Has your helmet saved your life poll

[ufkacbln]

As it stands i can't think of a better option. I'd suggest the older they get the more grey the area will become though.

Excellent - so the best option is to give parents the choice

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Excellent - so the best option is to give parents the choice

"As it stands". My opinion will make not one bit of difference if the law changes in favour of compulsion.

 

[david k]

On this forum, we frequently get people implying that we're idiotic, suicidal, or stupid for not wearing a helmet. In society at large, I am often asked about it, and in quite a few sportives helmet use is mandatory.

What the pro-helmeters are being asked to justify is their arguments and logic. And that's important, because every unsubstantiated argument on here in favour of helmets is also used by lobbyists who want to remove our freedom of choice and make helmets compulsory.

To clarify: I utterly support someone's choice to wear or not to wear a helmet, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. I will however challenge shoddy arguments, lack of evidence, appeals to authority, and plain ignorance when they are put forward.

Thats fine benb, but recent posts seem to revolve around why cyclist helmet wearers dont support wearing of helmets for peds.

I think we all agree the risk is so insignificant that wearing a helmet isnt generally required for walking. Asking why we dont support this but we do cycling, when the risk are (claimed) to be similar. All this does is prove (if it is the case) that we are hypocrites, it doesnt prove a cycle helmet is not beneficial, and therefore I think its a nonsense argument if you wish to prove helmets for cyclists are also not required.

 

[ufkacbln]

Don't go there !!

Are halos EN1078 rated?

I must check mine

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Don't go there !!

Been brought up before?

I did add a note at the bottom that has hopefully protected me from both atheist and religious types.

 

[Alun]

Been brought up before?

I did add a note at the bottom that has hopefully protected me from both atheist and religious types.

I think it's best not to mention religion or politics on forums, unless of course they are religious or political forums.

 

[Alun]

"As it stands". My opinion will make not one bit of difference if the law changes in favour of compulsion.

Maybe not, but you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you have helped prevent many kids from taking up cycling !

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Maybe not, but you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you have helped prevent many kids from taking up cycling !

Isn't it a sad state of affairs that todays children won't ride a bike because they may have to wear a helmet too?? Some adults are a bit like that too from what the stats suggest.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

I think it's best not to mention religion or politics on forums, unless of course they are religious or political forums.

Probably a good idea. Just thought with random talk of pedestrians and motor vehicles that anything goes
A cheap shot but i couldn't resist and it is not like the rebuttal squad hold back on me.

 

[Alun]

Isn't it a sad state of affairs that todays children won't ride a bike because they may have to wear a helmet too?? Some adults are a bit like that too from what the stats suggest.

It maybe sad, but it will get worse if helmet compulsion is forced upon kids. It won't encourage parents to buy their kids a bike either, as presumably it will be the parents who would be fined if the child doesn't wear a helmet.

 

[newfhouse]

Maybe not, but you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you have helped prevent many kids from taking up cycling !

Although 12 pages back he did suggest a new concept of a magical (presumably invisible) air helmet that may overcome this disadvantage. It appears to have the same benefits as a helmet with less of the associated helmetness, a sort of homeopathic distillation of expensive polystyrene perhaps. I'm not sure how the rozzers would be expected to enforce the wearing of such a device though. How could they tell who was and who wasn't? Perhaps they could force cyclists to crash, secure in the knowledge that only the evil transgressors would be hurt?

Is this making any sort of sense?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Although 12 pages back he did suggest a new concept of a magical (presumably invisible) air helmet that may overcome this disadvantage. It appears to have the same benefits as a helmet with less of the associated helmetness, a sort of homeopathic distillation of expensive polystyrene perhaps. I'm not sure how the rozzers would be expected to enforce the wearing of such a device though. How could they tell who was and who wasn't? Perhaps they could force cyclists to crash, secure in the knowledge that only the evil transgressors would be hurt?

Is this making any sort of sense?

I am going to Dragons Den with that!!!

 

[Dan B]

I think we all agree the risk is so insignificant that wearing a helmet isnt generally required for walking. Asking why we dont support this but we do cycling, when the risk are (claimed) to be similar. All this does is prove (if it is the case) that we are hypocrites

Do you really believe yourself to be a hypocrite? I don't see that in your posts, I really would prefer to think you were misinformed.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

It maybe sad, but it will get worse if helmet compulsion is forced upon kids. It won't encourage parents to buy their kids a bike either, as presumably it will be the parents who would be fined if the child doesn't wear a helmet.

It is the parents who get fined for kids not wearing belts so i would suggest that is correct.

I actually think cycling will suffer at first but after a while it will become the norm (no not you Norm). No matter how much people moan, the majority usually come around in the end. Remember the outcry when they banned smoking in pubs?? Now many have given up smoking and very few still complain about it.

 

[Alun]

Although 12 pages back he did suggest a new concept of a magical (presumably invisible) air helmet that may overcome this disadvantage. It appears to have the same benefits as a helmet with less of the associated helmetness, a sort of homeopathic distillation of expensive polystyrene perhaps. I'm not sure how the rozzers would be expected to enforce the wearing of such a device though. How could they tell who was and who wasn't? Perhaps they could force cyclists to crash, secure in the knowledge that only the evil transgressors would be hurt?

Is this making any sort of sense?

If I'm honest, no !