The Helmet Debate

[Nantmor]

Wasn't someone asking about motorcycle helmets, somewhere upthread? All I can find is the chapter from "Risk and Freedom" by John Adams which is available as a free download here, http://www.john-adams.co.uk/books/

A prime exhibit is a graph of motorcycle deaths in USA over the years during which helmet compulsion laws were enacted and then repealed in some states. This government produced graph, from the cover of a report urging motorcycle helmet use, seems conclusive. It shows deaths falling as helmets were mandated and rising again as some states repealed the law.
Adams disaggregates the figures, and this shows that deaths rose more in the non repeal states. The prior fall in deaths is clearly a continuation of a trend established before compulsion.

 

[ComedyPilot]

BHIT are the biggest bunch of inept, unprofessional and lying charlatans in the entire helmet debate. Most of the original high profile supporters very quickly jumped ship and distanced themselves as the claims became more bizarre and further from any form of reality

Typically they claim that helmets will save more lives each year than there are actual head injuries,

They figures for child deaths due to cycle head injuries are in fact greater then the number of had injuries in all cycling groups... etc


Even more brilliant is the extravagant, lying and unattributed claim that cycle helmets will save 50 children's lives per year.As the average number of deaths is 12 that means that cycle helmet compulsion would somehow create another 38 serious head injury accidents per year!


In the meanwhile I give you Angela Lee, Founder of BHIT showing her knowledge of how to wear a helmet that is too small, badly fitting, and apparently does not have straps, never mind actually fastening the thing in place..... a fine example of their values and I rest my case.

PS and as it is Christmas I have been charitable and toned down my views on this dangerous charlatan and her organisation!

Wipes tea off keyboard - that is hilarious - perhaps she ought to spend a little more time in the saddle, and less time preaching about helmet use (considering she obviously doesn't know the first thing about wearing one?)

 

[Alun]

From the BHIT site "Move your foot in a clockwise motion and try and draw a number 6 with your right hand - bet you can't!"
Bet I can !

 

[Riding in Circles]

I always insisted my kids wear helmets while cycling except in really hot weather when sweat in the eyes negates any benefits, I wear one when it is cold, as it keeps my head warmer, if it is really cold then I wear a wear a thermal cap, I don't believe the total tosh spoken by both sides of the debate, when I do wear one I tend to wear a good one because I have a good head. I have only ever hit my head once falling off a motorcycle, never coming off a bicycle or trike so I have to presume that the chance of hitting your head is minimal, however many moons ago my best friend died from head injuries coming off a bicycle, but the damage was to the cheek and eye socket so a helmet is unlikely to have helped. In the case of the motorcycle accident the helmet saved my life but a helmet like that would be completely impractical for cycling as it would boil your head with the physical exertion of pedaling while wearing it. I also know from that that the styrofoam inner does eventually return to the original shape over time so the old claim about it not doing so is tosh. When I wear a cycle helmet I do not feel indestructible and do not instantly take more chances so I will discount that claim by the plebs as well. The biggest issue is that the militants on both sides of the debate talk utter poo. I never wore one as a kid, I don't think they were even available as far as I recall and lo and behold I am still here as are all the people who seem to claim that every kid will die by not wearing one.

 

[Arfcollins]

Arfcollins said: ↑

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.​

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.

I repeat, this would be about freedom to choose. I won't have some jumped up politician telling me to wear plastic on my head, even if this is cutting my nose off to spite my face. The risk factor is low, the annoyance factor of compulsion is very high. I don't like being annoyed.

 

[Alun]

I never wore one as a kid, I don't think they were even available as far as I recall and lo and behold I am still here as are all the people who seem to claim that every kid will die by not wearing one.

Not every kid, just 50 per year, apparently !!!

 

[lukesdad]

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?

Blimey, you re obsessed with power aren t you ? As for the potential power of cyclists, thats how it will stay, "potential" Answer the next 2 questions correctly and the reason will become apparent to you why.

On a Forum of many thousands why do you think Only a handful have contributed to helmet debates, or even look throught the campaigning section ?

What are the reasons the vast majority of cyclists ride their bikes ? ( Ill give you a little clue commuting isn t one of them )

 

[Nantmor]

Blimey, you re obsessed with power aren t you ? As for the potential power of cyclists, thats how it will stay, "potential" Answer the next 2 questions correctly and the reason will become apparent to you why.

On a Forum of many thousands why do you think Only a handful have contributed to helmet debates, or even look throught the campaigning section ?

What are the reasons the vast majority of cyclists ride their bikes ? ( Ill give you a little clue commuting isn t one of them )

"You can lead a man to slaughter, but you're never going to make him think." Displaced from the Roy Harper thread.

 

[StuartG]

I was following (in my car) a cyclist today. A young lady on a nice bike. She was wearing a helmet. Or at least I think so for it was covered in a high-viz rain/wind protection cover. I assume she takes this safety helmet thing seriously.

Trouble was I had to follow her for quite a distance. She was inviting me to pass by riding inches from parked cars - almost having to ride around the wing mirrors - on a shopping street. Yes I could have overtaken her by leaving inches on the other side too. I won't mention her positioning at a pinch point. I could cry. I'm sure other folks experience this daily.

The point is - the cycle safety culture in this country seems to start and end with helmets + hi-viz. Wear both and you are riding safely, wear not and you are a hazard to yourself, insurance companies and BHIT. Whatever the merits of helmets + hi-viz: they are inconsequential in comparison with good road positioning, awareness, good brakes ... and much else.

The safety agenda has been subsumed by what is, in reality, a side show. That is, in itself, dangerous.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

The safety agenda has been subsumed by what is, in reality, a side show. That is, in itself, dangerous.

Wot 'E said!

 

[Riding in Circles]

The point is - the cycle safety culture in this country seems to start and end with helmets + hi-viz. Wear both and you are riding safely, wear not and you are a hazard to yourself, insurance companies and BHIT. Whatever the merits of helmets + hi-viz: they are inconsequential in comparison with good road positioning, awareness, good brakes ... and much else.

Now you are just using facts to try to muddy the waters....

 

[lukesdad]

"You can lead a man to slaughter, but you're never going to make him think." Displaced from the Roy Harper thread.

Its not me you ve got to convince ! Ive survived the war so far, but you are doing a good job of convincing people that cycling is dangerous which, it isn t. This is rather counter productive to your "potential power" plan , wouldn t you say ? Oh, and save your insults for the shy retiring types, that ll keep even more off the road and out of these debates.

 

[ComedyPilot]

I almost choked on my xmas dinner. I saw a washing detergent advert a few days ago, and it had 2 blokes with bikes (shaped objects) riding through puddles, then having their dirty shirts washed. The first thing they did was put helmets on.

I seem to remember similar adverts in the past where young lads playing rugby go through a similar scenario - did they have to wear a helmet?

No.

So, someone very likely to be physically knocked to the ground numerous times every time when participating in a pastime doesn't have to wear a helmet.

Someone hardly likely to EVER be knocked to te ground in the LIFETIME of their pastime - message clear - wear a helmet.

 

[Simba]

As I have said a few times, there is no debate as far as I am concerned. Wear a helmet if you want or don't wear a helmet if you want. Simples, I wear one but that's just my preference.

 

[Archie_tect]

This isn't a debate [yes it is]... no it's not [yes it is], it isn't! ['tis]....