Pro-helmet article on BBC One Show right now

[davefb]

I don't. I used to crash my motorbike, regularly, it was having a negative impact on my family and earning capacity. My injuries were limited to broken bones, fortunately, due to good quality leathers and armour. I felt pretty damn invincible I can tell you! That's why I rode recklessly.

I've ridden since 2001, motorbike and Vespa, without any protective gear (except my hlemet and I'd junk that if I could) and have had zero accidents. I am hyper aware of my vulnerability, for me, safety gear had a negative impact on my riding.

or you grew up ?

 

[davefb]

I know two other people who broke their hips like that on ice. Neither had head injuries but I don't know whether they were helmets or not although one is almost certainly not. Mandatory body armour when it's icy?

i'm assuming you dont walk out with high heels in the ice ?


mind you, i have seen clowns in the ice/snow with just flat soled leather shoes on OR women with heels walking to work...... you do have to wonder what logic they're using...

and yes,, slipping about like idiots..

 

[davefb]

A thought popped in my head today. No one ever looks at a smashed up car, with the roof all in and the bonnet pushed right back, and says "wow, looks like the car saved the guy's life!"

They look at the car and go "Jesus. How did anyone survive?"

People look at a smashed cycle helmet and instantly say "helmet must have saved a life."

I dont get the point...

cars didnt get engineered to 'save lives' by accident, it took a lot of effort... i'm guessing helmet nay sayers also dont bother with seatbelts, turn the airbag off , strengthen the crush zones, put bolts back in the cabin ( behind flimsy plastic), remove the devices that stop the doors opening, put the old style of glass back , have just one rear view mirror , dont bother with lights , put back the stuff underneath the bonnet thats been removed to stop heads being smashed , change the covers for the windscreen wipers which break heads , swap plastic bumpers for metal ones , stop the steering column collapsing , move the heavy bits of engine back to 'just in front of the legs' remove the side impact bars... ( i'm running out of ideas now )

so , they SHOULD say 'blimey that car saved his life'

 

[MarkF]

were did i say abusive?, your making quotes up now to continue your point.

If i quote H&S its because wearing of protective equipment is in realtion to health and safety.

No, you said "if thats your view i respect it, shame you cannot afford me the same courtesy" when I replied but called you "intransigent", it was certainly a courtious reply. I feel safer without a helmet, for sensible solid reasons, you can't or won't accept that. Snorri made an interesting post, one I agreed with, you called it a "load of rubbish", you are intransigent and the thought of a night out with you and an intreminable risk assessment is sending my yin yang levels mental.

 

[screenman]

MarkF, can I ask why you feel safer without a helmet. Just curiosity.

 

[Bromptonaut]

MarkF, can I ask why you feel safer without a helmet. Just curiosity.

Mark might reply in due course but I suspect he and I have the same starting point.

I accept there might be some increase in safety from wearing one. But the gain is not enough to outweigh the discomfort/inconvenience of using the damn thing riding familiar routes on public roads & at a reasonably sedate pace

If I was bouncing around on an MTB on unknown black rated routes or stunt jumping on a BMX my calculation might be different.

Smokin Joe of this parish and I have both, idependently, suggested there is an analogy between helmets & condoms. In both cases the need for the precaution depends on the inherent risk of the activity, the other control measures that might be in place and the consequences if the risks all arive together.

 

[david k]

No, you said "if thats your view i respect it, shame you cannot afford me the same courtesy" when I replied but called you "intransigent", it was certainly a courtious reply. I feel safer without a helmet, for sensible solid reasons, you can't or won't accept that. Snorri made an interesting post, one I agreed with, you called it a "load of rubbish", you are intransigent and the thought of a night out with you and an intreminable risk assessment is sending my yin yang levels mental.

I don recall typing it was a load of rubbish but if i did it would be because i thought it was. tHTS KINDA THE IDEA OF FORUMS WERE PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN FEELINGS KNOWN. tO HAVE AN OPINION ISNT intransigent but forcing your opinion on others then getting personal when they wont agree with you certainly is.

I have repeated myself enough here. I have said i respect your opinion, i have said i wont change my mind because you and others have not convinced me of your argument, i dont agree with you. If that annoys you then so be it, my views are the same despite listening to your points and i wont be pushed into seeing it any other way, so theres nothing more to add

 

[Chutzpah]

You've read the Walker report, although I think he used a blonde wig not the pink one pictured above.

It was a brunette wig, he confirmed in person it at a talk in Bath last month that I helped organise

Supposedly one paper said "blonde" and the rest reported it as that afterwards.

 

[ufkacbln]

you may find the logic difficult but i dont, if i am wrong for wearing a helmet when riding and not when driving, then i am not on my own as the majority of people i see on bikes or in cars are in agreement with me. You appear to be in the minority, that in turn doesnt mean you are wrong. But it still means i dont agree with your views

So in a car you are allowed to weigh up the options and decide for yourself, yet the same proces is denied when riding a bicycle?

 

[Peter91]

So in a car you are allowed to weigh up the options and decide for yourself, yet the same proces is denied when riding a bicycle?

Cars offer crash protection. A piece of aluminium with wheels on doesn't.

 

[downfader]

Cars offer crash protection. A piece of aluminium with wheels on doesn't.

Thats not strictly true though is it.

When I used to fill the vending machines in A&E you'd meet drivers with head injuries a heck of a lot. Even seatbelts can fail in side on and when both front drivers' sides meet head-on, spinning the car around. Dont start on airbags, though.... we'd be here all day. They're more contentious than helmets.

I forget the numbers (its been said on here a few times) - more drivers get a head or brain injury in a crash than cyclists, even in terms of percentages of KSIs iirc.

 

[ufkacbln]

Thats not strictly true though is it.

When I used to fill the vending machines in A&E you'd meet drivers with head injuries a heck of a lot. Even seatbelts can fail in side on and when both front drivers' sides meet head-on, spinning the car around. Dont start on airbags, though.... we'd be here all day. They're more contentious than helmets.

I forget the numbers (its been said on here a few times) - more drivers get a head or brain injury in a crash than cyclists, even in terms of percentages of KSIs iirc.

But somehow these head injuries, hurt less, are less traumatic and hence not worth preventing..........