Do you wear a helmet on your commute?

[4F]

Right you asked for it http://www.thudguard.com/?gclid=CPW0rrSI-bECFUNTfAodp34A8g

Fill your boots

 

[mickle]

....... smell like a sumos jockstrap after w while .....

You know this how?

 

[StuartG]

Pedestrians are at risk of falling off a bicyle at speed and falling on their heads? That's a special type of pedestrian, called a "cyclist".

There are other sorts of pedestrians who get on buses. Here in London they get crowded and people have to stand. They zoom down bus lanes and come to a grinding halt when a "cyclist" or other vehicle careers in front of them. Buses have brakes. The pedestrians on board don't. Result is a not uncommon visit to the local hospital (several on my route) to drop off the wounded. This can be serious because buses carry a disproportionate number of elderly, disabled and pregnant pedestrians.

Now logically if I can show they are more likely to suffer injury than the cyclist - should they be encouraged to wear helmets. Should that pregnant mother be castigated for potentially depriving her family and foetus of protection?

Somehow that doesn't happen. But if the police person admonishes the cyclist for his bad cycling he might not let the (irrelevant) fact that a helmet was not being worn go without mention. Just sayin'

 

[benb]

Pedestrians are at risk of falling off a bicyle at speed and falling on their heads? That's a special type of pedestrian, called a "cyclist".

Don't be obtuse, you know full well what I mean.

 

[mickle]

... , spills and falls are commonplace.....

Then you're doing it wrong.

 

[Drago]

Don't be obtuse, you know full well what I mean.

Well no, I don't.

I'm a pedestrian quite a lot of the time, and have fallen over my faie share of times. On every occasion I was travelling at a very low velocity, as befits a normal feller on his plates. When I've fallen off me sickle - thankfully not very often - even at relatively low cycling speeds I've been travelling at 2 or 3 times walking pace, so immediately the kinetic energy involved is much greater.

In light of the major difference between the 2 scenarios I fail to see the relevance and was having a bit of a light hearted laugh, so I was being flippant rather than obtuse Perhaps if you had gone into greater depth with your explanation and demonstrated how the 2 scenarios present a comparable risk of, and comparable seriousness of head injury? Until such time as you do it's an example so far removed as to be meaningless.

 

[roadrash]

I wear one because the government here tell me to and not being wealthy enough to pay regular fines i find myself conforming.

cant believe i didnt know you could be fined for not wearing a helmet ... i will rush out and buy one at once ...hmm hellfrauds i think

 

[Drago]

You know this how?

I was arrested some years ago in Kyoto. You can guess for what...

 

[mickle]

[QUOTE 1996507, member: 45"]Let's not repeat the same old, hey?

A pedestrian covers everything from you walking through the park on a summer's day to a drunk stumbling across a dual carriageway. In the same way, a park bimbler on a bike is a cyclist, as is a fixie-racing nutjob. Significantly differing risk levels.

Pedestrian and cyclist are too encompassing to be useful modes to compare. Unfortunately this is abused by those who seek to serve their agenda.[/quote]
Huh? Cyclists sometimes fall off their bikes and bang their heads hard enough to injure themselves. Pedestrians sometimes fall over and bang their heads hard enough to injure themselves. Cyclists are largely expected to wear helmets whereas pedestrians are expected not to wear helmets. And motorists also bang their heads sometimes.

 

[StuartG]

[QUOTE 1996507, member: 45"]Pedestrian and cyclist are too encompassing to be useful modes to compare. Unfortunately this is abused by those who seek to serve their agenda.[/quote]
Yes - but when you get specific - then logic doesn't always follow. An example:

My mother is in her nineties. She has a history of falling. Not at speed but if there is a doorway or a table her head was likely to find it. She was falling up to three times a day and be hospitalised monthly. Stitches or sterastrips to the head, arms and legs quite normal. There was a high and real probability of a fatal fall.

This is not an uncommon scenario amongst her peers and of great concern to both the social and medical facilities. There was no shortage of people trying to be helpful and providing safety solutions. These never included a helmet or protective clothing. To be honest I don't think anyone ever considered it let alone test the evidence that it may save a life. But if I had taken her out restrained in bike trailer without a helmet I think both the social services and medical people might have raised more than an eyebrow.

Its just an example of cyclist (must wear helmet), pedestrian (don't be silly) classifications of both risk and suitable de-risking not based on any rational analysis. And if you try and be objective you start hitting brick walls with or without a helmet.

 

[beany_bot]

Why yous not wheres ur helmit whens yous a padestriens?

 

[threebikesmcginty]

cant believe i didnt know you could be fined for not wearing a helmet ... i will rush out and buy one at once ...hmm hellfrauds i think

Avalon's in Australia.

 

[mickle]

Why yous not wheres ur helmit whens yous a padestriens?

It's hard to argue with this statement.

 

[beany_bot]

Yes - but when you get specific - then logic doesn't always follow. An example:

My mother is in her nineties. She has a history of falling. Not at speed but if there is a doorway or a table her head was likely to find it. She was falling up to three times a day and be hospitalised monthly. Stitches or sterastrips to the head, arms and legs quite normal. There was a high and real probability of a fatal fall.

This is not an uncommon scenario amongst her peers and of great concern to both the social and medical facilities. There was no shortage of people trying to be helpful and providing safety solutions. These never included a helmet or protective clothing. To be honest I don't think anyone ever considered it let alone test the evidence that it may save a life. But if I had taken her out restrained in bike trailer without a helmet I think both the social services and medical people might have raised more than an eyebrow.

Its just an example of cyclist (must wear helmet), pedestrian (don't be silly) classifications of both risk and suitable de-risking not based on any rational analysis. And if you try and be objective you start hitting brick walls with or without a helmet.

Nope, sorry, still ridiculous. Your mother is awake for what 16 hours a day? Maybe more if she is elderly. You cannot expect anyone to wear a helmet for that period of time (unless your buzz aldrin).
A cycling commute on average takes what? Less than an hour? Hardly a big ask to wear a helmet for an hour a day.
Also you mother doesn't travel around her kitchen at 20 miles an hour does she?
I'm not saying a helmet will save your life if you fall off at 20mph but it will offer your head SOME protection, could save you a nasty cut or concussion.

It's all about balance mate, you can't expect someone to wear a helmet every waking minute of everyday. That's just crass suggesting it.
However it is not a big ask to wear one while cycling.

 

[roadrash]

Avalon's in Australia.

aahhh