Cyclist who don't wear a helmet

[User269]

Pedestrian casualties 2001-09

• Killed by cycles: 18
• Seriously injured by cycles: 434
• Killed by cars: 3,495
• Seriously injured by cars: 46,245

Figures apply to Great Britain. Source: Department for Transport

Surely helmets should be compulsory for pedestrians?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

• Took own life to avoid yet another Helmet thread: 64,242

 

[User269]

• Took own life to avoid yet another Helmet thread: 64,242

64,243

 

[w00hoo_kent]

There, I was looking for a comment to go under my avatar :-)

 

[Davidc]

• Took own life to avoid yet another Helmet thread: 64,242

Lost will to live just seeing one after clicking on New Threads: Ditto

 

[Hip Priest]

roads are harder than heads

Well, that's the science bit taken care of.

 

[ufkacbln]

roads are harder than heads at

.. but not as 'ard as cycle paths.....

The M25 and the M6 are in the pub having a pint together and they are discussing who is the hardest, toughest motorway out of the two of them. The discussion soon degenerates into an argument.
"Well, I am obviously the hardest", says the M6, "I have hundreds of thousands of cars on me everyday and I go on for miles and miles."
"That¹s nothing," replies the M25, "Everyday I have hundreds and thousands of cars parked on me everyday and I handle it like it was nothing."
Just as he said that, Red Tarmac walks into the pub. The M6 runs off and hides under a table. The M25 looks on, a little confused.
Red Tarmac stands at the bar and orders himself a pint. He swiftly drinks his pint and leaves. Once he has left M6 comes out from under the table.
"What was all that about?" asks the M25, "I though you were supposed to be a really hard motorway."
"I am" replies the M6, "But he's a cycle-path!"

 

[Dan B]

roads are harder than heads

Perhaps a materials scientist can tell us if this is actually true, but I'd have thought tarmac is actually quite soft compared to bone.

 

[mustang1]

Seems pretty mad to me cycling with no helmet roads are harder than heads at least a helmet gives you a better chance thsan ending up in a wheel chair and brain damaged, ought to be a law making it compulsery like motor bikes, you can do 30 /40 mph on a cycle or motor bike and you can get as much injuries on a cycle by hiting your head on the road as on a motor bike. . .

Did you recently have an accident and not wear a helmet? Coz the way you write is kinda funky.

But anyway, yes you're right. Riding a bike without a helmet is crazy. The following things are also crazy:
Riding a bike on the road without body armour.
Riding a bike on the road. Period.
You should just go to the gym coz it's safer, with or without a helmet.

Now then, back to your funky writing...

 

[Sharky]

[QUOTE="You should just go to the gym coz it's safer, with or without a helmet.
[/QUOTE]

Broke my ankle in a gym, playing basket ball after circuit training!

Keith

 

[Profpointy]

[QUOTE="You should just go to the gym coz it's safer, with or without a helmet.

Broke my ankle in a gym, playing basket ball after circuit training!

Keith[/QUOTE]

should have been wearing a helmet
Rivera, Thomson & Rivera's data demonstrate a reduction in lower leg injuries after all

 

[Sharky]

The way we were playing basket ball, I should have worn full body armour.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Perhaps a materials scientist can tell us if this is actually true, but I'd have thought tarmac is actually quite soft compared to bone.

I'm hoping this is tongue in cheek. But with the helmet 'debates' on here I find it difficult to tell, any conversation could suddenly have someone pipe up with "well. If you are using that as a definition of a pedal I'm not sure what planet you are actually living on" or some such.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

From what I've seen neither side believes the 'facts' the other side quotes, both revert to arguing emotive points to a fairly equal degree and then things go round in circles while the language either side uses is examined in ever more desperate minutiae in an attempt to score points and win. Coming from motorbiking I've seen it all before, although agreed post the law so while the sides and arguments were surprisingly similar the starting point wasn't quite the same.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Which kind of proves my point. I said "neither side believes the 'facts' the other side quotes" not that they were equally distributed. I went on to say "both revert to arguing emotive points to a fairly equal degree" which is where any suggestion of equal distribution was mentioned. And now we're having to argue the language because you chose to combine the two seperate parts of the statement.

I'm happy with the concept that the helmet situation and potential helmet laws shouldn't be ignored, but I'm a lot less convinced that the way it's being treated here does anyone any benefit. The situation could comfortably be covered with a for and against sticky with new posts being about actual developments on either side of the argument. The 'no to compulsion' camp would really be served a lot better by spending their energies building constructive cases and lobbying MP's and bike advertisers rather than engaging in circular arguments on here everytime a new 'but wait, aren't helmets great' post appears.