thinking of getting a helmet after what ive seen!!

[Clandy]

I'm beginning to think dogfood may be a

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32UGD0fV45g

 

[ufkacbln]

Unable to offer any answers then?

 

[Bman]

After his last post, I'm calling :troll:

Unsubscribed. Bye!

 

[Wobblers]

Once again..... ill informed and emotive tripe.... the only joke (sadly) is that you eally appear to believe this!

Given the example of the pedestrian (3 times as many pedestrians will be admitted with serious head injuries as cyclists)- why should we contribute to the cost of his care when he chose not to wear a helmet?

Why do we allow people to walk around without helmets?

Thornhill's paper on head injuries shows alcohol to be a factor in 60% of all hospital admissions for head injuries. WHy should we bear the costs of their head injuries. Do you support pub helmets?

Now add the falls, and other causes

Less than 6% of head injuries are cycle related - why are you objecting for some obscure reason to treating these patients yet willing to acceptthe costs of the other 94% which would also be preventable if helmets were worn?

What a weird concept you have of saving money on the NHS?

Please don't feed the troll.


Might I recommend judicious use of the ignore list? dogfood, I've never felt the need to add anyone to my ignore list. Until now. Congratulations!

 

[dogfood]

Once again..... ill informed and emotive tripe.... the only joke (sadly) is that you eally appear to believe this!

Given the example of the pedestrian (3 times as many pedestrians will be admitted with serious head injuries as cyclists)- why should we contribute to the cost of his care when he chose not to wear a helmet?

Why do we allow people to walk around without helmets?

Thornhill's paper on head injuries shows alcohol to be a factor in 60% of all hospital admissions for head injuries. WHy should we bear the costs of their head injuries. Do you support pub helmets?

Now add the falls, and other causes

Less than 6% of head injuries are cycle related - why are you objecting for some obscure reason to treating these patients yet willing to acceptthe costs of the other 94% which would also be preventable if helmets were worn?

What a weird concept you have of saving money on the NHS?

Peoples experience directly affect their viewpoint and opinions. Personally, I feel glad to be alive today, and yes my helmet may or may not have saved me from being killed. Probably it was more than likely that it was because the motorist was entering a roundabout and had slowed down to observe the traffic coming onto the roundabout from the left, rather than the right of him.
All I do know for certain is that my helmet is caved in at the back.Maybe my incredibly strong skull would have meant that i would have been perfectly ok just like non-helmet wearers.
i apologise if I have insulted anyone with my comments. I do feel though that the arguments for not wearing a helmet seem to protest too much, throwing statistics and the odd scientific study to prove their case. Can i ask them why is it that you would rather strongly argue this point, rather than to grasp at any safety feature that might actually save you from any type of injury, including serious injury or death. The same can be argued for visibility on our bikes, as in why do some cyclists wear black on a cloudy wintry day, surely they want motorists to see them? Or why do some groups of cyclists insist on riding 2 or 3 abreast when traffic is coming at them form both directions. Why do we bother keeping our bikes maintained, do we avoid going out on road bikes when there is ice on the road.
Do we have any responsibility as cyclists to take responsibility for our own safety? or do we take the all too common line today of its not my fault, I cant help that Im fat, lets get everyone else to sort it out for me.
Perhaps more pedestrians get killed than cyclists in rtas each year. so what? The pedestrians dont spend 100% of the time on the road, we do. thats what we enjoy. We do it because we enjoy the cycle, being fit, getting fit , being healthly,enjoying life, living, not being injured, going out for our next ride .

Bottom line is surely we have some responsibility in all this, to be as safety conscious as we can, if only to provide an example to our kids who have athinner skulls than us?

 

[Clandy]

Peoples experience directly affect their viewpoint and opinions. Personally, I feel glad to be alive today, and yes my helmet may or may not have saved me from being killed. Probably it was more than likely that it was because the motorist was entering a roundabout and had slowed down to observe the traffic coming onto the roundabout from the left, rather than the right of him.
All I do know for certain is that my helmet is caved in at the back.Maybe my incredibly strong skull would have meant that i would have been perfectly ok just like non-helmet wearers.
i apologise if I have insulted anyone with my comments. I do feel though that the arguments for not wearing a helmet seem to protest too much, throwing statistics and the odd scientific study to prove their case. Can i ask them why is it that you would rather strongly argue this point, rather than to grasp at any safety feature that might actually save you from any type of injury, including serious injury or death. The same can be argued for visibility on our bikes, as in why do some cyclists wear black on a cloudy wintry day, surely they want motorists to see them? Or why do some groups of cyclists insist on riding 2 or 3 abreast when traffic is coming at them form both directions. Why do we bother keeping our bikes maintained, do we avoid going out on road bikes when there is ice on the road.
Do we have any responsibility as cyclists to take responsibility for our own safety? or do we take the all too common line today of its not my fault, I cant help that Im fat, lets get everyone else to sort it out for me.
Perhaps more pedestrians get killed than cyclists in rtas each year. so what? The pedestrians dont spend 100% of the time on the road, we do. thats what we enjoy. We do it because we enjoy the cycle, being fit, getting fit , being healthly,enjoying life, living, not being injured, going out for our next ride .

Bottom line is surely we have some responsibility in all this, to be as safety conscious as we can, if only to provide an example to our kids who have athinner skulls than us?

I think you will find people are not opposed to helmets, they are opposed to helmet compulsion. Helmet compulsion makes cycling more dangerous for everyone, because it reduces the number of cyclists on the roads. There is safety in numbers, the more cyclists there are, then the more people there are who understand and consider vulnerable road users. You only have to look at countries with very high cycling levels to see that. Go to the Netherlands or Denmark, both have a high percentage of cyclists, and both have a very low percentage of helmet wearing. Then look at Australia where helmets were made compulsory, cycling all but died out.

 

[davehann]

just get a helmet and be done with it!

 

[Dewi]

After years of resisting helmets I gave in last month. Reading about the Cracknell incident after getting home from a ride which included a long 45 MPH descent was a factor. I thought it was going to be hard to adjust to going out with a lid but it was no big deal - wonder way I resisted so long...

 

[subaqua]

is dogfood speed king from Bike radar ??

 

[Clandy]

An interesting article on the perceived 'dangers' of cycling: http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-articles/safe-cycling-for-kids-but-not-wrapped-in-cotton-wool/

 

[Fletch456]

I think you will find people are not opposed to helmets, they are opposed to helmet compulsion. Helmet compulsion makes cycling more dangerous for everyone, because it reduces the number of cyclists on the roads. There is safety in numbers, the more cyclists there are, then the more people there are who understand and consider vulnerable road users. You only have to look at countries with very high cycling levels to see that. Go to the Netherlands or Denmark, both have a high percentage of cyclists, and both have a very low percentage of helmet wearing. Then look at Australia where helmets were made compulsory, cycling all but died out.

And Australia has been reviewing their law with a view to repealing it - don't know if that process has finished but it may no longer be compulsory.

 

[raindog]

An interesting article on the perceived 'dangers' of cycling: http://www.bikehub.c...in-cotton-wool/

Ta for the link - well written stuff.

"Thought, judgement and personal responsibility have been replaced by metaphorical bubble-wrap, insulating children from the real world."

 

[yello]

That link was an interesting read. I particularly was taken by this stat...

There has been a 91 percent increase in cycle use on the Capital’s main roads since 2000, and a 33 percent reduction in cycle casualties in roughly the same period.

I didn't know that. A real 'safety in numbers' message.

 

[tyred]

Sam

Would he not be better with a helmet?

 

[sunnyjim]

After years of resisting helmets I gave in last month. Reading about the Cracknell incident after getting home from a ride which included a long 45 MPH descent was a factor. I thought it was going to be hard to adjust to going out with a lid but it was no big deal - wonder way I resisted so long...

45mph say 75 kg cyclist- if you go over the bars & land on your head that's over 15000J to be dissipated somewhere.
I think someone mentioned the helmet should take 100J before breaking. You're on your own for the other 14900J.