The Helmet Debate

[ufkacbln]

Well that is the question isn t it ?

Exactly the reasoning that makes the individual anecdote so irrelevant.

It can only possibly apply to that individual carrying out that particular maneouvre at that specific time and under those specific conditions.

It cannot be applied with any wider interpretation

 

[Nantmor]

Im not sure motorists give a gypsies whether a cyclist wears a helmet or not. The davey lamp anology has no relevance in this instance really does it, we ve moved on. The question here is risk, and the risk is falling and type of fall. I think are we all agreed its a personal choice, and your statement about people in power is just scaremongering. Cyclists are far more intelligent than you give them credit for. If the arguement is against compulsion....then spit it out man! Then we can have a debate, though it would be a very one sided one I agree. I cant agree though, that casting doubt on the safety of any protective item, is the way to go about it.

I thought it was obvious that I was making an argument against compulsion. If that is spitting it out, consider it spat.
Your comments make it clear you have not understood me. I don't quite know how to make my point more obvious.
I'm afraid lots of motorists, from Angie Lee, Eric Martlew and their supporters to presumably at least a section of the W.I. do want us to make us wear helmets.
Health and Safety has in mining has moved on, for what its worth. The hierarchy of solutions to a danger in the H&S armoury is well known. Removing the source of danger is at the top, protective equipment is the last resort.
Power is very relevant. Which is more likely, a properly enforced 20 mph limit in built up areas, or a helmet compulsion law? Your opinion may differ, but I know which I think is most likely. Bear in mind the successful campaign motorists waged to weaken the speed camera law. It was so succesful that drivers can still break the law on speeding as a matter of course.
I cannot see where I implied cyclists are unintelligent. If you are racing you go as fast as you can, taking into account the risks involved. If the balance of risk changes then it is rational to change your behaviour. If the course is wet, you slow down. If dry you can go faster. Similar for everyday risks. Unfortunately many potential cyclists decide the only way they can handle the risks of cycling is by not doing it. Where does that risk come from? Do you think helmet wearing mitigates that risk to any extent? Bear in mind the evidence from helmet compulsion countries cannot show any protective effect. Those countries are ones where few people cycle. Potential Aussie cyclists ( in that country blessed with a great climate and with one of the world's most sporting populations) have decided that even with helmets the only way to balance the risk/rewards of cycling is by not cycling. They cycle a lot less than us.

 

[Nantmor]

Lukesdad, I've been thinking about your allegation that my statement about people in power is just scaremongering. This seems so preposterous to me that I think you must have misunderstood.
If you look at the road environment and think about for whose benefit it is organised, I do not see how you can doubt where the power lies. It is arranged for the convenience of motorists with little or no regard for the effect on vulnerable road users.
Look at a complex junction which is designed to keep cars moving, at the price for pedestrians of having half a dozen light controlled crossings each of which impose a wait before going green for them.
Read the discussions on cycling forums of the lethal nature of certain London junctions for cyclists, which are lethal because the only design criterion is keeping the traffic flowing.
That is what I mean by who has the power.

 

[Arfcollins]

Now 14 pages of disagreement. I'm not sure I've learnt anything useful. For every anecdote in favour there is one against.

I always wear a helmet. My personal anecdotes demonstrate to me that they they have saved me from more serious injuries in two falls. But I've been considering the discussion about any possible legal obligation to wear helmets. And do you know what? If the government decreed that I must wear a helmet I'd tell them to fark off, and chuck the helmet in the bin.

This is not very scientific, like all of the arguments in this debate. But many of the posters here are concerned about their freedom to chose, and in the absence of any good data this is all they have.

Even if I throw the helmet away you will not be able to separate me from my padded shorts.

 

[tongskie01]

i fell off my bike last month. went over the handlebars. hurt my knees and elbows. maybe elbow pads and knee protectors should be compulsory.

 

[ComedyPilot]

i fell off my bike last month. went over the handlebars. hurt my knees and elbows. maybe elbow pads and knee protectors should be compulsory.

Then start a knee pads and elbow protectors thread......................unless I am sorely mistaken, this is a helmet thread.

 

[ComedyPilot]

14 pages of debate that would have hijacked other threads, cannot be a bad thing?

 

[lukesdad]

I thought it was obvious that I was making an argument against compulsion. If that is spitting it out, consider it spat.
Your comments make it clear you have not understood me. I don't quite know how to make my point more obvious.
I'm afraid lots of motorists, from Angie Lee, Eric Martlew and their supporters to presumably at least a section of the W.I. do want us to make us wear helmets.
Health and Safety has in mining has moved on, for what its worth. The hierarchy of solutions to a danger in the H&S armoury is well known. Removing the source of danger is at the top, protective equipment is the last resort.
Power is very relevant. Which is more likely, a properly enforced 20 mph limit in built up areas, or a helmet compulsion law? Your opinion may differ, but I know which I think is most likely. Bear in mind the successful campaign motorists waged to weaken the speed camera law. It was so succesful that drivers can still break the law on speeding as a matter of course.
I cannot see where I implied cyclists are unintelligent. If you are racing you go as fast as you can, taking into account the risks involved. If the balance of risk changes then it is rational to change your behaviour. If the course is wet, you slow down. If dry you can go faster. Similar for everyday risks. Unfortunately many potential cyclists decide the only way they can handle the risks of cycling is by not doing it. Where does that risk come from? Do you think helmet wearing mitigates that risk to any extent? Bear in mind the evidence from helmet compulsion countries cannot show any protective effect. Those countries are ones where few people cycle. Potential Aussie cyclists ( in that country blessed with a great climate and with one of the world's most sporting populations) have decided that even with helmets the only way to balance the risk/rewards of cycling is by not cycling. They cycle a lot less than us.

....and this has a bearing on when to wear a helmet or not, in what way ? Either you choose to ride your bike in the climate as it stands or you dont. We live in a democracy still I assume and unfortunately for you motorists are in the majority when it comes to the public highway. So untill cyclists become the majority things ain t going to change.

 

[tongskie01]

Then start a knee pads and elbow protectors thread......................unless I am sorely mistaken, this is a helmet thread.

and i did not wear a helmet. it could have saved me from my injuries.

 

[lukesdad]

Exactly the reasoning that makes the individual anecdote so irrelevant.

It can only possibly apply to that individual carrying out that particular maneouvre at that specific time and under those specific conditions.

It cannot be applied with any wider interpretation

Agreed. What is relevant though is the likelyhood of falling while taking part in different cycling disciplines.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Im not sure motorists give a gypsies whether a cyclist wears a helmet or not. The davey lamp anology has no relevance in this instance really does it, we ve moved on. The question here is risk, and the risk is falling and type of fall. I think are we all agreed its a personal choice, and your statement about people in power is just scaremongering. Cyclists are far more intelligent than you give them credit for. If the arguement is against compulsion....then spit it out man! Then we can have a debate, though it would be a very one sided one I agree. I cant agree though, that casting doubt on the safety of any protective item, is the way to go about it.

At one time or another, most people at my work have commented about my lack of cycle helmet, yet none have them have swung a leg over a bike since they grew pubic hair.

 

[lukesdad]

Now 14 pages of disagreement. I'm not sure I've learnt anything useful. For every anecdote in favour there is one against.

I always wear a helmet. My personal anecdotes demonstrate to me that they they have saved me from more serious injuries in two falls. But I've been considering the discussion about any possible legal obligation to wear helmets. And do you know what? If the government decreed that I must wear a helmet I'd tell them to **** off, and chuck the helmet in the bin.

This is not very scientific, like all of the arguments in this debate. But many of the posters here are concerned about their freedom to chose, and in the absence of any good data this is all they have.

Even if I throw the helmet away you will not be able to separate me from my padded shorts.

An unusual reaction from a helmet wearer. Id assume that compulsion would make little difference to helmet wearers as it would not change their behaviour, not in your case obviously. The danger here as Ive said before is, the tactic of discrediting helmets to fight compulsion, but it seems to be the only weapon in the armoury for some. Bare this in mind, when reading some of the arguments and evidence.

 

[tongskie01]

educating motorist about the serious effects of hitting vulnerable road users by motor vehicles would be the way forward. all out campaign should be done to change public perception of how dangerous it is to drive a motor vehicle including health issues.. hence no need for cycle helmets.

 

[lukesdad]

At one time or another, most people at my work have commented about my lack of cycle helmet, yet none have them have swung a leg over a bike since they grew pubic hair.

At one time or another, most people at my work have commented about my lack of cycle helmet, yet none have them have swung a leg over a bike since they grew pubic hair.

Well maybe they do care about you dear boy at least they not commenting on your lack of pubic hair while cycling

 

[lukesdad]

educating motorist about the serious effects of hitting vulnerable road users by motor vehicles would be the way forward. all out campaign should be done to change public perception of how dangerous it is to drive a motor vehicle including health issues.. hence no need for cycle helmets.

Cant say as Ive seen many motorists on the forest tracks around here, but if they start to appear ill let you know !