No helmet
- Thread starter Bigtallfatbloke
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Chris James
Über Member
- Location
- Huddersfield
Spin City said:
Which is the nub of the argument in some ways.
And it is a very one eyed approach as it potentially disregards the benefit of the vast majority of cyclists who are not involved in crashes / accidents.
Jaded: Thanks for your reply again. Who are the "they" in your post? Is it a particular organisation or is it just the views of particular individuals?
Continuing my line of questioning; What evidence is there that "they are only looking at one part of the overall equation" and "they are only looking at one side of that part"? Also, what do the quotes of yours that I've included in this post actually mean?
Sorry for all these questions but the level of debate doesn't seem to answer any questions, resolve any of the issues surrounding hemet compulsion and, finally, move the debate forward in any way.
It seems to me from what I've read in this thread that people hold a particular viewpoint and then just say things to try to justify those views without any concrete evidence or back up information. (Apologies if you have been able to provide valid evidence about why your particular viewpoint is held.)
Continuing my line of questioning; What evidence is there that "they are only looking at one part of the overall equation" and "they are only looking at one side of that part"? Also, what do the quotes of yours that I've included in this post actually mean?
Sorry for all these questions but the level of debate doesn't seem to answer any questions, resolve any of the issues surrounding hemet compulsion and, finally, move the debate forward in any way.
It seems to me from what I've read in this thread that people hold a particular viewpoint and then just say things to try to justify those views without any concrete evidence or back up information. (Apologies if you have been able to provide valid evidence about why your particular viewpoint is held.)
Chris James: My view about the wearing of safety equipment, whether that be cycle helmets, seatbelts in a car, eye protection in the workplace etc is that in the event of an situation occurring when the wearing of the safety equipment is warranted then the wearer will be thankful that the safety equipment has indeed been worn. (I appreciate that there may be circumstances when the wearer of the safety equipment will not be thankful for wearing the equipment; for example, wearing a seatbelt in an aeroplane and not being able to undo it when the plane crashes.)
So therefore my viewpoint differs from yours in that I believe that the wearing of a helmet has nothing to do with the benefits or otherwise of cyclists who never have the need to have a helmet on their head. I believe that the requirement for a helmet is totally relevant to those cyclists involved in a incident when it is of benefit to them.
Now there is a law in place in this country which places an obligation on car drivers/passengers to wear a seatbelt but at the moment there is not a law for cyclists to wear a helmet.
Obviously, there needs to be a debate to decide whether the compulsion of cyclists to wear a helmet is, in fact, appropriate for legislation to be introduced. I know that there will be have been serious debate somewhere which has looked into the pros and cons of helmet compulsion but I, personally, am not knowledgeable about where that debate is up to.
So therefore my viewpoint differs from yours in that I believe that the wearing of a helmet has nothing to do with the benefits or otherwise of cyclists who never have the need to have a helmet on their head. I believe that the requirement for a helmet is totally relevant to those cyclists involved in a incident when it is of benefit to them.
Now there is a law in place in this country which places an obligation on car drivers/passengers to wear a seatbelt but at the moment there is not a law for cyclists to wear a helmet.
Obviously, there needs to be a debate to decide whether the compulsion of cyclists to wear a helmet is, in fact, appropriate for legislation to be introduced. I know that there will be have been serious debate somewhere which has looked into the pros and cons of helmet compulsion but I, personally, am not knowledgeable about where that debate is up to.
Thanks for your reply Jaded; I've had a quick look at what Eric Martlew and Brake have to say and I agree with a lot of what they're saying especially on their pro helmet compulsion for children.
On first reading of their views I would say that Brake are not specifically "only looking at one part of the overall equation" and "only looking at one side of that part" but the bit I read from Eric M was not detailed enough to come to any conclusion.
I agree that as helmet wearing is currently non-compulsory then it is up to the pro compulsion lobby to put forward valid reasons for changing the status quo. However, as helmets of a decent enough standard have been an option to cyclists for only a relatively short period of time then I still think that the anti compulsion lobby should also provide evidence why the status quo should be maintained.
On first reading of their views I would say that Brake are not specifically "only looking at one part of the overall equation" and "only looking at one side of that part" but the bit I read from Eric M was not detailed enough to come to any conclusion.
I agree that as helmet wearing is currently non-compulsory then it is up to the pro compulsion lobby to put forward valid reasons for changing the status quo. However, as helmets of a decent enough standard have been an option to cyclists for only a relatively short period of time then I still think that the anti compulsion lobby should also provide evidence why the status quo should be maintained.
Spin City said:
I guess this is like some kind of air-bag helmet. With appropriate detection methods and software to assess each situation and decide:
Yes - helmet would help in this circumstances
No - there'd be no benefit
Hell NO - it'll break his neck!
Now, as long as that mechanism weighs no more than few grammes, can be fitted to any kind of bike with any rider and needs little or no maintenance once installed, then I think you've got an idea there.
Chris James
Über Member
- Location
- Huddersfield
Spin City said:
The standard industrial approach to health and safety is to do a risk assesment to decide whether something is warranted, rather than dwell upon worst case scenario.
Spin City said:
This doesn't really make sense as unfortunately you cannot only legally force those who are involved in an accident to wear a helmet without forcing those who are not involved in an accident to also wear a lid.
We really are going over old ground here, but as simile I would benefit from wearing a stab proof vest were I to encounter a nutter on the street. Several people have recently died from stab wounds and there has been a lot of news coverage of the dangers of knife crime. But no-one would think it reasonable to legally compell everyone to wear a stab proof vest just in case they were attacked when the likelihood of them being stabbed is extremely small.
Spin City said:
I agree wholeheartedly, but any review needs to take into account the benefits, or otherwise, of real world experience where helmets have been compelled. Not just considering whether your head will hurt less if you wear a helmet when you bang it. As a bit of an anarchic type I would also like to think (without much expectation) that Government should also consider if it is always right that they should interfere with people's ability to take responsibility for their own actions and not merely be dictated to.
PrettyboyTim
New Member
- Location
- Brighton
Say, I found an interesting paper:
http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/atsb160.html
"Prevention of head injuries to car occupants: an investigation of interior padding options"
The report concludes that car occupants involved in crashes would suffer less from head injuries if they wore 'Protective headwear, similar to a soft shell pedal cycle helmet' than if extra padding was installed in the car (extra airbags etc).
http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/atsb160.html
"Prevention of head injuries to car occupants: an investigation of interior padding options"
The report concludes that car occupants involved in crashes would suffer less from head injuries if they wore 'Protective headwear, similar to a soft shell pedal cycle helmet' than if extra padding was installed in the car (extra airbags etc).
Thanks for all your responses. Now where shall I start?
Cunobelin: Is BHIT still in existence? I googled but couldn't find their website although I did find a number of websites that seemed to hold views in opposition to the views of BHIT (although I didn't find BHIT's actual views).
Jaded: I took the data on Brake's website with my usual scepticism but I have no reason not to believe the data provided. Do you have information that shows the data on their website to be incorrect?
Jaded/Chris James: I wasn't talking about 'air-bag' helmets, I was saying that some cyclists have need for a helmet and some cyclists do not. Unfortunately, we will never know which one of us cyclists will have need for a helmet and when that need will be required. I totally agree that a risk assessment study is required to see whether helmet compulsion would be a wise thing to introduce. As you know some countries/states have already decided that helmet compulsion should be introduced. I also fully appreciate that there are other things to consider as well as just risk assessment.
Finally, I think the standard of debate has crept up a little, which is nice.
Cunobelin: Is BHIT still in existence? I googled but couldn't find their website although I did find a number of websites that seemed to hold views in opposition to the views of BHIT (although I didn't find BHIT's actual views).
Jaded: I took the data on Brake's website with my usual scepticism but I have no reason not to believe the data provided. Do you have information that shows the data on their website to be incorrect?
Jaded/Chris James: I wasn't talking about 'air-bag' helmets, I was saying that some cyclists have need for a helmet and some cyclists do not. Unfortunately, we will never know which one of us cyclists will have need for a helmet and when that need will be required. I totally agree that a risk assessment study is required to see whether helmet compulsion would be a wise thing to introduce. As you know some countries/states have already decided that helmet compulsion should be introduced. I also fully appreciate that there are other things to consider as well as just risk assessment.
Finally, I think the standard of debate has crept up a little, which is nice.
BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
Why would you want a helmet for something that's so not dangerous by comparison with other daily activities?
Even if cycling were really dangerous, I don't think I'd put my trust in a Magic Foam Hat.
Even if cycling were really dangerous, I don't think I'd put my trust in a Magic Foam Hat.
BentMikey: Interesting contribution. Presumably you have a list of activities that you undertake on a regular basis which you consider more dangerous than cycling.
I know that a lot of toddlers and elderly people fall down the stairs but I'm assuming this sort of activity will not be on your list.
I'm talking about activities that you personally undertake where the chance for you personally to come a cropper is proven to be more likely than cycling. I'll let you decide whether that's cycling on-road or off-road.
I appreciate that some cyclists will be more competent than others and that this will reduce their chance of being involved in a crash/accident.
I don't think that a cycle helmet should be described as a Magic Foam Hat. I know that improvements can still be made to the design and manufacture of helmets to increase their protection to the wearer but to call them Magic Foam Hats isn't really right thing to do in my opinion.
I know that a lot of toddlers and elderly people fall down the stairs but I'm assuming this sort of activity will not be on your list.
I'm talking about activities that you personally undertake where the chance for you personally to come a cropper is proven to be more likely than cycling. I'll let you decide whether that's cycling on-road or off-road.
I appreciate that some cyclists will be more competent than others and that this will reduce their chance of being involved in a crash/accident.
I don't think that a cycle helmet should be described as a Magic Foam Hat. I know that improvements can still be made to the design and manufacture of helmets to increase their protection to the wearer but to call them Magic Foam Hats isn't really right thing to do in my opinion.
The BHIT is infamous for claiming that cycle helmets would save 28,000 children a year from cycling related head injuries.
Problem was that the actual number of head injuries in child cyclists is less a tenth of this.............
Even when this was pointed out, the mistaken clai was used to mislead and scare.
As for the "Magic Foam Hat" the protection offered tese days is less than previously. Most helmets on sale today offer less protction tha those of ten years ago!
Problem was that the actual number of head injuries in child cyclists is less a tenth of this.............
Even when this was pointed out, the mistaken clai was used to mislead and scare.
As for the "Magic Foam Hat" the protection offered tese days is less than previously. Most helmets on sale today offer less protction tha those of ten years ago!
