[Closed] Helmet on road?

you have compared one group of people who are not on the road [pedestrians] with ones who are. They two groups do not do the same activity and alone some of the other group wear helmets. To draw inferences about road safety, cyclist or helmet use from this is not a wise choice.
I can see why you think they may be related but that does not prove it nor support your inference as they are unrelated activities.
Pedestrians deaths could have dropped because of better training of pedestrians, traffic calming, fewer young kids walking increased pedestrian areas etc
Cycling numbers may have dropped due to helmets alone.
Looking at the two numbers tells us that cycling numbers dropped and so did pedestrian ...the causes could be anything and unrelated [ mutually exclusive].

you have compared one group of people who are not on the road [pedestrians] with ones who are.

Not true. Pedestrians are on the road when they are killed. Both groups are killed almost entirely by motor vehicles so if helmets offered great protection then as helmet wearing increased cyclist fatality rates would decline compared to pedestrians. They haven't.

Both groups are killed almost entirely by motor vehicles

so if helmets offered great protection then as helmet wearing increased cyclist fatality rates would decline compared to pedestrians.

I get why you are doing this but it does not prove what you think it does. The reasons may be independent of each other and I have highlighted how I can alter one ped death rate] without the other being affected [cycling rate]. What a pedestrian experiences on the "road" - they are not really on the road now are they?] is not the same as what a cyclist experiences on the road- who really are on the road.
Imagine we had cycle lanes and we were excluded from cars for all journeys. if the pedestrian rate dropped you would be concluding that had no impact as well.

By the same token, there are those who advocate the wearing of cyclist defensive postures at all times. You say the helmet debate increases cyclist fatality rates, but surely the mutually exclusive numbers prove that the wearing of protective pedestrians is twice as likey to result in non-fatalaties as those who debate road safety measures.
IMHO it all hangs on whether the compensation rates are fully dropped by young kids over compensating.

We dont know if a helmet would have saved any pedestrian do we in the real world.

Yet every time a helmet gets broken in a cycling crash 'it saved my life'?

Other than that Junkyard, your rambles are an impenetrable mangling of the English language, maybe time for a lie down?

Wow! My first ever STW helmet thread and what a beauty! Lol
I love some of the ridiculous arguments being spouted out by both sides- much better than anything on TV 🙂

Each and every time we embark on a hazardous occupation, we expose ourselves to risk. It is personal choice in many cases how we mitigate this. I also motorcycle and I also horse-ride and I also use a chainsaw and I also occasionally go climbing.

In each and every case, do I think a helmet is going to save my life? No.
So why do I bother wearing them then?
Well, on a m/c it's law of course although when riding a Harley in Arizona on my honeymoon, I did enjoy their no helmet law for a 20mile stint. Yes I didn't die but by Christ was it scary! Watching the Tarmac whiz past and imaging a blow-out or a deer rushing out made me incredibly nervous.
Chain sawing and climbing are all about falling objects rather than protecting against falls. Many a time when coppicing, some unseen dead branch has come crashing down and whacked my lid.
And cycling, well, I cannot predict how and where and why I'm going to fall off. Maybe never, maybe in the next breath so when or if I do, I want to ensure that the part of my body that most defines me, the bit with all the crucial information I've spent 30years saving up, is as protected as reasonably possible.
Also, wearing a helmet provides me personally with no downsides. It doesn't slow me down, it barely heats me up, I dont care how I look so I'd feel pretty silly in A+e whilst my helmet sits in the shed at home.

As for other PPE, I nearly always wear gloves as we're genetically programmed to put our hands down first. I do not always wear them every time however which tells me I must value my brain over my palms 😉

I don't wear high viz because I prefer to assume that no one has seen me.

I don't wear pads or body armour because I'd find them hot and restrictive and again, if the worst happens, I trust my skins ability to regrow.

As for the comparison to walking- how utterly ridiculous. Firstly, pedestrians have their very own bit of road just for them along with special machines to stop traffic when they wish to cross over one.
I also can't remember the last time I walked 20 miles at 18mph average.

Comparisons with driving are also ridiculous! As long as you're complying with seat belt laws, its designed to protect you. Airbags, crumple zones, head rests and side impact bars try their best to keep your head away from anything solid.

I think it's great we have the choice to decide for ourselves and yes a helmet is not going to save your brain from every conceivable danger but really the contents of our skulls are pretty important.

Would you send a fragile package through the post without bubble wrap?

What a pedestrian experiences on the "road" - they are not really on the road now are they?] is not the same as what a cyclist experiences on the road- who really are on the road.

We'll have to just disagree on that one. I see your point but I think the fact that cyclist and ped injury and fatality rates track each other both in the UK and other countries over decades suggests the important factors in safety for both groups is measures like policing, reduced drink driving, speed cameras, road engineering, safer vehicles etc (as in better safety scores for hitting peds/cyclists).

Also, wearing a helmet provides me personally with no downsides. It doesn't slow me down, it barely heats me up, I dont care how I look so I'd feel pretty silly in A+e whilst my helmet sits in the shed at home.

No downsides to helmet wearing? I take it you wear one while walking or jogging then to reduce risk as far as possible. If not why not?

In 2011 in the UK there were 107 cyclist fatalities and 453 pedestrian fatals. How many would have been saved by walking helmets?

No downsides to helmet wearing? I take it you wear one while walking or jogging then to reduce risk as far as possible. If not why not?

So what's the downside?

As for the whole wearing one while jogging/walking. Come on its pointless everyone who is spewing shite like that. The arguement goes both ways, i'm sure the non-helmet wearers don't disable airbags etc

We'll have to just disagree on that one

fro sure some road safety features benefit both groups [ as you mentioned] but I dont think peds deaths comparisons prove anything re helmet use in cyclists.

How many would have been saved by walking helmets?

No downsides to helmet wearing? I take it you wear one while walking or jogging then to reduce risk as far as possible. If not why not?

In 2011 in the UK there were 107 cyclist fatalities and 453 pedestrian fatals. How many would have been saved by walking helmets?

I don't ever jog 😉

When walking, my head is under full control of my skeleton whereas when cycling, it is perched up in the air on top of a machine that is incapable of standing up by itself.
I never said I seek to eliminate all risk, just mitigate the ones most likely to result in serious injury to the precious data contained with in my skull!

Walking helmet ?

Shit you can actually get one, were we bad parents for not putting them on our kids ?

[img] [/img]

So what's the downside?

As for the whole wearing one while jogging/walking. Come on its pointless everyone who is spewing shite like that.

Not pointless at all. Cyclist and pedestrian risks are in the same ballpark. Depends on the measure - per km, per hour etc. By distance cycling is safer, per hour cycling is around twice as risky. So anyone who thinks road cycling is so dangerous that it needs a helmet should also wear one while walking as the risks are similar. Especially if they asset there is no downside to helmet wearing.

For some stats comparing risk levels for different groups ...

Especially if they asset there is no downside to helmet wearing.

So what IS the downside to me wearing a helmet?

And unless I missed it the deaths in the report are the result of accidents involving cars. Not pedestrians tripping over and dying compared with cyclists crashing on their own.

I'm against a compulsary ban, and don't really care what others do. I'll always wear one, my kids will always wear one and I'll always recommend one to others to cover my own back (what they do with my advice is up to them but I'd be gutted if I said don't bother and they needed it). What I fail to see is the downsides to wearing one and how I would be better off not wearing one.

When walking, my head is under full control of my skeleton whereas when cycling, it is perched up in the air on top of a machine that is incapable of standing up by itself.

Luckily my bike isn't riding itself though. At a population level the risks are similar. So the question is valid - if one activity justifies a helmet why not the other?

Sometimes I just feel like I'm wasting my time.
Oh, hang on..

What I fail to see is the downsides to wearing one and how I would be better off not wearing one.

Downsides? Cost, another piece of gear to find before a ride and look after at stops. Sweaty head. Gets in the way of my choice of headgear in wet or cold weather. Risk compensation increasing accident risk.

All fairly minor but then so are the benefits. As I have never hit my head in a bike accident in 40 years of cycling that would have been 40 years of the downsides and no upside.

What I fail to see is the downsides to wearing one

Did you skip all the bits about risk compensation?

Or just choose to ignore them as most of the "it's commonsense" crew seem to do?

Risk compensation?

You're saying I'll go slower and mince more if I don't wear one? Presumanbly to get to the same level of risk as before, right?

If that's true, then wearing a helmet would allow me to go faster, have more fun and worry less. So yes, definitely no downsides.

As I have never hit my head in a bike accident in 40 years of cycling that would have been 40 years of the downsides and no upside.

OMG. That's shocking logic. Look, if you don't want to wear one, just say 'I don't fancy wearing one'. Don't try and come up with any more justification than that, if that's your logic.

sadly the main reason I wear a helmet on the road (but not always) is that should I fall foul of an "rta or incident" then some weasel lawyer will be less able to pin responsibility for any injuries on me 🙁

You're saying I'll go slower and mince more if I don't wear one? Presumanbly to get to the same level of risk as before, right?

Yes molgrips, you've really followed that well, do carry on... 🙄

So yes, definitely no downsides.

Its a valid point made re this

if that's your logic

except that the crash may be more sever because of your new found confidence which is termed risk compensation

That would be risk over-compensation. Quite different.

If that's true, then wearing a helmet would allow me to go faster, have more fun and worry less.

Well at least that's a realistic reason to wear one. "Being safer" isn't.

risk over-compensation. Quite different

You providing the pin for this dance

irc - Member
As I have never hit my head in a bike accident in 40 years of cycling that would have been 40 years of the downsides and no upside.

I went 45+ years till a car hit me, also one freak accident a few years ago when a cyclist holding a gate open on a gated road let go of it at 15 mph going straight over a gate and landing on my head taught me its not always in your control.

Mind if I hadnt of been wearing a helmet I'd have saved the cost of replacing it.

Again with 8 pages of missing the point...

Your hat is not the issue, but it seems to be the case that 'cyclists' are rather more keen to look down on other 'cyclists' and to denigrate their fashion choices than to appreciate the real cause of death and serious injury on the roads.

Molgrips, in a rare moment of clarity, touched upon the reason many wear helmets; it's part of the uniform.

Baggies, Camelbak, helmet...
Marks you out as one of the gang, means you are not a noob, implies you are serious, suggests you are in.

It's a shame that those who argue so vociferously for helmet use don't take time to acquaint themselves with the information regarding their effectiveness.

There is no unequivocal evidence that helmets work in the way that those who support their use suggest. I wear one mainly to stop the idiots suggesting that I'm somehow deficient when I don't wear one, and to stop the stupids from looking down at me.

I've been riding and racing for 25 years, I've done more miles on a bike than I've done in a car, I know what the problem is, and I know it's not a hat.

The risk compensation argument isn't really valid with helmets because my speed on the road is dictated by my fitness- not my attire 😉
Let's not ignore that all cycling isn't equal either. In the same way that a formula one racing driver wears a different array of protective gear to Mrs Jones popping to the post office in her Micra (both could be termed 'driving'), I'd suggest its prudent to tailor your levels of PPE according to the intentions of your ride.
So for a balls out KOM chasing, 20-40mph TT on your favourite training route, you might be more inclined to wear a helmet and gloves than when meandering down a tow path with your wife.
That is not risk compensation- merely common sense.

I'd also suggest that more PPE would be acceptable in road biking if it weren't so detrimental to core temp and aerodynamics. Look at some of the road rash on the tour- protection is shunned in favour of speed.

Comparing cycling to walking is a lazy abuse of the stats. Other than being a mode of transport that occasionally kills people, they are fundamentally completely different! Otherwise, why cycle at all? There, all those reasons for cycling you're now imagining are also reasons why for one, helmet wearing is prudent and why for the other, it isn't 🙂

So yes, ride defensively, yes maintain good all round obs, yes assume everyone hasn't seen you, yes pick your routes to minimise exposure to heavy traffic, yes use a Z movement at junctions to increase your visible profile to the driver about to pull out in front of you, yes cover your brakes, yes look to go but expect to stop, yes give yourself room on the inside to avoid swerving round drains, yes allow your experience to give you a '6th sense', yes practice emergency stops so when needed you can avoid danger at a moments notice.
But why risk losing all that knowledge on the one day it goes wrong- if only for protection against your own bike landing on your head.

The risk compensation argument isn't really valid with helmets because my speed on the road is dictated by my fitness

Speed is not the only risk. What about where you cycle? And how you approach hazards?

And of course [url= http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html ]the risk compensation of drivers who drive closer to people wearing helmets[/url].

you might be more inclined to wear a helmet and gloves than when meandering down a tow path with your wife.

Yep, but some seem to regard not wearing a helmet at ALL times as foolhardy and are vocal about saying so - witness the post further back about getting comments for "stupidly" riding bare-headed up a hill at jogging pace.

That is not risk compensation- merely common sense.

No, that is exactly risk compensation. You are taking additional risks that you would be more reluctant to take without the nice safe feeling of a helmet.

Nobody is reading this thread.

270 posts and 76 voices.

[i]Someone[/i] is reading it 😀

No, that is exactly risk compensation. You are taking additional risks that you would be more reluctant to take without the nice safe feeling of a helmet.

No. It is not. Selecting higher levels of PPE in response to the size of the risk is completely the opposite.
I'm not saying "I'm wearing my plastic lid of invincibility therefore I can ride as fast as I like" I'm saying "I'm setting out to ride faster than usual, what steps can I take to mitigate the increased risks"

Anyone who frequented the Visordown m/c forum back in the day as much as I did had no choice but to become an expert on Risk Compensation mainly in response to threads about high viz 🙂

I've noticed an obvious correlation between people who don't like wearing helmets & those who seem to find convincing those scientific arguments which question the value of helmets. Of course I accept that this doesn't demonstrate causation 😉

Oh & I think crikey is largely correct.

I'm not saying "I'm wearing my plastic lid of invincibility therefore I can ride as fast as I like" I'm saying "I'm setting out to ride faster than usual, what steps can I take to mitigate the increased risks"

And if there were no steps available to you then would you ride "faster than usual" anyway?

270 posts and 76 voices.

Someone is [s]reading[/s] writing on it

...and I can't be bothered reading 8 pages of helmet discussion so though I'd add my own useless data point: I always wear a helmet when riding a bike, but I often don't bother when riding a unicycle.

After being cut up by a car doing about 30mph, I walked out of hospital 3 days later following surgery, if I wasn't wearing a helmet I truly believe I would have been brain damaged or dead.

[quote=ali69er ]After being cut up by a car doing about 30mph, I walked out of hospital 3 days later following surgery, if I wasn't wearing a helmet I truly believe I would have been brain damaged or dead.

but don't you see the only reason the car cut you up was because they saw you, clocked you had a lid on and aimed for you. If not it was probably your fault for going out feeling all invincible wearing your lid. You would also probably have been better off cyclin in the netherlands 😆

What surprises me is that helmet manufacturers haven't commissioned studies that support the fact that helmets make a difference. Bit strange that really?

Hey, crosshair, if you have such little respect for the opinions of others, and prefer to laugh and call people "ridiculous", why bother starting the thread? Your tone is very patronising.

Anyway, picking out the comparison with cars (which is "ridiculous"), you outline a bunch of things that you assert prevent head injuries. And yet...

[i]"Car crashes remain a significant source of head injury in the community. Car occupants have an annual hospital admission rate of around 90 per 100,000 population. Of drivers who are admitted to hospital, the most serious injury is usually to the head (O'Conner and Trembath, 1994).

In a previous study, McLean et al. (1997) estimated the benefits that are likely to accrue to Australia from the use of padding of the upper interior of the passenger compartment. This study specifically examined the effects of the ammendment to the United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 201 (FMVSS 201) in which passenger cars have to pass head impact tests with the upper interior. That report estimated the total annual reduction in harm to the Australian community to be around $123 million.

[b]But more impressive were the estimates of introducing protective headwear for car occupants. The authors of the report estimated that the annual reduction in harm would be in the order of $380 million.[/b][/i]
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/australian-helmet-science-for-motorists.html

Yes, things have come on since 1997, for sure, but car accidents remain the biggest single cause of major traumatic head injuries. So no, the comparison is not "ridiculous", it's valid, because it illustrates that there is a practical line that gets drawn somewhere. For some reason, people want to set that line much lower for motoring than for cycling, and that's why there is a massively entrenched PPE culture around the latter, but not the former.

Especially if they asset there is no downside to helmet wearing.

There is a big downside to the whole culture of helmets, in that collectively makes people see cycling as much more hazardous than they should. There's nothing wrong with wearing a helmet. There's a LOT wrong with being overcritical of others for choosing not to.

Anyway, it feels much nicer sometimes riding without a lid. Particularly when climbing a big mountain, for instance.

Hey, crosshair, if you have such little respect for the opinions of others, and prefer to laugh and call people "ridiculous", why bother starting the thread? Your tone is very patronising.

I never started the thread!!!! I only joined in on this page!!!
I never called people ridiculous, merely stated that some of the arguments are.

Not sure why people cite the Netherlands a s a safe place to ride, having spent 2 weeks there on holiday with a bike I can assure you it is not.

I really would urge you to take 15 minutes to watch this TED talk. You may end up disagreeing, fine, but Mikael Colville is one of the foremost experts on cycling culture in one of the two most successful cycling countries in the world, so I think it's a pretty long leap to call [b]him[/b] ridiculous.

Not sure why people cite the Netherlands a s a safe place to ride, having spent 2 weeks there on holiday with a bike I can assure you it is not.

[img] [/img]
http://www.bikexprt.com/research/pasanen/helsinki.htm

I don't need to take my time, I'm still waiting patiently for you to have the common courtesy of answering my question.

I have answered it. If you're struggling to understand, find a dictionary and look up "rhetorical".

I never started the thread!!!! I only joined in on this page!!!

I misunderstood your opening line, apologies

I don't need a crash helmet I need a pair of boxing gloves as proven this morning on Ken High St. Some drivers are just complete morons and bullies and don't like being called out on it.

ormondroyd - Member

You still have problems there with motorists not seeing you, very safe when on cycle tracks which number in the 100,000s but dont expect a trouble free ride on the roads. Also dont forget that its a country where "Foreigners" drive and come with the driving habits of their country.
Found much the same riding in Menorca, lots of respect from local cars but when cut up or passed very close at speed by cars its always a rental car.

I fell off last night. My hand's bruised.

I really would urge you to take 15 minutes to watch this TED talk. You may end up disagreeing, fine, but Mikael Colville is one of the foremost experts on cycling culture in one of the two most successful cycling countries in the world, so I think it's a pretty long leap to call him ridiculous.

Ok, so a charismatic guy spends 14minutes telling us that promoting helmet wearing can scare people off of cycling.
He briefly mentions a statistic that might possibly imply that people get into more accidents wearing a helmet but never really elaborates on that (despite 2 1/2 y of study, one brief sound bite is all he can come up with).

Nothing in it convinced me that I shouldn't wear a helmet (I don't think that was trying to be at the crux of his argument anyway, so dubious as to how relevant the clip is).

His comparisons to pedestrians and driving a car were not ridiculous because he wasn't in my opinion saying that if you believe you should wear a helmet for cycling then you just as well wear one for the other two. He was in fact referring to them in regards to scaremongering techniques.

We have the freedom to choose. I choose to, you may choose not to. When he's old enough to cycle, my son will wear one too.

They banned TJ for [i]this[/i] ?

Mikael Colville is one of the foremost experts on cycling

He may be an expert on cycling culture but I am willing to bet that I've ridden far more miles on Britain's road network than he has. Perhaps he might like to consider where I get my perception of how safe it is.

promoting helmet wearing can scare people off of cycling.

Nothing in it convinced me that I shouldn't wear a helmet

But no one is trying to persuade you not to wear a helmet. No one is saying that wearing a helmet is a bad thing, just that those who choose not to wear one shouldn't be marginalised, criticised, or viewed any differently from those who do.

Whoever said it was about the 'uniform' is right. Sadly, like the sad sheep that I am, I've been considering wearing a helmet on the road for while now, purely because I'm conscious that I stick out like a sore thumb among the helmet wearing cycling populace.

One thing I'm now certain of though, is that compulsory helmet laws are coming. It's sad, but I suppose I'd better just get used to it. My big worry though, is that once it does, how quickly will registration and compulsory insurance follow?

Has anyone mentioned how few people actually wear their helmets [i]correctly[/i]?

(In my experience) Women in particular can often be seen wearing helmets perched on the very back of their head with loads of forehead showing, whereas men often have the chinstraps loose or even undone.

If you're going to wear one then at least wear it correctly so it can give you the protection it is supposed to.

[url= http://www.smf.org/standards/b/b95std ]SNELL says[/url]:

Position the helmet on your head so that it sits low on your forehead; if you can't see the edge of the brim at the extreme upper range of your vision, the helmet is probably out of place. Adjust the chinstraps so that, when buckled, they hold the helmet firmly in place. This positioning and adjusting should be repeated to obtain the very best result possible. The procedure initially may be time consuming. Take the time.

Try to remove the helmet without undoing the chinstrap. If the helmet comes off or shifts over your eyes, readjust and try again. If no adjustment seems to work, this helmet is not for you; try another.

So, all those against helmet compulsion for cyclists - where do you stand on helmet compulsion for motorcyclists?

I don't think it will become compulsory at all. In London at least there are 8000 bikes for hire and I can't see people being forced to wear communal helmets or carry one about just in case.

This is an interesting point re Boris bikes from wikipedia

A study showed cyclists using the scheme are three times less likely to be injured per trip than cyclists in London as a whole, possibly due to motorists giving cycle hire users more road space than they do other cyclists.

Seem that the less able you are the more room you get, perhaps riding poorly has it's upsides, or maybe the lack of helmets makes drivers more careful.

So, all those against helmet compulsion for cyclists - where do you stand on helmet compulsion for motorcyclists?

Why do you ask?

where do you stand on helmet compulsion for motorcyclists?

Tricky. Motorcyclists are an excellent source of donor organs which means it is useful to the population as a whole to prevent brain death until they are ready to be harvested.

So, all those against helmet compulsion for cyclists - where do you stand on helmet compulsion for motorcyclists?

At an idealogical level I'm against it, but I do recognise that it saves lives. The same with seatbelts in cars. Being one of those pinko liberal types, I tend to think it's no business of the government to dictate to people how much risk they should accept in their everyday lives. As long as it doesn't endanger anyone else of course.

compulsory helmet laws are coming. It's sad, but I suppose I'd better just get used to it. My big worry though, is that once it does, how quickly will registration and compulsory insurance follow?

A study showed cyclists using the scheme are three times less likely to be injured per trip than cyclists in London as a whole, possibly due to motorists giving cycle hire users more road space than they do other cyclists.

Being one of those pinko liberal types, I tend to think it's no business of the government to dictate to people how much risk they should accept in their everyday lives.

The trouble is that pinko liberal socialism means everyone pays for those that are caught out by that risk.

The trouble is that pinko liberal socialism means everyone pays for those that are caught out by that risk.

You could use that logic to ban pretty much every dangerous or 'extreme' sport. That's one for a different thread though.

You [i]could[/i]. You [i]could[/i] also use it to ban much more common causes of injury and health problems such as smoking, drinking, DIY, gardening and driving.

More reasonably you could use it as a justification for the government wanting to protect the health of citizens to a reasonable level. 🙂

You could use that logic to ban pretty much every dangerous or 'extreme' sport.

Even then, they wouldn't ban cycling though because the benefit from the exercise vastly outweighs the risks, *even without a helmet*. You cost society less than if you made the same journeys by car or bus.

I came out of my house once, hopped onto the bike. rode 10metres and realised the road was very shiny - before I knew it I was laying sideways on the road on sheet ice.

EVERY time on the road.

(This is coming from someone who forgot his helmet and rode down the beast on a hardtail recently alone)

You could. You could also use it to ban much more common causes of injury and health problems such as smoking, drinking, DIY, gardening and driving.

Well I guess 'ban' is the wrong word. What we're really talking about is denying free NHS treatment and emergency rescue services to those who can't pay for it. This ball is already rolling. The end result will be less people partaking in 'risky' sports or activities because they can't afford the insurance.

I do recognise that it saves lives. The same with seatbelts in cars.

It is debatable whether seatbelts save lives overall. The graph below for all UK fatalies (excluding motorcycles) shows no drop in UK fatalities after the seatbelt law was introduced in 1983. IN fact a previous declining trend was interrupted. While a driver who crashes is safer if belted it isn't that simple at a population level.

[img] [/img]

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/11/05/seat-belts-another-look-at-the-data/

After the seatbelt law for the driver and front seat passenger was introduced in 1983 deaths of drivers and front seat passengers went down but deaths of rear seat passengers, cyclists and pedestrians went up. Looks like risk compensation in action.

[img] [/img]

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/09/30/second-open-letter-to-executive-director-of-pacts/

I think it is fair to say that seatbelts save the lives of vehicle occupants while costing the lives of cyclists and pedestrians.

ransos - Member

I have answered it. If you're struggling to understand, find a dictionary and look up "rhetorical".

No you haven't.
You Haven't answered my question because to do so would expose the flaws in the BS you propagate.

And as you seem a little confused, rhetoric is determined by the author, not the audience. Best to avoid such obvious errors when trying to be clever, because they cause you to fail.
🙂

Apparently the human body (and specifically the skull IIRC) is designed to withstand impacts at up to 20mph

Hallelujah!

The end result will be less people partaking in 'risky' sports or activities because they can't afford the insurance.

Sadly you are probably right - especially with the stealth privatisation of the NHS and moves toward private healthcare US-style.

It's entirely wrong of course because 'risky' sports make up a tiny proportion of health problems in the population and must be offset against the benefits of being fitter and healthier.

But you'll still get people sat on a creaking sofa, stuffing pizza and beer down their enormous neck, smoking between mouthfuls, who will drone on about the irresponsible mountain bikers costing the NHS so much money 😀

No you haven't.
You Haven't answered my question because to do so would expose the flaws in the BS you propagate.

I have answered your question. If you don't understand it, I can't help you any further. I suppose I could've dumbed down for my audience, but I don't intend to sink to your level.

Pip pip!

ormondroyd - Member

I really would urge you to take 15 minutes to watch this TED talk.

His love of the bicycle is admirable. Shame he uses factual inaccuracies to support his opinion, although I'm sure he'd get along fine here! 😀

So, all those against helmet compulsion for cyclists - where do you stand on helmet compulsion for motorcyclists?

In practice riding without a helmet (which I have abroad and occasionally on lanes at home) is even less practical than a convertible car, so I don't really care.

ransos - Member

I have answered your question. If you don't understand it, I can't help you any further. I suppose I could've dumbed down for my audience, but I don't intend to sink to your level.

Pip pip!

You haven't (answered the question that is, you were already at my level).
It's plain to see that you haven't.
It's obvious why you haven't.

Now why don't you stop being so silly? 🙂

I've been observing online "debate" about cycle helmets for about 15 years, and I've never seen anyone offer a new argument or change their position.
Every thread just repeats the same comments that were posted the last time.
I have no comment to make on helmets, but I am very anti cycling helmet debate. I don't think there is any scientific evidence that debating cycle helmets serves any useful purpose.

Looks like risk compensation in action

I am not a risk compensation denier but I am not convinced that is the cause here tbh

You haven't (answered the question that is, you were already at my level).
It's plain to see that you haven't.
It's obvious why you haven't.

As I said, if you can't see it, I can't help you. I'll leave you to carrying on rubbing your trousers.

I've been observing online "debate" about cycle helmets for about 15 years, and I've never seen anyone offer a new argument or change their position.

I've changed mine. I used to tend to the compulsion/ very good idea end of the spectrum, but I've become convinced that helmets are of limited use at a personal level, and have some significant disadvantages at a societal level.

Those figures don't state what they are comparing the 1983 rates with in the table? Would be interesting to see, also how do they correlate with the increase in number of cyclists if they are recent. You put more people on the road with more cars you get more deaths.

The whole debate around helmets is ridiculous.

Currently we have personal choice, and thats also if we want to ride with people wearing and not wearing helmets. Me personally I respect your right not to wear one however please respect my right not to ride with you and to keep moving along if you have a crash and get head injury.

Some people may take greater risk with a helmet than without but do we see more people jumping red lights with helmets or without? I don't know.

If you fall of your bike you may or may not hit your head. I know I did and my helmet protected it to the point my helmet was cracked, that could have been my head and I was travelling at less than 20mph, pretty sure my head hit the ground faster than 20mph though.

Would you rather take an impact to your skull with or without a helmet or do your mega skills preclude the possibility of you actually falling off your bike and hitting your bonce on something thats harder than your head.