OK, lets try this hypothetical then. You are the trainer in Norwich and a kid turns up wearing hid Dad's ancient dented helmet that is far too big for him. Do you let him join the training or send him home?
Pro compulsion
- Thread starter david k
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OK, lets try this hypothetical then. You are the trainer in Norwich and a kid turns up wearing hid Dad's ancient dented helmet that is far too big for him. Do you let him join the training or send him home?
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
Do not let him train. He is free to watch and learn.
1) That was not the question posed.
2) I hadn't read the NI debate.
Is £8 from LIDL too much of an expense compared to however much they paid for the bike?
Such events are extremely rare and there are certainly no extra ambulances, police, doctors, nurses etc provided to cover such events. They are all covered within the currently committed fixed costs. But if you want to go down that route you might look at the burden on all of those from obesity, a condition that is highly correlated with a lack of active transportation, and about to become the leading cause of preventable early death in the UK.
twobiker
New Member
- Location
- South Hams Devon
We give a tenner a month to WSPA, i suppose we have different priorities to some people.
So that's clear then. You would rather they had to wear a helmet which has no proven influence on child head injuries in the UK than have them participate in training which reduces the probability of having an accident in the first place by 4-5 times.
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
Kudos to you.
I have three catss of my own and 5 unwanted kittens in my spare room at the moment. (I live off state benefit).
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
Yes. If the parents wish their child to learn to ride safely and the LA has a policy of no helmet, no ride then that is what I abide by. Just to be clear, I would also sideline children whose bikes where not road safe.
If you were a parent of a young child, what would you do?
twobiker
New Member
- Location
- South Hams Devon
We are always pleased when someone shows concern for something else other than, How much,How big, How expensive , their so and so is, Animal Welfare is so important, keep up the good work,
I will try and get a picture of the hat. it is of a type used by Royal Mail about 5yrs agoAngelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
- Location
- Cwmbach, South Wales
We are always pleased when someone shows concern for something else other than, How much,How big, How expensive , their so and so is, Animal Welfare is so important, keep up the good work,
Cheers fella
Cyclist head injuries are less than 1% of head injuries requiring admission.
If you are going to quote this as a justification, you need to explain why the cost in the above facilities should be acceptable in other groups.
Helmet would save three times as much "cost" if worn by vehicle drivers and some 5 times the cost if worn by passengers as well.
The savings would be five times greater if pedestrians wore helmets.
Are we really saying that we should balaance the cost of helmets agains the cost to the NHS then we need an explanation why the expense is justified in these groups
Looks like DavidK is finding difficulty in justifying his accusations!
Back to standards and Lidl helmets...
Modern helmets are more about fashion than safety with the increasing number of vents causing issues.
There is less material to absorb an impact, and the material is also denser to maintain shape, again decreasing the ability to absorb energy. Modern helmets are in fact less effective than say ten yrears ago.
Now add the problem of snag points, the edges of the vents and pointed bits that break the smooth round line of a helmet. These can catch, causing rotational injuries, ejection of the helmet and also in some cases increase the injury if the snag point suddenly arrstes motion.
So all in all the modern helmet is not a good opion and teh level of protection is decreasing.
WHich brings us to standards and Lidl. These helmets are likely to be certified to the feeble EN1078, a standard that is so risible and offers so little protection that it si no longer accepted as worthwhile in teh USA - Turn up for a racing or triathlon event in the US and when they stop laughing at you they ban you as the helmet is useless.
Yet we still allow them to be worn here!
Finally on helmet design, Headway the head injury charity is pro -compulsion, but is now promoting a paper from teh British Dental Association that suggests facial protection should be mandatory.. effectively Headway is now for compulsory full face helmets!
Modern helmets are more about fashion than safety with the increasing number of vents causing issues.
There is less material to absorb an impact, and the material is also denser to maintain shape, again decreasing the ability to absorb energy. Modern helmets are in fact less effective than say ten yrears ago.
Now add the problem of snag points, the edges of the vents and pointed bits that break the smooth round line of a helmet. These can catch, causing rotational injuries, ejection of the helmet and also in some cases increase the injury if the snag point suddenly arrstes motion.
So all in all the modern helmet is not a good opion and teh level of protection is decreasing.
WHich brings us to standards and Lidl. These helmets are likely to be certified to the feeble EN1078, a standard that is so risible and offers so little protection that it si no longer accepted as worthwhile in teh USA - Turn up for a racing or triathlon event in the US and when they stop laughing at you they ban you as the helmet is useless.
Yet we still allow them to be worn here!
Finally on helmet design, Headway the head injury charity is pro -compulsion, but is now promoting a paper from teh British Dental Association that suggests facial protection should be mandatory.. effectively Headway is now for compulsory full face helmets!
- Status