Has your helmet saved your life poll

[StuartG]

Yes Adrian but the real danger is if the plod thought I was a bad cyclist because I was not wearing one rather than the misdemeanour in question. Its never a good career move to look bad in plod's eyes. It can be expensive.

 

[ufkacbln]

Why people keep questioning this is beyond me. If someone in the pro helmet camp kept on like this there would be an uproar!

Had to smile at that one!

 

[Alun]

Other than the EN or CE marks, do the manufacturers or retailers of cycle helmets make any claims as to the lifesaving qualities of their products ?

 

[Crackle]

Other than the EN or CE marks, do the manufacturers or retailers of cycle helmets make any claims as to the lifesaving qualities of their products ?

An interesting question. you'd think that they might wouldn't you. You'd also think that they might get better at designing helmets but if they promote the efficacy of one over another or make claims beyond the kitemark, they open themselves to litigation. Result, we must read between the lines to determine which helmet might be better than another.

 

[Alun]

An interesting question. you'd think that they might wouldn't you. You'd also think that they might get better at designing helmets but if they promote the efficacy of one over another or make claims beyond the kitemark, they open themselves to litigation. Result, we must read between the lines to determine which helmet might be better than another.

I admit it was a bit of a rhetorical question !
I wonder if they would be able to back up any claims that were made?

 

[lukesdad]

As said, the answer is already available. On a personal level it would make no odds to me, besides deeply saddening me for a while. And if such a law had existed, I would probably not have two children who cycled as much as they now do.

Look on the brightside crax, if you know what i mean

 

[Crackle]

I admit it was a bit of a rhetorical question !
I wonder if they would be able to back up any claims that were made?

Dunno, you'd think so wouldn't you. Someone like Bell makes helmets for loads of different sports, they must have an extensive design and test facility and a deeper understanding of the mechanics than most.

Look on the brightside crax, if you know what i mean

I always look on the bright side of life .... de dum, de dum, de dum di diddy dum

 

[david k]

How many times do you need to be told, hardly anyone gives a toss whether or not you wear a helmet. The thing people do care about is the potential disaster of compulsion.

which is not under discussion, if it were your paranoia would be justified

 

[david k]

Yes it is, every now and then, and it is not paranoia, it is concern.

With all due respect Adrian lots of these conversations go on without any reference to compulsion by many pro helmet posters, yet those who wish to argue the point bring it up all the time, this stifles the conversation and stops any sensible discussion on helmet wearing decisions.

 

[david k]

OK, how about you address the questions about

Why helmets and not knee and elbow pads?
Why cyclists and not any other group at comparable risk?
etc.

Think we've pretty much covered that topic over and over, in the end we discovered we didn't agree.

Or, is it you didn't get the response you wanted and therefore you keep asking the same questions?

 

[Dan B]

[compulsion] not under discussion, if it were your paranoia would be justified

Your friend Pedrosanchezo has asserted several times in this thread alone that compulsion is inevitable, and that he is in favour of compulsion for child cyclists (he may have backtracked on this latter point, I'm not in a position to check back). Unless we're to expect that he can throw these comments out but that nobody is allowed to respond to them, it seems to me that compulsion therefore is under discussion

 

[david k]

Any substantive response to those points at all would have been good, unless you did give one and I missed it in which case please show me. Leaving that aside for the moment, what exactly do you feel should be discussed and isn't being?

I cannot really say much more Adrian, not sure I can add to what information has already been posted, if you dont find that substantive then fine.

I merely point out that the compulsion topic is not always helpful to the discussion at hand, when people wish to take issue with a poster who likes helmets it raised as a justification to question their decision. You shouldn't hide behind compulsion, its bizarre to bring it up when questioning someones decision to wear a helmet over and over, hence my statement regarding your paranoia.

 

[david k]

Your friend Pedrosanchezo has asserted several times in this thread alone that compulsion is inevitable, and that he is in favour of compulsion for child cyclists (he may have backtracked on this latter point, I'm not in a position to check back). Unless we're to expect that he can throw these comments out but that nobody is allowed to respond to them, it seems to me that compulsion therefore is under discussion

Fair enough if in direct response to statement regarding it.

Is the constant reference when discussing the choice, do I wear a helmet or not, that I find is unhelpful to a respectful and therefore rewarding discussion

 

[david k]

I'm sorry but I don't think that any answer given thus far has been substantive at all so go on give us a substantive answer to this question: If cyclists and pedestrians have a comparable risk of acquiring a head injury, and the hospital stats do suggest that this is the case, why do we have a culture of promoting cycle helmets but not pedestrian helmets?

I cannot talk for others, just as much as you can't. I can tell you, yet again I might add, that I view the risks greater when cycling than walking, and that informs my decision.

 

[david k]

Yes we know that you view the risks as greater but you have been shown the evidence that the degree to which it genuinely is greater, if at all, is not so significant as to justify the decision cycling dangerous enough for helmet but walking safe enough for no helmet and that what you called an informed decision is in fact pretty much the exact opposite. So on what basis do you really make that decision?

Not sure I ever said informed? But anyway, if the evidence is inconclusive either way I'm left to make my own decision, this is something I believe your in favour of, personal choice. I still believe the risk is greater on a cycle than walking and yes thats the decision I make.

You say you dont mind if I wear one or not, that doesnt appear the case here, you continually challenge my decision and your posts are pushy about the decision I have made. I consider this a hypocritical view, you claim freedom of choice, you say people shouldnt suggest you should wear a helmet yet you do the same from the alternate view. I say you are more hypocritical due to this than I am for wearing a helmet when cycling but not walking