear one?

 

[ufkacbln]

I agree that this is silly. Two of our children were trained on schemes; I trained the third myself (the school wasn't offering the scheme that year). The two who went on schemes wore helmets. As I recall, so did the third, although I do not and never really have. There were other opinions in my household, not unconnected with the woman I adore, so I went with the flow. Such is love.

Only one of our children now wear a helmet. It wasn't a big deal for me or for them.

A thought: If making helmets compulsory for cycle training seems so utterly wrong, why not start up a scheme that doesn't require students to wear one?

Because there are already schemes in place, and they are linked to Schools. Many Schools dictate who cycles and would not let an independently trained child ride to School without their endorsed course.

Also it is not "profoundly wrong" just a classic example of how helmet compulsion makes cyclists less safe.

Many cycle training schemes have seen a reduction since helmets became a compulsory part of the course. In Norwich the main reason given by parents for non-participation was the requirement for helmets


If you believe the Stats then the reduction of accidents due to training is greater than the reduction in head injuries by the use of helmets.
Training is demonstrably more effective and also reduces ALL injuries, not just head injuries.

 

[ufkacbln]

I also used to organise training and rides for Scouts including a very profitable sponsored cycle ride. The biggest fundraiser of the year often bringing in something like 20 % of the total income.

Unfortunately the Scout Association made helmets compulsory and we had to exclude half the boys and most of the parents form the events.

THe Group now loses financially and we no longer run safety sessions, train or run cycle event

 

[Boris Bajic]

Because there are already schemes in place, and they are linked to Schools. Many Schools dictate who cycles and would not let an independently trained child ride to School without their endorsed course.

Also it is not "profoundly wrong" just a classic example of how helmet compulsion makes cyclists less safe.

Many cycle training schemes have seen a reduction since helmets became a compulsory part of the course. In Norwich the main reason given by parents for non-participation was the requirement for helmets


If you believe the Stats then the reduction of accidents due to training is greater than the reduction in head injuries by the use of helmets.
Training is demonstrably more effective and also reduces ALL injuries, not just head injuries.

This is all sound stuff. I do not like being shot down, but it can be a pleasure when it's done with sound argument and without patronising fluff.

As said earlier, I've been 'that parent' and I went along with it, in part as Mr P suggests he did - to gain what I perceived to be the greater good.

I accept your arguments in toto, although I do wonder about the helmet requirement being the real reason. I've run a couple of PTAs in my time, and as far as I can tell there is scant link between parental inertia and the reasons they give for same. That may just be me having a moan about parents, but I think there's a smidgin of truth in it.

None of which detracts from the fact that my earlier post is shot down and spiralling earthward.

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 1848501, member: 45"]Our boys generally don't wear a helmet. It depends what they're doing. When one did his bikeability a few weeks ago he wore his because there's more benefit in learning from the course than taking some kind of stand.[/quote]




The Norwich experience showed that the main reasons for non participation were financial with the group withdrawing most were from low income families and those from deprived areas.

The choice of whether to buy a helmet was nothing to do with "taking some kind of stand" more about prioritising a limited financial resource.

Tragically these are the same groups who statistically are over - represented in the accident statistics.

The only "stand" is being made by the helmet compulsionists who are excluding the group that would benefit most from training. Why not waive the helmet compulsion and save children's lives?

Or is excluding them by taking a pro compulsion stand acceptable?