Pro-helmet article on BBC One Show right now

[david k]

Is it wrong to feel better without a helmet on?

why?

 

[totallyfixed]

Lots of stories of broken and dented helmets amongst helmet wearers, not so many stories about injured heads from non helmet wearers.
I rest my case m'laud

 

[david k]

see my point about ppe, building sites shouldnt insist on wearing ppe, it shouldnt be law, according to you

 

[david k]

Lots of stories of broken and dented helmets amongst helmet wearers, not so many stories about injured heads from non helmet wearers.
I rest my case m'laud

if they are dead they cannot post, so your amateur research is pointless

 

[Bman]

Can somebody point me to the FACTS! that say a helmet does not help at all, as I am having trouble finding that bit.

The problem is, there is no real evidence either way. That is science.

 

[snorri]

[QUOTE 1397384"]
So, can someone summarise for me .................... should I wear a helmet or not?
[/quote]



Oh Maggot, yir jist a wee rascal .

 

[Norm]

?? its wrong to feel better with a helmet on????

It's not about right or wrong, just the level to which you take more risks because you are wearing a helmet.

As an example, you say that the helmet makes you feel more confident. That could lead you to doing something more risky than you would do if you didn't have confidence (such as going up the inside of stationary traffic) and you could get yourself into a position (if the traffic started moving) in which you are on the inside of a bus pulling onto a stop or an HGV turning left with consequences that will not be affected by whether or not you are wearing your helmet.

If we accept the assertion that a helmet will do little good if you are doing over 15mph (you can substitute that for 25 or 35 or whatever, the exact number isn't relevant), then your increased confidence could lead you to heading down a trail or down a hill on the road faster than you would ride it without the helmet, at speeds in excess of those at which the helmet is designed to provide benefits.

So, whilst it's not automatically wrong to feel better with the helmet on, if you then compensate or, worse, over-compensate for that perception of safety, then that could easily lead to you being at greater risk when riding whilst wearing a helmet than you would be without.

see my point about ppe, building sites shouldnt insist on wearing ppe, it shouldnt be law, according to you

This introduces other factors, such as the economics of the employers in paying for the PPE, etc. The government recognises that employers should bear the costs of providing a certain level of PPE, so they enshrine that in statute. However, even PPE isn't 100% about compliance with legislation, there are companies which go far in excess of the legal minimum, but the law is there to raise the lowest standards, not define the highest.

 

[david k]

Norm,

As ever you have made your point better than the rest. But im afraid to point out yet again that you have mistakenly taken my point as saying i take more risks with a helmet on as i can get knocked off and have an accident without risk of injury, Of course that isnt what i said

Im fully aware of the risk in being over confident, im a qualified H&S construction worker, possibly the most safety aware sector there is. It is drummed into us that wearing ppe is a last resort and should not be seen as a safety control.

Any risk assessment highlights risk and then control measure. PPE (or helmet) is not a control measure, riding safely, hi visibility clothes, correct road position, awareness, road sense etc etc are more relevant control measures and wearing a helmet does not replace the need for these but merely compliments them. Now me wearing a helmet makes me feel better as i know i have added an extra control measure or last resort (added not replaced).

I fear people have jumped on my post and through an misguided view presumed i was making a point that i wasnt

 

[snorri]

why?

You have chosen to ignore my response to your post 32 in this thread?

 

[david k]

.

This introduces other factors, such as the economics of the employers in paying for the PPE, etc. The government recognises that employers should bear the costs of providing a certain level of PPE, so they enshrine that in statute. However, even PPE isn't 100% about compliance with legislation, there are companies which go far in excess of the legal minimum, but the law is there to raise the lowest standards, not define the highest.

We are into a ppe debate now norm! i wouldnt say companies go above what they need too, not in my experience but simply they must carry out risk assessments and identify control measures. they may seem extreem at times but failure to control a risk will be their failure to meet compliance. ie, they get sued

 

[Bman]

It's a strange statement from James Cracknell.

He has been selfish by taking on this challenge in the first place. By not doing the challenge, there is no risk. What about his rowing across the Atlantic - utterly pointless. His race to the pole - utterly pointless. Surely three very selfish acts that risked leaving loved ones behind.

If he was smart (and still wanted to do the cycle challenge), he could have significantly lowered his chances of being in an accident by not cycling on a main road. That choice might well have saved him a hospital trip in the first place.

I was thinking just that. I dont cycle on some A roads, or (as well as the legal reasons) motorways for just that reason. Risk. I take the routes where traffic is travelling closer to my speeds, if possible. I equate American Highways to UK Motorways. A cyclist should never be on a motorway, or any road with traffic overtaking them at a 50mph speed difference. Helmet or not.

Route 66 indeed. Maybe he should try the A1(M). Better not forget his helmet!

 

[ufkacbln]

if they are dead they cannot post, so your amateur research is pointless

..... so that's why we don't see any posts from pedestrains - they are all dead?

 

[david k]

You have chosen to ignore my response to your post 32 in this thread?

this is the same bloke who suggest we shouldnt wear seat belts as it increases the likelihood of having an accident due to increased confidence, i think thats rubbish. if we apply that theory to everything we should get rid of air bags, safety barriers, stop signs, pavements, safety goggles etc etc

same type of theory that suggests we should legalise drugs as that will take away the thrill and nobody will take them

liek allowing guns for protection, thats worked in the US hasnt it

i could go on

 

[evilclive]

i think you should, but cannot make you.

Given what you've subsequently aid, that's better phrased as "I think you should, and would like to be able to force you to".

FWIW it might be worth you looking up risk compensation. I know you say you don't do it - many people believe that. The point is it's often an unconscious behaviour, so you won't be aware you're doing it.

 

[The Jogger]

I watched that programme last night and what James Cracknell had to say, made sense to me and on went the helmet this morning, first time in ages.