The Helmet Debate

[tongskie01]

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

politicians might add helmet compulsion to deers and squirrels as well....

 

[ComedyPilot]

Here's a wierd thing.

Type 'Dutch cyclist' in google and search images - look at all the lovely people cycling without helmets, and look at the people racing (and thereby increasing their risk of falling) all wearing helmets.

Now type in 'British cyclist' and tell me what you see - most images are of professional racing cyclists - nowhere near as many 'ordinary' cyclists.

Our media will only promote cycling if backed by sporting success, ordinary recreational cycling, commuting and touring (where the participants cycle further, more regularly, and more spontaneously) is given little if no credance.

The media is brainwashing the public into thinking cycling is only for sporty people, and if you do want to undertake this risky activity - be it on your own head - make sure you wear a helmet and a (branded logo) hi viz vest.

 

[lukesdad]

Thats down to a majority of participants though isn t it ?

 

[ComedyPilot]

A lot more people cycle 'normally' in this country than race, yet the couple of dozen top racing stars get most (if not all) of the media attention.

So it's majority rule in the Netherlands, and minority rule here.


And I hate that - it has to change.

 

[400bhp]

Here's a wierd thing.

Type 'Dutch cyclist' in google and search images - look at all the lovely people cycling without helmets, and look at the people racing (and thereby increasing their risk of falling) all wearing helmets.

Now type in 'British cyclist' and tell me what you see - most images are of professional racing cyclists - nowhere near as many 'ordinary' cyclists.

Our media will only promote cycling if backed by sporting success, ordinary recreational cycling, commuting and touring (where the participants cycle further, more regularly, and more spontaneously) is given little if no credance.

The media is brainwashing the public into thinking cycling is only for sporty people, and if you do want to undertake this risky activity - be it on your own head - make sure you wear a helmet and a (branded logo) hi viz vest.

That's a little bit paranoid. I don't think the media are that clever, nor have some sinister agenda to stop people riding bikes for recreation/commute.

Lots of things contribute to trends and (uggh don't want to use the word) "fashion".

 

[ufkacbln]

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

...or any other high activity where there is a significant or increased hazard?

For instance helmets for ice skating

 

[tongskie01]

...or any other high activity where there is a significant or increased hazard?

For instance helmets for ice skating

compulsory helmets for ice skaters?

 

[Nantmor]

....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.

In mentioning "power" I was talking about how the ideology of that part of the helmet debate works. The preferred analysis of helmet compulsion lobbyists ignores where the danger comes from, and frames the debate purely in terms of how the vulnerable can protect themselves,and ignores the evidence that helmet wearing does not work to solve the problem.
You talk about the practicality of dealing with the balance of power (which you now acknowledge). Your defeatist argument applies equally to most of the ways in which we might seek to improve our lot on the road. Do you want to slow traffic in urban areas. Too bad, the democratic majority won't wear it. TFL policy of keeping traffic flowing kills cyclists. Too bad, the motoring majority hates being stopped. I hope that we can make progress by the use of reason, and an appeal to morality. It is wrong to endanger the vulnerable, so that the less vulnerable can have the freedom to drive a fast and carelessly as they want.
Helmets are relevant because they are a red herring. They don't work, and divert the energies of some well meaning people from measuresv which might have a better chance of making us safer. I credit the helmet compulsion lobby with being these sort of people. But I think they are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Nantmor]

....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.

You underestimate the potential power of cyclists. There are more people able to ride a bike than drive a car in this country. Pedestrians and the parents of small children share many of our problems with the dominance of motor traffic. In fact we are all pedestrians for part of the time. We should not to give up, and not cease trying to improve the traffic environment we have to use, we should lobbying against traffic danger. To do this effectively we need to know what works, and what doesn't. My argument is that helmets don't work. The evidence of this is available to all. Should we use the Netherlands etc. as a model, where there are many cyclists with a low casualty rate and helmets rare, or should we follow Australia etc. where cyclists are few, casualty rates high, and helmets compulsory?

 

[Red Light]

It is the crux. On the road unless racing low risk, XC riding higher risk, Downhilling you d be mad not to.

An excellent illustration of risk compensation in action.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Red Light]

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

Too right. Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, infamous purveyors of the helmets prevent 85% of head injuries research also showed helmets prevent 75% of leg injuries while Crook and Sheikh showed that every helmet worn protects 2 people from head injury.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Red Light]

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

I bet Pippa could. :wink

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[ComedyPilot]

That's a little bit paranoid. I don't think the media are that clever, nor have some sinister agenda to stop people riding bikes for recreation/commute.

Lots of things contribute to trends and (uggh don't want to use the word) "fashion".

Nothing to do with paranoia - pure fact - just do as I did and type Dutch cyclist and then British cyclist in Google and tell us what you see.

The media portray Dutch cyclists as they are - recreational everyday cyclists. The image of British cycling is almost entirely focused on Team GB - recreational cyclists don't really get a look in. Notwithstanding Team GB's brilliant sporting achievements, that sort of media whitewashing will only tempt a few people to ride bikes, and does nothing to help promote 'real' everyday cycling.

 

[CopperCyclist]

Am I the only person who wears a helmet, yet actually voices the right for people to choose not to do so?

I often find myself explaining the various views on rotational injuries, over 15mph crashs etc when someone I'm out with notices a helmet less rider and passes comment that hey should wear one.

I always choose to wear on myself though. Am I the sole member of this club?

 

[400bhp]

Nothing to do with paranoia - pure fact - just do as I did and type Dutch cyclist and then British cyclist in Google and tell us what you see.

The media portray Dutch cyclists as they are - recreational everyday cyclists. The image of British cycling is almost entirely focused on Team GB - recreational cyclists don't really get a look in. Notwithstanding Team GB's brilliant sporting achievements, that sort of media whitewashing will only tempt a few people to ride bikes, and does nothing to help promote 'real' everyday cycling.

I responded to your:

The media is brainwashing the public into thinking cycling is only for sporty people, and if you do want to undertake this risky activity - be it on your own head - make sure you wear a helmet and a (branded logo) hi viz vest.

Statements like that can't be factual, unless you believe in some superior being.