No helmet

[mickle]

S'funny then that the introduction of motorcycle helmet compulsion did nothing to change KSI levels involving motorcyclists. The same happened with the introduction of of the seat belt law, KSIs among car occupants remained the same but there was an immediate rise in KSIs involving peds and cyclists as motorists adapted their driving style to accommodate the extra level of safety.
Its called risk compensation.

 

[davidwalton]

No. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to think I know better.



"Sorry" "willing to hear"?!! Just who are you? You can tell me your opinion but you CAN'T tell me mine! IN MY OPINION, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that wearing a helmet makes no significant difference.



That is not "fact". That is a common perception and a can of worms statement.

By all means, wear a helmet and be happy in your knowledge that it will offer you protection in all circumstances. I am happy for you to believe I am wrong in my decision not to.

As I said, for those willing to hear. As you are not, then do what you want.

Head verses wall, wall wins and head goes to Hospital. Head with helmet on verses wall, wall still wins, but head is not as likely to be as badly damaged.

 

[davidwalton]

OK - last effort to get you to see that there is more to life than compulsory helmets.

Riding a bike makes you fitter than riding a moped.
If you are fitter you have a longer, healthier life.

If you make helmets compulsory:
fewer people cycle.
some head injuries may be prevented

upshot - more people die prematurely with helmet enforcement than without.

so in the wider world, "every ounce of protection" does not count.

Why should fewer cycle just because they have to wear a helmet? Are they that worried about how they look?

 

[4F]

Common sense says to me that if I put something that gives way between my head and a solid object my head is moving rapidly towards, I will be better off. If that is not the case, please let me know as that is the only reason I wear a helmet and believe others should as well.

Common sense tells me that if I come off my bike at 20 miles plus an hour wearing a piece of polystyrene in a plastic cap it will not help my head one way or the other if I hit anything head on.

If you feel it help's and feel more confident on your bike then by all means wear your helmet as much as you like. However don't be so blinkered in the fact that others don't agree with your opinion.

 

[Jaded]

Why should fewer cycle just because they have to wear a helmet? Are they that worried about how they look?

Who the **** knows, and who cares - it is what happens and that is what matters.

Go and do some research.

PS You could start by reading this thread.

 

[Brock]

Why should fewer cycle just because they have to wear a helmet? Are they that worried about how they look?

Probably because it makes cycling less convenient and pleasurable. It doesn't really matter 'why' does it?

 

[davidwalton]

...and no good evidence that cycle helmets as currently manufactured reduce head injury in traffic collisions. That's the key - not this chimeric argument about priorities. If a government is to compel people to do, or not do, something, that compulsion should surely be based on a strong balance of fact that the compulsion is beneficial overall. Not "common sense" or anecdote.

Personal choices are precisely that, and I don't need to justify my decision to wear a helmet any more than any other poster needs to justify theirs not to, to anyone other than themselves.

Once you begin to talk about compulsion of those who share your view, it becomes far more important that properly researched and reviewed evidence bears out your point of view.

At the time motor cycle riders were forced to wear helmets:-

a) helmets they had provided little protection in many accident cases and
figures could also be manipulated to show whatever picture those telling the story wanted.

Motorcycle helmets have become a lot lot better, and in part, as a result of manufacturers being more willing to put money into the R&D because there is a definite market to support it.

I have asked for reasons, not that you justify. I am being told that I am wrong, but there is little evidence to show I am.

 

[davidwalton]

The Australian medical association which was the motive force behind compulsory helmet legislation has since reversed it's stance. So many people stopped cycling because of the new law that the overall health of the nation declined.

Just over wearing a helmet????

They don't cost much, and they don't look that bad.

 

[davidwalton]

And another thing, there's a theory that more cyclists on the road means the roads are safer.

Dave.

Yes, I would agree with that theory.

 

[davidwalton]

I don't think anybody has a problem with you choosing to wear a helmet, most of us are 'pro choice' though, and I'm somewhat confused by your argument that my choice not to wear a helmet encroaches on your liberty somehow. The 'cost to society' argument is clearly bunk.

On that base, why should motorcyclist wear a helmet?

It does not encroach on my liberty, and not suggesting it does. How can we have one law for Mopeds that find it hard to go as fast as some cyclists, and another for cyclists.

Where is the difference from the perspective of head safety?

 

[davidwalton]

How about the potential for rotational neck injury's as a start ?

Same argument that was made for motorcyclists.

 

[Brock]

Why don't you wear a motorcycle helmet? It would afford you much more protection than a cycle helmet, and frankly your decision not to could hit my pocket when you're being treated for head injury on the NHS.

 

[John the Monkey]

When it comes to head injuries, they are almost always serious. Head meet solid object just don't mix without something giving way.

Depends how they are classified - grazing your forehead is a head injury, as is cracking your skull, and a continuum between and beyond these, including the more complex issue of injury due to movement of the soft tissue within the skull (some rotational injuries (potentially exacerbated by helmet use, according to some studies) coming under this category).

The studies you're using to come to your conclusions here hopefully define which type they are talking about. I'd suggest strongly (again) that you read the piece about cycle helmets and the types of impacts they protect against.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

if I put something that gives way between my head and a solid object my head is moving rapidly towards, I will be better off

Again, it depends. If that something is a cycle helmet, and your head isn't moving too rapidly (see the article about helmet construction etc again) and the thing you're hitting is the right shape (big and flat) you're right. Again, referring back to the links given earlier, the evidence regarding head injury sustained with or without cycle helmets is inconclusive. Some studies would seem to show that impacts severe enough to cause "serious" head injury are beyond the capability of cycle helmets as currently manufactured to absorb.

Legal compulsion also requires that the wider issues of risk (greater chance of close overtaking/dangerous driving, risk compensation by cyclists, reduction in numbers of those cycling) be taken into account. Again, the evidence here is not conclusive enough (imo) to support legal compulsion.

 

[Chris James]

As I said, for those willing to hear. As you are not, then do what you want.

Head verses wall, wall wins and head goes to Hospital. Head with helmet on verses wall, wall still wins, but head is not as likely to be as badly damaged.

I suspect that you view your posts as somehow being profound and getting straight to the nub of the argument. But you are in fact simplifying matters in an almost childish way.

Yes, a piece of polystyrene will reduce the bruising associated with banging your head on a wall. But equally putting a large mass of thermal insulation on your head while undertaking a high energy aerobic sport will make you hotter and more uncomfortable.

Those in favour of compulsion should at least provide some evidence before they intend criminalising a substantial proportion of the cycling populace. You may consider it to be common sense that strapping some polystyrene to your head will reduce injuries but the real life population studies don’t back up your assertion. Not only that, but they show an overall reduction in cycling levels leading to decreased healthiness and earlier death.

 

[davidwalton]

Common sense tells me that if I come off my bike at 20 miles plus an hour wearing a piece of polystyrene in a plastic cap it will not help my head one way or the other if I hit anything head on.

If you feel it help's and feel more confident on your bike then by all means wear your helmet as much as you like. However don't be so blinkered in the fact that others don't agree with your opinion.

Not blinkered at all. If you are prepared to take the additional risk, that is up to you at this time.

However, if I was asked to vote on whether I believe ALL should wear a helmet when cycling, I would vote YES.......I am not seeing the argument against not wearing one. It seems to be more about personal right to choose than about head protection, and to me that is no argument.