No helmet

[dodgy]

Don't know about you, but I can multi-task. Something required in almost every job. No excuse not to do both things.

That's probably an over-simplification.

Btw, I'm juggling bicycle helmets whilst I write this.

Dave.

 

[Baggy]

Dodgy got there first. There are more motorists than cyclists so it's easier to deal with the former.

Anyway, I'm off for a ride now.

 

[yello]

don't you think that you have a responsibility to others to make better decisions?

No. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to think I know better.

Sorry, but the jury was in years ago to those willing to hear.

"Sorry" "willing to hear"?!! Just who are you? You can tell me your opinion but you CAN'T tell me mine! IN MY OPINION, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that wearing a helmet makes no significant difference.

Fact is that anything between your head and something you are hitting MUST provide SOME protection.

That is not "fact". That is a common perception and a can of worms statement.

By all means, wear a helmet and be happy in your knowledge that it will offer you protection in all circumstances. I am happy for you to believe I am wrong in my decision not to.

 

[Jaded]

That was my statement. I do not see the difference between moped traveling at up to 40mph to a cycle that travels up to 40mph. Moped riders by law must use a helmet yet travel no faster than a cycle can. If good for them, then it should be good for all, and yes.......

OK - last effort to get you to see that there is more to life than compulsory helmets.

Riding a bike makes you fitter than riding a moped.
If you are fitter you have a longer, healthier life.

If you make helmets compulsory:
fewer people cycle.
some head injuries may be prevented

upshot - more people die prematurely with helmet enforcement than without.

so in the wider world, "every ounce of protection" does not count.

 

[John the Monkey]

Perhaps we could, but it's a matter of low hanging fruit (can't believe I just said that ), there's more problems with bad driving than there is with cyclists suffering head injuries.

...and no good evidence that cycle helmets as currently manufactured reduce head injury in traffic collisions. That's the key - not this chimeric argument about priorities. If a government is to compel people to do, or not do, something, that compulsion should surely be based on a strong balance of fact that the compulsion is beneficial overall. Not "common sense" or anecdote.

Personal choices are precisely that, and I don't need to justify my decision to wear a helmet any more than any other poster needs to justify theirs not to, to anyone other than themselves.

Once you begin to talk about compulsion of those who share your view, it becomes far more important that properly researched and reviewed evidence bears out your point of view.

 

[Chris James]

I've fallen off shags of times and only ever given my head a single glancing (I think) blow

By the sound of it you NEED to wear a helmet!

I've only fallen off once in the last 20 years and that was on black ice at low speed. I didn't hit my head.

By the way, I agree with much of your post further up. I usually don't wear a helemt but am thinking of buying another one. A very well ventilated one. I currently don't wear one in summer because I find the sweat pouring in my eyes as I head up the many hills around here is very unpleasant. I am dubious about the increased safety a helmet gives me too as I find I tend to descend much more quickly with a helmet than without!

On the other hand, it seems obvious that a helmet will help in low speed crashes. The problem I have with COMPULSION (rather than merely wearing as helmet if you choose) is that the added cost and discomfort of helmets act as a disincentive for people to cycle and so you end up with no nett health benefit - often things are worse in countries with helmet laws. See Australia as an example of this.

I don't really seeing any posts in this thread by anyone saying that people should be prevented from wearing a helmet if they want to.

 

[mickle]

The Australian medical association which was the motive force behind compulsory helmet legislation has since reversed it's stance. So many people stopped cycling because of the new law that the overall health of the nation declined.

 

[dodgy]

And another thing, there's a theory that more cyclists on the road means the roads are safer.

Dave.

 

[4F]

ffff, I think you probably mean "Why is it that the many helmet wearers wish it to be forced on others yet the non helmet wearers see it as a choice thing and are not bothered whether others want to wear one or not."?

Dave.

ooops, now edited

 

[ChrisKH]

Personal choice indeed, however I think saying they are a fashion accessory is a bit much. I wear one because my missus will beat me black and blue if I don't. If that's fashion then I'm Karl Largerfield.

 

[davidwalton]

Because compulsion would be easy and would put the onus on cyclists. I strongly suspect that any pro-compulsion Govt would also be trying to get cyclists off roads and on to cycle paths - but that's just my paranoid take on it.

Driver education would involve continuous investment and recognition that cyclists have equal rights on the road, an opinion that seems to be evaporating...

When they introduced helmets for motor bike riders there were people who shouted about it being against their right to choose, etc, etc, etc. Basically, just about all the same arguments I generally hear for cycle helmets.

It is very little trouble to wear a helmet, so why not?

 

[davidwalton]

I know nothing of your circumstances but I can guarantee that you daily do things that another person as judgmental as you appear to be would view as risky.

It is ironic that you believe those that stay within the law but who take what you view to be unacceptable risks are somehow selfish.

I would suggest that a civilised society is based upon tolerance of other people's views and supporting other people who require that help. If you got run over by a bus tomorrow then I wouldn't immediately blame you for not wearing full body armour or even for being daft enough to get in a bus' way. Instead I, and most reasonable people, would be happy that a handful of pennies of my lifetime tax and NI payments would go to putting you back to good health.

It appears to me that your position is inhernetly the selfish one - namely the resentment you show that someone whose lifestyle you disapprove of should potentially benefit from some of 'your' tax monies.

Fortunately, you and your like are by far the minority in this country as the rest of us view other people - warts and all - as being important parts of society and not all potential spongers.

When it comes to head injuries, they are almost always serious. Head meet solid object just don't mix without something giving way.

For a small cost you could help protect against head injury. Why don't people? Is it selfish of me to expect others to take reasonable care?

Common sense says to me that if I put something that gives way between my head and a solid object my head is moving rapidly towards, I will be better off. If that is not the case, please let me know as that is the only reason I wear a helmet and believe others should as well.

 

[Brock]

Problem is nobody on the anti helmet side is willing to provide real reason.

I made a decision to wear a helmet based on reports and common sense. I am not going to take it off unless there is a good reason to.

I don't think anybody has a problem with you choosing to wear a helmet, most of us are 'pro choice' though, and I'm somewhat confused by your argument that my choice not to wear a helmet encroaches on your liberty somehow. The 'cost to society' argument is clearly bunk.

 

[davidwalton]

That's probably an over-simplification.

Btw, I'm juggling bicycle helmets whilst I write this.

Dave.

only people make things complicated.

 

[4F]

It is very little trouble to wear a helmet, so why not?

How about the potential for rotational neck injury's as a start ?