Has your helmet saved your life poll

[benb]

take a chill pill son. - it was just a simple question , if you can't handle a question like , have you ever hit your had from falling from a bike ? If you have did it make you think a helmet might be a good idea ?
I would take a good look at your state of mind.

may I suggest your reading to much into the question , theres no suggestion of compulsion, no saying your good or bad. - just
People who decry helmets - have they ever experienced a head /road/bicycle incident.
and if they have, why didn't it influence there thoughts about wearing a helmet ?

thats it. - so please calm down and stay away from *-' buttons.

It's the bolded part:

As my wife said "those people who think you shouldn't wear a helmet need a good bang on the head to knock some sense into them"

That is so true - I wonder how many of the nay sayers have ever smacked their heads on the ground from a bike fall ? - not just come off , but actually hit their head.

that I was getting frothy about - not bothered about the question at all (to which the answer is I've fallen off a few times but never hit my head).

 

[newfhouse]

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

Because million to one chances turn up nine times out of ten, apparently.

 

[StuartG]

On average million to one chances turn up nine times out of ten, apparently.

FIFY

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

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

Again that's your view. I assess myslef being more at risk on a bike. I am probably best placed to do so.

 

[benb]

Again that's your view. I assess myslef being more at risk on a bike. I am probably best placed to do so.

Sorry, but no. You said that even at odds of a million to one, you might end up being that one, so should wear a helmet.
On what possible basis can that apply only to cycling?

 

[ufkacbln]

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.

That is why I said usually, there are some willing to discuss the point.... but again it is not the suitability or the effectivenes that is being raised. It is the reasoning behind the claim and in that case you are absolutely right about desparation. Luckily Licramite was here to illustrate the point clearly:

As my wife said "those people who think you shouldn't wear a helmet need a good bang on the head to knock some sense into them"

That is so true - I wonder how many of the nay sayers have ever smacked their heads on the ground from a bike fall ? - not just come off , but actually hit their head.

 

[StuartG]

I am probably best placed to do so.

Would that be conditional probability? Look unless you have researched this well as some here have done - you have no clue as to what the risks are. Peoples perception of risk is very often at variance to reality. By all means modify the risk with relevant personal and demographic factors. But unless you start from a solid foundation it is pointless.

 

[Licramite]

I've had one as a pedestrian caused by bl**dy cyclists. Wanna hear about it?

yes I was run down by a bike many , many years ago, the cyclist came off far worse than me.
especially after I had added a few bootfuls whilst he was down.

There was an incident a year or so ago were a cyclist killed a girl on a footpath , but as the law stands it was limited what the law could throw at him, There was a move to make cycling offences the same to driving offences
not that that means anything, its still the best way to kill someone and get the least sentance.

but this is way off topic,

 

[newfhouse]

As my wife said "those people who think you shouldn't wear a helmet need a good bang on the head to knock some sense into them"

That is so true - I wonder how many of the nay sayers have ever smacked their heads on the ground from a bike fall ? - not just come off , but actually hit their head.

I have. It's the reason I spent time researching the effectiveness, or in my case ineffectiveness, of helmets. It's the reason I changed from wearing one through peer pressure to not wearing one for more considered reasons. Does that help?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Because million to one chances turn up nine times out of ten, apparently.

Thats me ^^^ btw. If i was wearing a helmet i could bang my head like that all day but the wee guy falls over. Pretty conclusive.

 

[ufkacbln]

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/

... and how many were car drivers wanting cycists to be better protected when they hit them?

Without a demographic breakdown of the transport modes used it is really not that valuable a statistic

That is one of the reasons why compulsion is not a brilliant idea. It is shiftingthe responsinbility fom not injuring a cyclist to the cyclist being responsible for protecting themselves from the injury you just caused.

As Meier Hillman once suggested, the best thing we could do for cyclist safety is to divert the money, effort and publicity spent in trying to enforce helmets into the far more effective training of road users[/quote][/quote]

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Sorry, but no. You said that even at odds of a million to one, you might end up being that one, so should wear a helmet.
On what possible basis can that apply only to cycling?

It was an example, so sorry but yes. If i risk assess that there are certain odds regarding my injury during cycling, then i will act accordingly for what i believe is best for me. I may calculate different odds for my situation for walking. The whole thing is pov, why can't you see that? Generic stats don't define my position.

 

[benb]

It was an example, so sorry but yes. If i risk assess that there are certain odds regarding my injury during cycling, then i will act accordingly for what i believe is best for me. I may calculate different odds for my situation for walking. The whole thing is pov, why can't you see that? Generic stats don't define my position.

If you really believe that a helmet is necessary when cycling but not when doing other everyday activities, then that's up to you (even though the evidence suggests you're wrong)

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

... and how many were car drivers wanting cycists to be better protected when they hit them?

Without a demographic breakdown of the transport modes used it is really not that valuable a statistic

That is one of the reasons why compulsion is not a brilliant idea. It is shiftingthe responsinbility fom not injuring a cyclist to the cyclist being responsible for protecting themselves from the injury you just caused.

As Meier Hillman once suggested, the best thing we could do for cyclist safety is to divert the money, effort and publicity spent in trying to enforce helmets into the far more effective training of road users

[/quote][/quote]
There was a lot more to my original post but regarding this section yes i agree that many motorists who are not cyclists may have an interest in protecting themselves. From i legal standpoint i take it a cyclist doesn't have much chance if he/she sustains a head injury in a traffic related accident?

 

[Oldspice]

Taken to wearing a helmet full time (on bike) since coming off on a corner. I already own two, but rarely used them (I like shopping).

Left side says 'Ouch' and my right side says 'Man Up'