Has your helmet saved your life poll

[ufkacbln]

It doesn't get any easier, you only get faster

At my age it is more getting slower

 

[Drago]

I'll say it again. I have no interest in dressing pedestrians as cyclists at all, beyond both groups being dressed as normal people. I am only interested in making all pedestrians and car occupants potentially subject to the same potential compulsion on the sane basis so that they wake up and see how ludicrous the idea is and join us in defending our right not to be compelled to wear helmets. It is a politics thing. See?

I am also against compulsion.

I am also against any argument involving pedestrians, motorists, etc, to support an argument against compulsion, as those very principles these arguments illustrate also act as a case to treat cyclists in the same way. It's a political thing. See?

 

[Pat "5mph"]

Still debating?
The helmet cam bbc film thread is the exciting new place to be!
Night night.

 

[Drago]

Airbags and seatbelts. Like on motorbikes? Road Tax. Like for a Prius?

As a slight aside for a moment, you may scoff, but you can buy motorbikes with airbags already, like my Dads Lead Wing. The BMW C15 scooter has seatbelts. The Prius still had to have "road tax" and then the tax bands are recalculated it will also be chargeable, although probably it'll fall into the shifted band B and be only £20.

You start an argument for features to migrate from one sector and another, and you set an equally credible intellectual precedent for it to happen in the other direction.

Exactly - it's not credible, is it?

If its all the same Adrian, I'd rather you weren't on our side with this one.

 

[Poacher]

....and so to bed. g'night all.

 

[ufkacbln]

As a slight aside for a moment, you may scoff, but you can buy motorbikes with airbags already, like my Dads Lead Wing. The BMW C15 scooter has seatbelts. The Prius still had to have "road tax" and then the tax bands are recalculated it will also be chargeable, although probably it'll fall into the shifted band B and be only £20.

You start an argument for features to migrate from one sector and another, and you set an equally credible intellectual precedent for it to happen in the other direction.

Exactly - it's not credible, is it?

If its all the same Adrian, I'd rather you weren't on our side with this one.

The problem is not only compulsion, but also the way that pro-helmet campaigns work

Look at the posts here on this thread

The bang your head against a wall and see if it hurts, or the "your family will suffer"

These are emotional blackmail / bullying and offer no realistic or helpful contribution.

This is where the pedestrian / Thudguard analogy is used best to ask why these poor and desperate attempts to coerce are only valid in cyclists - the reply is always dodged. Usually dismissed as not a cycling issue.

Then there is the "risk" issue.... The same applies. Many pro helmet will claim that they have assessed their risk as a pedestrian, and don't need to wear a helmet.

Now take someone who has reduced their risks as a cyclist through experience, training, riding style, machine and equipment - yet they are denied the right to decide they do not need to wear a helmet.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

The problem is not only compulsion, but also the way that pro-helmet campaigns work

Look at the posts here on this thread

The bang your head against a wall and see if it hurts, or the "your family will suffer"

These are emotional blackmail / bullying and offer no realistic or helpful contribution.

This is where the pedestrian / Thudguard analogy is used best to ask why these poor and desperate attempts to coerce are only valid in cyclists - the reply is always dodged. Usually dismissed as not a cycling issue.

Then there is the "risk" issue.... The same applies. Many pro helmet will claim that they have assessed their risk as a pedestrian, and don't need to wear a helmet.

Now take someone who has reduced their risks as a cyclist through experience, training, riding style, machine and equipment - yet they are denied the right to decide they do not need to wear a helmet.

Both camps have valid points. There can be no resolution IMO. For what it's worth i think individual risk assessment is a step forward, for both sides, as it at least has the individual thinking before acting.

Why not move the discussion to forward?

Do those opposing compulsion believe that it will come about anyway? If so how long before the law is passed?
Would it affect all cyclists, all cyclists that use the road or start with an age group such as under 16's?

If/when we all have to wear helmets, do we expect cycling numbers to fall considerably? Do we expect that, if the numbers fall, they will rise again once the idea of helmets becomes part of everyday life?

I have heard a lot of talk of compulsion but don't really know everyones views on the subject. I know recent stats have suggested around 79% of brits have backed the idea. http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/08/09/britons-want-helmet-law/

What do we think will happen?

Note: I am not favouring compulsion.

 

[Drago]

The problem is not only compulsion, but also the way that pro-helmet campaigns work

Look at the posts here on this thread

The bang your head against a wall and see if it hurts, or the "your family will suffer"

These are emotional blackmail / bullying and offer no realistic or helpful contribution.

This is where the pedestrian / Thudguard analogy is used best to ask why these poor and desperate attempts to coerce are only valid in cyclists - the reply is always dodged. Usually dismissed as not a cycling issue.

Then there is the "risk" issue.... The same applies. Many pro helmet will claim that they have assessed their risk as a pedestrian, and don't need to wear a helmet.

Now take someone who has reduced their risks as a cyclist through experience, training, riding style, machine and equipment - yet they are denied the right to decide they do not need to wear a helmet.

But the pedestrian analogy wasn't dodged by me. It was twice explained how the evolutionary process has accounted for falls.

Now, if someone is seriously suggesting helmets for peds and even motorists, then it surely follows that safety measure for other areas are applied to cyclists also.

But ultimately it is an irrelevancy anyway - whether peds wear helmets or not - the matter at hand is their efficacy for cyclists, and whether pedestrians wear them or not has zero influence on their suitability for cyclists.

It snacks of the desperation of someone who's lost a debate and is resorting to irrelevancy and distraction, and I say that as someone who's anti compulsion who doesn't think helmets are the universal saviour some people think they are.

 

[srw]

No? I thought that's what that "like" button was for.

 

[Drago]

This is not a school debating society.

Oh that's so funny, almost choked on my cornflakes! That from the man who's been treating it as such! Oh, that's so rich.

 

[Drago]

It would seem you're also not responsible for your own rambling if that's what you think.

Adrian, that enormous piece of guff had really made my day.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

This all cuts both ways - compulsory airbags and seatbelts for bicycles will be the next thing we'll have to endure. And while you're bust dressing pedestrians like cyclists, and car drivers like motorcyclists, lets slip some 'road tax' in the cyclists direction, make everyone truly equal.

but not really.

There is the airbag helmet already (I'm sure we've all seen it demo'd at £400 for a single use) Anything fitted to the bike would be more dangerous or require a radical change in its design and disincentivise more people than the exaggerated fear of death and serious injury. Think what an airbag does in a car- cushions you in or pushes you towards a place of safety and away from the hard jaggedy bits, do you want something fitted into the bike that seeks to actively punch you away from it when activated & the trouble is on a bike, whatever you would get punched towards would be as dangerous if not more so, or are we talking a zorb ball type gizmo to completely encase us - lovely for a theoretical argument and great fun no doubt but in reality?
Seatbelts again are a bit of a different proposition if your inside an object trying not to be thrown out of it or hammering into something hard, as opposed to perched on it having already been hit by something hard & being a lot less safe in the aftermath by having flying or broken bits of metal/carbon strapped on to you causing more flesh wounds and bone breakage as they flail about, Also removing your facility to as readily jump/get free in a minor tumble or if the bike gets trapped or dragged under a bus etc.

Not into scooters so not seen the BMW one with seatbelts, but why on several levels? & are they compulsory for use on UK roads since they're fitted? if so, what liability could BMW have if you were more seriously hurt or killed in a collision such as above where being 12 stone of flesh just falling over and breaking a leg under the fusilage of the scooter 'cos your restricted by the seatbelt from readily moving off it or if your injuries from being in contact with a ton and a half of car or several tons of bus could have been mitigated/survived by not being strapped to it. & If they're not compulsory, they're just as much of a gimmick as fitting an ice cream scoop would be.

As long as its 'road tax' at the same level as other truly zero emission vehicles, why not? wouldn't make a scrap of difference to us and would be a net cost to the system but it'd give the frothy mouthed loons one less strawman to pick at. At least Petronella Wyatt would know her mum was being run over every week by a taxed cyclist

As for the politics aspect, If the politico's thought there was money to be made in taxing us and a means of selling it as being even slightly fair they'd already be doing it - it would have mass popular support and we'd be seen by the other 98% of the UK & portrayed as such by the politicos as lawless whiners wanting to avoid our civic responsibility if we objected.

But they know that they couldn't do as suggested and recalculate it up under the current emission based process without proving the system is not as advertised and knocking a hole through their supposed green credentials - it'd need a significant and costly overhaul of the entire VEL system to find a means of legitimately charging bikes at net profit in conjunction with other vehicles. Probably for use of the physical space rather than any on any notions of physical or noxious damage caused by bikes to roads & the planet. Even then it'd have to be a peppercorn charge for it to scale up acceptably pro-rata to larger vehicles with a greater physical presence. e.g a family saloon is +/- 12x the on road presence of a bike so assume £20 'bike tax' scales up to £240 tax disc on everything from a 15 year old diesel mondeo with its exhaust scraping on the ground to a mythical water cell powered wonder car that pumps out scented fresh air as exhaust.

 

[benb]

Again i think this is your pov. Even if the odds were 1 in a million, someone still has to be that one. I think from that persons family's perspective, a helmet might have been a good idea.

In which case you should wear a helmet at all times, not just on a bike.

 

[benb]

I think you make your point very well benb. I see your views and respect them, however i dont see it quite like that when I make my choice prior to riding, i may be wrong in my decision but i think its right as i consider the risk greater when cycling. Hope i'm never in a position to prove myself right though!

And that's fine - you are quite entitled to take that view.

All I am interested in is:
-ensuring that people are aware of the limitations of helmets
-that they are aware of the lack of evidence of efficacy for helmets
-that flaws in arguments and shoddy logic are exposed
-so that people can make a properly informed decision
-that people respect the freedom of choice of people in both camps, and most of all
-that people understand why compulsion would be such a disaster regardless of whether you wear a helmet or not

 

[Licramite]

The idea of seatbelts for motorbikes,scooters - or even bicycles is utter nuts.
the absolute last thing you want in an accident is not to be able to leave the bike. - its only got two wheels - its going to fall over !

I have just got into clips on my pedals, really make a difference to pedalling effectiveness , but crickey they are dodgy , I had two clipless moments , both times the bike stopped unexpectably , I would have been fine but for the bloody clips.(MtB at the time)

The whole principle of falling and rolling is out the window if still attached to the bloody bike.

I've seen the demo of the head airbag, looks good, but I think a helmet is more practicle. - unless they could be made re-usable and much much cheaper I can't see them catching on.

I have pondered inflatable Lycra, - co2 tube under the lycra , kind of a body airbag! - but as someone pointed out , thier lycra is under enough strain as it is.