No helmet

[Smokin Joe]

If somebody stated that they would support govenment legislation to send all blacks to the gas chambers, would they be able to claim they weren't racist because they weren't actually doing it themselves?

Whatever way you put it you do wish to impose your helmet views on others.

 

[davidwalton]

If somebody stated that they would support govenment legislation to send all blacks to the gas chambers, would they be able to claim they weren't racist because they weren't actually doing it themselves?

Whatever way you put it you do wish to impose your helmet views on others.

Rubbish, and a very nasty way of making a point.

Whatever way you want to put it, I have a RIGHT, and one YOU are imposing on.

However, Governments are voted in by the people (not just me), so supporting action they may take does not mean I am imposing. It means EVERYONE is imposing.

 

[yello]

As I said, for those willing to hear

You sir have a breath taking arrogance. Because I choose not to agree with you you accuse me of not wanting to listen! Have you ever considered the possibility that I may have read just as much on the subject and come to a different conclusion?

 

[davidwalton]

You sir have a breath taking arrogance. Because I choose not to agree with you you accuse me of not wanting to listen! Have you ever considered the possibility that I may have read just as much on the subject and come to a different conclusion?

Just attacking in the same way others feel it is OK to with me. Not at all arrogant though. Pig headed yes, so please get the wording right

I think you should decide what is right for you based on the reading you have done. The fact that there are 2 different conclusions that can be made just goes to show that to resolve it, it will require Government direction.

There are experts on both sides of the argument about the benefit of cycle helmets. They can't or won't agree, so not surprised there are those here that disagree.

If you also hold the view that you would support Government direction that meant helmets were shown to be unsafe and should not be worn, I won't hold that against you or think you are imposing.

BTW- If you are going to quote me, include everything in the quote. I clearly included a to show I was in joking mode.

 

[mickle]

What about the Australian experience DW? And what is your view on the subject of risk compensation?

 

[Ashtrayhead]

same old same old shifty obtuse arguments from the antis

It's called 'pro choice'

 

[davidwalton]

What about the Australian experience DW? And what is your view on the subject of risk compensation?

I have tried to cover the 2 sides by making it clear that there are 2 sides with experts on both that won't or can't agree.

I am not an expert, but I do believe based on what I have read that it is safer to wear a cycle helmet.

Knowing that Insurance companies will only pay what they have to, I would expect them to pay less when head injuries to cyclists are involved where there is any medical evidence that any cycle head protection worn would of either prevented head injury or diminished the injury.

 

[John the Monkey]

surely when your head hits the ground the brain keeps moving as in shaken baby syndrome?
what do helmets do to lessen that?

Little - some amount of the force will be dissipated as the foam deforms, I think (I should add that I'm no expert on the subject).

I read a little about this type of injury in relation to martial arts (and the wearing of headgear). As I remember, the research there showed that the added weight of the headgear increased the rotational forces applied to the head, and made brain damage more likely/frequent (whilst simulataneously reducing the chances of cuts and superficial injuries). It's not an exact analogue because the impacts, form of protection etc are different.

 

[John the Monkey]

Knowing that Insurance companies will only pay what they have to, I would expect them to pay less when head injuries to cyclists are involved where there is any medical evidence that any cycle head protection worn would of either prevented head injury or diminished the injury.

You might expect them to, but as the links referenced earlier point out, it has not happened, even in cases where someone has sustained injury from the sort of impact helmets are designed to protect aganst (low speed, flat surface). An example is referenced in the design article I linked earlier, in which the writer was an expert witness.

 

[Chris James]

Knowing that Insurance companies will only pay what they have to, I would expect them to pay less when head injuries to cyclists are involved where there is any medical evidence that any cycle head protection worn would of either prevented head injury or diminished the injury.

This so called contributory negligence has been dismissed by the courts, so you are wrong here.

By the way, you seem to have totally confused the benefits or wearing a helmet with the issue of compulsion.

Helmets may well show safety benefits on an individual level - i.e. you hit yur head and it hurts less with a helmet on - but legal compulsion can and does not show population level benefits. The opposite in fact.

This can be down to a number of reasons, eg risk compensation ( I myself tend to descend faster with a helmet on), helmets are ineffective in collisions involving cars which are more likely to produce fatalities amongst cyclists. And finally, simply because people are put off cycling by the necessity of purchasing and wearing 'safety equipment'.

 

[davidwalton]

You might expect them to, but as the links referenced earlier point out, it has not happened, even in cases where someone has sustained injury from the sort of impact helmets are designed to protect aganst (low speed, flat surface). An example is referenced in the design article I linked earlier, in which the writer was an expert witness.

Then they haven't had supporting medical evidence to be able to do it. They will if they get that. They always will if at the end it is found that helmets are safer.......

Another reason why I think there will be Government direction in the future.

 

[davidwalton]

This so called contributory negligence has been dismissed by the courts, so you are wrong here.

By the way, you seem to have totally confused the benefits or wearing a helmet with the issue of compulsion.

Helmets may well show safety benefits on an individual level - i.e. you hit yur head and it hurts less with a helmet on - but legal compulsion can and does not show population level benefits. The opposite in fact.

This can be down to a number of reasons, eg risk compensation ( I myself tend to descend faster with a helmet on), helmets are ineffective in collisions involving cars which are more likely to produce fatalities amongst cyclists. And finally, simply because people are put off cycling by the necessity of purchasing and wearing 'safety equipment'.

I did make it clear that the Insurer would require medical evidence to do this.

I am not confused at all thanks. You can quote facts and figures as much as you like. I know there are facts and figures supporting your view. There are facts and figures supporting the other as well. No point trying to argue facts and figures when the experts fail to agree.

Nothing said here is going to change anything. I still have the same view, and would still support compulsory wearing of cycle helmets. If you would support the opposite action, then fine. I won't hold that against you or think you are imposing

 

[John the Monkey]

Then they haven't had supporting medical evidence to be able to do it. They will if they get that. They always will if at the end it is found that helmets are safer.......

Again, if you read the article, you'll find that the (opposing) expert witnesses saying they could not state that a helmet would have prevented or lessened injury to the person involved were 3 neurosurgeons and a respected materials specialist!

Read again what bicycle helmets are designed to do;

(quoted from that article;
The foreword to BSI Standard 6863:1987 reads as follows:
‘It (the standard) specifies requirements for helmets intended for use by pedal cyclists on ordinary roads, particularly by young riders in the 5 years to 14 years age group, but which may also be suitable for off the road. It is not intended for high-speed or long distance cycling, or for riders taking part in competitive events. The level of protection offered is less than that given by helmets for motorcycle riders and is intended to give protection in the kind of accident in which the rider falls onto the road without other vehicles being involved.’

Another reason why I think there will be Government direction in the future.

The evidence isn't there - the helmets capable of being worn comfortably and affording decent protection against vehicle involved accidents aren't there - it's no basis for supporting compulsion, imo.

 

[Jaded]

I am not an expert, but I do believe based on what I have read that it is safer to wear a cycle helmet..

So, tone it down a bit until you are?

No problem with you wearing a helmet.
Big problem with you wishing to have this imposed on the population.

 

[davidwalton]

Again, if you read the article, you'll find that the (opposing) expert witnesses saying they could not state that a helmet would have prevented or lessened injury to the person involved were 3 neurosurgeons and a respected materials specialist!

So as I said. No reduction because they could not prove on medical grounds.

Read again what bicycle helmets are designed to do;

(quoted from that article;
The foreword to BSI Standard 6863:1987 reads as follows:
‘It (the standard) specifies requirements for helmets intended for use by pedal cyclists on ordinary roads, particularly by young riders in the 5 years to 14 years age group, but which may also be suitable for off the road. It is not intended for high-speed or long distance cycling, or for riders taking part in competitive events. The level of protection offered is less than that given by helmets for motorcycle riders and is intended to give protection in the kind of accident in which the rider falls onto the road without other vehicles being involved.’



The evidence isn't there - the helmets capable of being worn comfortably and affording decent protection against vehicle involved accidents aren't there - it's no basis for supporting compulsion, imo.

and opinion is all we have. Either the experts will agree, or government will step in and decide for them.

I recognise there are 2 sides still. There is supporting evidence on both sides. I fall on the side of helmet wearing.

I want the issue resolved, and it will be. It is just going to take time, especially with the way government works.