New helmet law in Jersey

[Big Nick]

you were quite rudely requested to 'go away'.... that's a long way from what you're claiming above.

now, why should your personal risk assessment of any given situation be forced onto me, or anyone else but yourself?

It wouldn't be as I don't make the laws

 

[mcshroom]

Considering we have numerous engineers and at least a handful of materials scientists on this forum, you could suggest it but I'd be tempted not to agree.

[edit]forgot the physicists

 

[Big Nick]

Only moderators (which doesn't include TMN) can ban/prohibit. Others can request - like can you answer points made to you, or have a more open mind. But you can ignore it. I didn't see any element of compulsion in TMN's request. You did. And you didn't like it did you?. Food for thought?

No, would you?

 

[Scoosh]

MOD NOTE:

There are many threads on CC relating to the pros and cons of wearing helmets - which is why there is a complete section devoted to this subject.

Please do not use this thread to discuss the merits or otherwise of wearing a helmet. The OP is dealing with the issue of compulsion in helmet-wearing in Jersey.

Please keep your discussion to the OP's point.

Thank you.

 

[MontyVeda]

It wouldn't be as I don't make the laws

thank heavens for that.

However earlier in the thread, you claimed support for compulsion for all. What you seem to be struggling with is why should your choice be forced onto the rest of us?

 

[Big Nick]

thank heavens for that.

However earlier in the thread, you claimed support for compulsion for all. What you seem to be struggling with is why should your choice be forced onto the rest of us?

Predictable

I'm not struggling with it, any head protection is better than none in my opinion and I'm still unsure how you expect me to force this onto you??

You are anti-compulsion, I aren't (including for the Jersey kids), why is that so difficult for you to accept?

 

[up hill struggle]

Nice. But you do realize the brain damage he suffered was to the frontal portion of his brain? This is a consequence of the brain hitting the skull.

yes i did know that, it was the force of the brain being forced forward & hitting the front of his skull that caused the damage to the frontal lobe.

i personally wouldn't be all concerned about that if the back of my head had just been smashed open by a trucks wing mirror.

We're lucky to have an collision investigator in our midst.

well could someone please ask him to join in with this conversation then we may actually get more intelligent counter arguments other than getting people to wear helmets when they are walking incase they fall & bump there heads.

I also saw Cracknell's helmet on TV and IIRC, the damage was predominantly to one side

so you have seen it yet still think that had it not taken the initial impact that his skull would have done just as good a job.

What's more, you do realize the helmet cracked, don't you? You might not like the notion that a helmet could have contributed to Cracknell's collision and brain injury, but you need to consider disbenefits as well as benefits.

well aware it was cracked which must have taken quite abit of force, but hey he always had his skull which apparently would have done just as good a job obsorbing the initial impact.

im happy to accept that some of the injuries may have been increased by the helmet, if you happy accept that he could have died or been left disabled had he not been wearing the helmet, after all

you need to consider disbenefits as well as benefits.

& vice versa

 

[StuartG]

No, would you?

I wouldn't either. Nice to agree on something. That is (as it appears to me) we are against compulsion real or apparent on your right to say what you want. Well unless the situation gets extreme when if friendly advice is not taken then the law has to be laid down by the mods.

Given that the efficacy of helmets is, to put it mildly, unclear - why would you be happy to have it compulsory here or in Jersey? And if the evidence were to show that helmet wearing was detrimental to the life of the nation - that they be banned?

 

[ufkacbln]

if a law is passed making it a legal requirement for a child to wear a cycle helmet while riding there bike & as a result of that law even one child survives an accident that otherwise may have killed them or left them disabled then its worth forcing them wear a helmet, unless of course those who are opposed to the law also believe that a childs life is not worth saving?

UNequivocally another supporting argumnent and reason for compulsory Thudguards

If a Thudguard helps even one child survive an accident that otherwise may have killed them or left them disabled then its worth forcing them wear a THudguard, unless of course those who are opposed to the law also believe that a childs life is not worth saving

 

[ufkacbln]

well could someone please ask him to join in with this conversation then we may actually get more intelligent counter arguments other than getting people to wear helmets when they are walking incase they fall & bump there heads.

Alternatively:




Well could someone please ask him to join in with this conversation then we may actually get more intelligent counter arguments other than getting people to wear helmets when they are cycling in case they fall & bump their heads.

 

[ufkacbln]

well could someone please ask him to join in with this conversation then we may actually get more intelligent counter arguments other than getting people to wear helmets when they are walking incase they fall & bump there heads.

You have completely (and deliberately?) misunderstood this.....

WHen someone starts with the "Wear a helmet or dribble for the rest of your life" thay make a statement

Asking why thay only apply that dribbling argument to yclists and not to pedestrians is entirely relevant as it shows just how hypocritical and stuopid these statements are

Anyone who has done any research (even the most basic) will know that pedestrians, car drivers, and pasengers ALL suffer more head injuries per year, and that a far greater saving in cost, trauma and personal cost woud be made if these groups wore helmets.

Yet it sems that this is "Silly"

Somehow when suffering a similar injury a cyclists needs to wear a helmet to preventthemselves becoming a dribbling vegetable, yet the proponents of this feeble argument simply cannot explain why a pedestrian becoming a dribbling vegetable is an acceptable outcom that does not ned to be mitigated or prevented.

As aked before... do pedestrians with head injuries dribble less than a cyslist with the same injury?

 

[StuartG]

any head protection is better than none in my opinion

Should we be making laws on opinions? Is your opinion of more value than mine?

Indeed counting opinions is not the way to go either ? Or should we be relying on establishing facts and testing them so we have an appreciation of how relible they are.

If and when these become overwhelming then compulsion on non-believers to conform can become justifiable. But surely not before?

 

[Scoosh]

OK, Locking time.

Going round n circles and over ground covered in (too) many other threads.

Also, this has strayed from the compulsion debate ...