Having to wear a helmet to do a sportive

[ufkacbln]

mybe you could go out with the hat on in your picture clint.All pro riders have to have them on, mybe the govening body of pro bike racing has got it wrong could be down to a lack of understanding.Dident one of lances freinds die in the tour years ago without a helmet my be he might have lived with one.

My emphasis

So if helmets were compulsory for professional racing drivers this would be an argument for all drivers to wear them?

Or do the RAC /ACU and the racing authorities also have it wrong?

Incidentally the point avoided earlier..... There is also scrutineering of helmets for standard, condition and fitting for car racing under these regulations


Finally Fabio Castelli's injuries were mostly facial and it was breathing problems that caused his fatality rather than the head injury. ONly a full face helmet would have offered any protection.

SO from your arguments we are loking at full face helmets for cyclists and helmets for all car drivers - excellent

 

[screenman]

Did I actually read on here that when you fall off your bike your shoulder will hit the ground first and therefore your head will not get damaged at all? Well I have a flexible neck and the weight of my head I am sure will keep it moving for a while after the rest of my body stops. Now I want my head to reasonable close to where my shoulders stop, we are not talking cars, walkers sky divers or even skinny dippers we are talking cyclist. I think even the most dedicated anti helmet guy will give credit to a helmet offering some protection in some kinds of unfortunate circumstances.

 

[Harry73]

I agree with the previous post, my 13 year old son is getting into road cycling and I won't let him anywhere near the road without a helmet. It's madness not to promote that safety aspect.

 

[Harry73]

As a new poster, really like the discussions. The argument about the motor racing driver helmets is ever so slightly flawed as I can't say I drive my Mazda 180 mph around the roads exposing my head to the elements. I did however yesterday fly down the same hills at 40 mph on the Tour stage in Devon as Wiggins will!

As far as I can see it is a choice thing but for me, helmets can simply save your life on a ride is how I see it. For kids, I feel if they are riding on roads or dangerous areas, it's a no brainer.

 

[snorri]

As is the usual case with helmet threads, we are not defining the branch of cycling we are commenting on.
It would not seem unreasonable to me for competitive cyclists and off-roaders to decide to wear helmets as these appear to be at higher risk than utility and leisure cyclists on the road.

 

[PpPete]

And I think I've read that helmets are pretty ineffective in collisions with motor vehicles anyway...so I'm afraid Harry that your argument may also be flawed.

 

[Threelionsbrian]

And I think I've read that helmets are pretty ineffective in collisions with motor vehicles anyway...so I'm afraid Harry that your argument may also be flawed.

Regardless of hypothetical incidents as we know it doesn't happen like is does in the lab, if you wear a lid you have at least tried to protect yourself to the best of your ability. Should injury or worse occur you have no regrets on the protection issue.

 

[Baggy]

I don't usually wear a helmet as I have very mixed feelings about them. Wore mine helmet on the Tour Ride yesterday as was concerned about geting swiped by someone else/falling off when I was worn out etc and ending up in a big munch of pointy bikey metal. In the end we were so far behind the pack I needn't have worried! Still, at least it kept the rain out of my eyes.

 

[Fiona N]

Yes, they are wonderful, no one gets killed on motor bikes any more.

I while ago I saw some really interesting statistics from the States about deaths due to head injuries in motorcyclists. The paper compared stats from states which had compulsory helmet wearing and those which didn't. Given that motorcycling helmets are pretty robust beasts capable of preventing quite a bit of damage to the head (unlike cycling polystyrene) you'd have expected to see a decrease in head injuries in those states which made helmets compulsory compared to static or even increasing deaths in states without such compulsion. In fact what happened was that death rate per X mototcyclists increased in the states where helmets were compulsory and amazingly decreased in states where they weren't. When the stats were unravelled, it turned out that many experienced riders emigrated, taking their experience and 'calming effect' on younger riders with them, from states when they brought in helmet compulsion to states where no such laws were passed. So the effect was that in helmet compulsory states, the motorcycling population became smaller, younger, less experienced and more risk (and death)prone while in non-hemet compulsory states there was a corresponding increase in numbers and experience, thus a decrease in death rate.

Just goes to show that helmet wearing isn't quite as straight forwards as the pro-compulsionists would have you believe.

 

[Fiona N]

The argument about the motor racing driver helmets is ever so slightly flawed as I can't say I drive my Mazda 180 mph around the roads exposing my head to the elements.

Actually the speed is fairly immaterial in a car - I received a head injury in a car accident where I was travelling about 20mph and was shunted from the side by a car doing about 50mph (according to the police). Obviously it wasn't fatal but it did give me concussion and a few stitches. On personal anecdotal experience, it's obvious I should wear a helmet in a car and not while cycling.

More seriously, the arguments against helmets for non-racing drivers (other than the people considering it are all drivers themselves and clearly don't wish to be so inconvenineced) is on the basis that racing/rally drivers don't have to cope with road traffic which requires observations of the whole environment around the car (i.e. for racing drivers the other cars are going in the same direction and there (usually) aren't any pedestrians or cyclists in the mix).

I'm not sure this is a valid argument and anyway doesn't pertain to pedestrians who, as far as I'm concerned would be much better off in a helmet - especially the drunk ones Hospitals are always complaining about the numbers of head-injured drunks, so why not do something about it: New law - you can drink but you have to wear a helmet in case you get drunk and fall over. I don't see that this is any more restrictive on personal freedom that forcing cyclists to wear helmets.

 

[Amanda P]

My helmet almost certainly saved my life or at least serious head injuries when I had my one and only really bad accident.

Thats about it really, I would never leave for a ride without one!

Just to introduce some balance, I was hit side-on by a car. My speed was neglible at the time; the car was reported to have been doing about 30. I was not wearing a helmet, and here I am fit and healthy writing this post a year later. I had no injuries that a helmet could have prevented.

I still don't wear a helmet.

 

[Ticktockmy]

I don't participate if helmets are required.

Personal choice - I stopped organising sponsored rids for the local Scouts due to the insistence on helmets.

The Group is now some 25% down on its fundraising.... but that is the cost of the restriction.

You amaze me, that you deprive a worthwhile charitable organisation like the Scouts of some of its much needed income because YOU personally don’t like to wear a helmet. As someone involved, within scouting; which you course must be because you would need a CRC to organise any event for the Scouts, dont you feel ashamed that you are letting your own abhorrence of wearing a helmet take away the fun and pleasure the sponsored rides give the scouts. I guess in your mind, sport like Canoeing, Climbing and Caving are out as well, as the Scouts Will be required to wear Helmets.


Being a youth organisation the Scouts Organisation and it leaders and helpers have a duty of care to provide, and that includes any activity with any risk, a safe environment; of course as a arranger of sponsored rides for the Scouts, you will be well aware of doing risk assessments.

Stop acting like spoilt Brat, put your helmet back on and go and gives those guys and gals some of your quality time, and help them to become better citizens by impacting your skills and knowledge onto them.

 

[pig on a bike]

Anyway thats me done with this subject I will always wear one makes me feel abit safer,It was a good comment from screenman,Sorry dident know fabio hit mainly his face.Anyway good debate one which no one can win due to points of view been different (VERY).Happy and safe bike riding everybody with or without that helmet. P.s just a note to porkypete sorry about the spelling.

 

[ufkacbln]

You amaze me, that you deprive a worthwhile charitable organisation like the Scouts of some of its much needed income because YOU personally don’t like to wear a helmet.

Ridiculous and ill informed - you have no idea whether I wear a helmet or not.

I object to excluding half the boys and most of the parents who wish to help.

As someone involved, within scouting; which you course must be because you would need a CRC to organise any event for the Scouts, dont you feel ashamed that you are letting your own abhorrence of wearing a helmet take away the fun and pleasure the sponsored rides give the scouts. I guess in your mind, sport like Canoeing, Climbing and Caving are out as well, as the Scouts Will be required to wear Helmets.

Again ridiculous and unfounded (you are not doing well) What fun is there in telling a parent that as they choose (their right) notto wear a helmet they have to go back to their friends and work colleagues and tell them they were not allowed to paricipate?

You have no idea what my stance is on helmets - you are making assumptions to suit your own agenda

As for the pathetic guesses about other activities - how do you know what activities I do and do not participate in, or my attitudes?

Being a youth organisation the Scouts Organisation and it leaders and helpers have a duty of care to provide, and that includes any activity with any risk, a safe environment; of course as a arranger of sponsored rides for the Scouts, you will be well aware of doing risk assessments.

Yep we have had three head injuries in the last four years (two requiring hospital treatment) One falling on ice in the road opposite the HQ, one playing a wide game when they slipped on a stream bank, and the most serious when two beavers collided in a bouncy castle.... Am I remiss for not assessing these situations properly and making them wear helmets for these activities?

Stop acting like spoilt Brat, put your helmet back on and go and gives those guys and gals some of your quality time, and help them to become better citizens by impacting your skills and knowledge onto them.

Again you are making ridiculous and foolish assumptions... with absolutely no knowledge of my history or what I do or do not do....

What would be really enlightening is your explanation how excluding a child or their parents on a valid personal choice from an activity helps them become "better citizens"

 

[ufkacbln]

There is so much that could be done in saving lives if the majority groups were tackled instead of a small minority.

Whilst we discuss cycle helmets to prevent children's head injuries and make them compulsory like this we may save a few lives, but allow many more children to die and accept it if it happens in other circumstances.

The good old USA is a prime example in this..

Taking 2006 as an example because I can get the facts


1,593 children under the age of 17 were killed by firearms (2.16 per 100,000 population) compared to 138 killed in accidents involving cycles (0.19 per 100,000 population)

So children are 11 times more likely to be shot than die on their bicycle!

Yet this carnage is not discussed, debated or even raises an eyebrow......... surely laws enforcing bullet proof armour should be the order of the day rather than cycle helmets?