I love helmets

[GrasB]

So that's a different cycling population to the injury statistics?

 

[Dan B]

* Let's not forget that people have been awarded damages for being coffee that's hot enough to scald them without warning it might be hot, so maybe not impossible.

Oh, not this one again. I'd like you to read http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm - the MacDonalds coffee case was substantially different in reality to the reports in the press at the time.

 

[Big Nick]

So my question is why, if you're so risk averse, don't you wear a helmet for other everyday activities where the risk of head injuries is similar to that of cycling?

I personally don't perceive that the risks are the same, if you are talking about walking, for reasons I've already given

I do wear a helmet in many activities when it is not compulsory to do so namely skiing, quadbiking, off road motorcycling and climbing

 

[Big Nick]

Ok, I can understand that even if I don't agree.
Do you only ride on the roads or at speed? If, for example you were out for a leisurely spin down the canal path do you feel the need to wear a helmet then?
One thing that I have to admit grinds my gears is seeing kids on bikes with stabilisers nowhere near a road trundling along at no more than walking speed with a helmet on, as there are no other vehicles around and no significant speed involved do you think this is taking things too far?

I always wear one but I don't really trundle along much

As for kids and helmets, surely parents are entitled to put them on their kids even for the small amount of protection they give? Plus some little kids love wearing them according to a few friends whom have kids

 

[Big Nick]

Your perception needs to be tempered with some analysis of facts.

Why, can I not wear one to benefit from the small amount of protection it affords if I wish regardless of the supposed 'facts'?

 

[Big Nick]

Another question is with all these 'facts' swilling about being soaked up by time served hardened cyclists as gospel why do the organisers of many cycling events insist on helmet use?

 

[Big Nick]

No really Adrian, it's a serious question

You seem one of the more seasoned campaigners on here and appear well informed on this matter.

I would of thought that if the evidence was so blatant that wearing a helmet is largely pointless surely people 'in the know' who are cycle enthusiasts and organise sportives, races and such like would agree with these facts and not insist on something that would potential put people off riding them?

 

[Big_Dave]

No seriously, the organisers will have insurances with conditions. It is just so simple to assume that helmet compulsion would reduce risk.

I am neutral on the helmet debate, but if insurance companies stipulate wearing helmets, then surely they must have risk assessed the helmet safety factor, surely insurance companies will not cover the most dangerous side over the safety side, if helmets are unsafe (I am not indicating that they are or not) why make people wear them for insurance purposes, it is impossible to find an event or even hire a bike without wearing one.

 

[Profpointy]

I am neutral on the helmet debate, but if insurance companies stipulate wearing helmets, then surely they must have risk assessed the helmet safety factor, surely insurance companies will not cover the most dangerous side over the safety side, if helmets are unsafe (I am not indicating that they are or not) why make people wear them for insurance purposes, it is impossible to find an event or even hire a bike without wearing one.

so why are the insurance companies and or the organisers keeping the evidence secret?

the so called evidence pushed by campaigners all seems to be discredited old papers or blatant lies.

Actually the answer to your question maybe pretty simple. Until you look into it it's "obvious" (innit) that helmets help, and hence stupid / irresponsible not to wear one - this was my view. It's inly when proper evidence is looked at that it doesn't seem to stack up.

 

[ufkacbln]

I always wear one but I don't really trundle along much

As for kids and helmets, surely parents are entitled to put them on their kids even for the small amount of protection they give? Plus some little kids love wearing them according to a few friends whom have kids

Which brings us to the Thudguard

 

[ufkacbln]

so why are the insurance companies and or the organisers keeping the evidence secret?

the so called evidence pushed by campaigners all seems to be discredited old papers or blatant lies.

Actually the answer to your question maybe pretty simple. Until you look into it it's "obvious" (innit) that helmets help, and hence stupid / irresponsible not to wear one - this was my view. It's inly when proper evidence is looked at that it doesn't seem to stack up.

The insurance companies have no need to with a vociferous helmet lobby

They do not need to work to fulfil their purpose and transfer the blame for the injuries to the victim

 

[GrasB]

Oh, not this one again. I'd like you to read http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm - the MacDonalds coffee case was substantially different in reality to the reports in the press at the time.

That's not the case I was thinking of, it was much more recent than that. This was a case that someone sued because there was no sign to say "coffee served may be hot" or similar & they were lightly scalded (iirc on their arm) when they spilt it on them selves, their arm iirc. The damages were awarded on the grounds of the emotional damage due to experiencing pain.

 

[srw]

I am neutral on the helmet debate, but if insurance companies stipulate wearing helmets, then surely they must have risk assessed the helmet safety factor, surely insurance companies will not cover the most dangerous side over the safety side, if helmets are unsafe (I am not indicating that they are or not) why make people wear them for insurance purposes, it is impossible to find an event or even hire a bike without wearing one.

Insurance companies, as someone's already pointed out, are risk averse. Most of the big cycling liability schemes are arranged by a single broker, and I think are insured by a single insurer. In most years, I suspect each scheme receives about 10 minutes of underwriter attention, and it's only when the scheme is rebroked that it gets fully assessed. The people doing the assessment are not statistical experts, they're following rules and guidelines and being asked to use their intelligence. As is often pointed out here, there is no piece of safety equipment that (a) does exactly what it says on the tin, and also (b) does not have unintended consequences on safety. I wouldn't expect an underwriter who spends 200 days a year asssessing the liability risk in factories, shops and offices to be able to grasp all of the subtleties of population risk in the context of cycling inside half an hour.

And you're factually wrong on two counts. It is possible to get insurance for an event without a helmet rule. THe CTC's standard event insurance does not mandate helmets, and as was discovered a few years ago, if you go to the source you can persuade the broker and insurer to remove the standard clause even for an event open to the public. And it is possible to hire a bike without a helmet. Just go into London and pick up a Boris Bike.

 

[srw]

That's not the case I was thinking of, it was much more recent than that. This was a case that someone sued because there was no sign to say "coffee served may be hot" or similar & they were lightly scalded (iirc on their arm) when they spilt it on them selves, their arm iirc. The damages were awarded on the grounds of the emotional damage due to experiencing pain.

Simple factual claims can now be verified via the internet. Here's the google page to look at to find your case: http://www.google.co.uk/#q=coffee+liability+case+-mcdonald's

And here's a recent case from the US demonstrating that even in the home of litigation the warning isn't necessary:
http://www.nlrg.com/legal-content/t...DUCTS-LIABILITY-No-Duty-to-Warn-re-Hot-Coffee

 

[benb]

No really Adrian, it's a serious question

You seem one of the more seasoned campaigners on here and appear well informed on this matter.

I would of thought that if the evidence was so blatant that wearing a helmet is largely pointless surely people 'in the know' who are cycle enthusiasts and organise sportives, races and such like would agree with these facts and not insist on something that would potential put people off riding them?

It's the insurance companies that are insisting on it, not necessarily the organisers.