No helmet

[Tynan]

absolutely but in some accidents you'll have no option about cracking your head

I've fallen off shags of times and only ever given my head a single glancing (I think) blow

 

[Baggy]

until someone actually proves something, no-one knows and anyone trying to do more than suggest is making it up to suit themselves imho

anyway this has all been done to death with no-one changing their minds one iota

Agreed.

But the whole proof issue is exactly why I'd fight against compulsion.

 

[davidwalton]

That's rubbish mate, you came on here to support a stance that choice should be taken away.

Rubbish. read what I wrote.

I said I would support any government action. until then you decide.

 

[davidwalton]

On balance, yes.

Hope this helps,

Dave.

Yes. It lets me know that while you give yourself the right to your opinion, you don't think I have as much right.

 

[John the Monkey]

Most of the research (such as it is) is at the site I linked to earlier in the thread. It makes good, if not particularly reassuring, reading. The piece on what modern helmets are actually designed to do (linked form the same site), and how they are tested is an eye opener too (taken from an issue of "Cycle").

I don't think the evidence is good enough (to put it mildly) to support compulsion - and the arguments concerning rotational injury ring true from reasearch done on headgear use in other sports (not directly comparable though).

I'm aware that I wear my helmet as much for it's sweat absorbing/sun deflecting/rain covering capability as for anything else.

 

[dodgy]

Rubbish. read what I wrote.

I said I would support any government action. until then you decide.

You would support any government action that would seek to remove our choice. It's the same thing.

No hard feelings, glad to hear your views. I just don't agree, that's all

Dave.

 

[4F]

Hang on a moment Tynan, my main objection to this is the following comment made earlier in the thread:-

I look forward to and support any Government that makes them compulsory.

Why is it that the many helmet wearers wish it to be forced on others yet the non helmet wearers see it as a choice thing and are not bothered whether others want to wear one or not.

 

[davidwalton]

Hang on a moment Tynan, my main objection to this is the following comment made earlier in the thread:-

I look forward to and support any Government that makes them compulsory.

Why is it that the many non helmet wearers wish it to be forced on others yet the non helmet wearers see it as a choice thing and are not bothered whether others want to wear one or not.

That was my statement. I do not see the difference between moped traveling at up to 40mph to a cycle that travels up to 40mph. Moped riders by law must use a helmet yet travel no faster than a cycle can. If good for them, then it should be good for all, and yes.......

cycle helmets do need improving.

 

[dodgy]

ffff, I think you probably mean "Why is it that the many helmet wearers wish it to be forced on others yet the non helmet wearers see it as a choice thing and are not bothered whether others want to wear one or not."?

Dave.

 

[Baggy]

"I look forward to and support any Government that makes them compulsory."

Wouldn't you much rather support any Government that supported driver education? I'd rather tackle one of the causes of accidents.

 

[davidwalton]

"I look forward to and support any Government that makes them compulsory."

Wouldn't you much rather support any Government that supported driver education? I'd rather tackle one of the causes of accidents.

Why can't we do both?

 

[dodgy]

Why can't we do both?

Perhaps we could, but it's a matter of low hanging fruit (can't believe I just said that ), there's more problems with bad driving than there is with cyclists suffering head injuries.

Dave.

 

[davidwalton]

Perhaps we could, but it's a matter of low hanging fruit (can't believe I just said that ), there's more problems with bad driving than there is with cyclists suffering head injuries.

Dave.

Don't know about you, but I can multi-task. Something required in almost every job. No excuse not to do both things.

 

[Baggy]

Because compulsion would be easy and would put the onus on cyclists. I strongly suspect that any pro-compulsion Govt would also be trying to get cyclists off roads and on to cycle paths - but that's just my paranoid take on it.

Driver education would involve continuous investment and recognition that cyclists have equal rights on the road, an opinion that seems to be evaporating...

 

[Chris James]

This is part of the same argument that says go away until I want your money because I made a mistake.

I know nothing of your circumstances but I can guarantee that you daily do things that another person as judgmental as you appear to be would view as risky.

It is ironic that you believe those that stay within the law but who take what you view to be unacceptable risks are somehow selfish.

I would suggest that a civilised society is based upon tolerance of other people's views and supporting other people who require that help. If you got run over by a bus tomorrow then I wouldn't immediately blame you for not wearing full body armour or even for being daft enough to get in a bus' way. Instead I, and most reasonable people, would be happy that a handful of pennies of my lifetime tax and NI payments would go to putting you back to good health.

It appears to me that your position is inhernetly the selfish one - namely the resentment you show that someone whose lifestyle you disapprove of should potentially benefit from some of 'your' tax monies.

Fortunately, you and your like are by far the minority in this country as the rest of us view other people - warts and all - as being important parts of society and not all potential spongers.