This is a helmet debate

[david k]

dont understand your point smoking Joe

 

[Smokin Joe]

dont understand your point smoking Joe

It's perfectly plain.

You asked why the UCI made helmets compulsory if there was little or no evidence of any benefit and I gave my opinion, that they panicked in the face of ever mounting pressure from those who think life can be risk free if only there were enough laws to protect us from ourselves.

 

[snailracer]

that's the problem, without some evidence to back them up, opinions don't really count for much. If you search the forums, people have produced evidence, and having looked at it I came to the conclusion that cycling is not dangerous enough compared to driving/walking to warrant helmets/body armour etc, the helmets available are pretty ineffective, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that helmets reduce accident/injury rates. I don't like wearing a helmet, I find it uncomfortable and inconvenient, but if someone can produce evidence that it would significantly improve my safety, I'll start wearing one.

There have been lots of studies done on helmets and safety - the thing is, their conclusions often conflict, there are confounding factors, the authors may have bias, etc:
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/helmet_research.html

 

[Rebel Ian]

dont understand your point smoking Joe

Are you being sponsored by the webmasters of this site to see how long you can keep a thread going?

 

[ufkacbln]

uci

Are they more intelligent or informed than the RAC/ ACU?

 

[bitterkas]

I consider the use of helmets as an essential element to ensure the safety of a rider. I understand that every rider must wear a helmet in any area, training and careers. Referring to the competition, all race organizers should require helmet use in competition

http://cyclingbestrider.blogspot.com/

 

[Rebel Ian]

I consider the use of helmets as an essential element to ensure the safety of a rider. I understand that every rider must wear a helmet in any area, training and careers.

Careers?? I manage a Shared Service Centre. Why do I need a helmet?

 

[Crackle]

I consider the use of helmets as an essential element to ensure the safety of a rider. I understand that every rider must wear a helmet in any area, training and careers. Referring to the competition, all race organizers should require helmet use in competition

http://cyclingbestrider.blogspot.com/

Why though? Given that a helmets design speed is 12mph, why would it help in competition. Do your riders ride below 12mph? As cycle deaths in competition have gone up since helmets were required ( See Red Lights post on page 11), what evidence do you have they will help? What safety do they provide, please specify with evidence.

 

[david k]

It's perfectly plain.

You asked why the UCI made helmets compulsory if there was little or no evidence of any benefit and I gave my opinion, that they panicked in the face of ever mounting pressure from those who think life can be risk free if only there were enough laws to protect us from ourselves.

a helmet doesnt make riding risk free, any ppe is merely a control measure and a last resort at that. it does not replace other safety measures like riding properly. that said doesnt mean it isnt of value

 

[david k]

Are they more intelligent or informed than the RAC/ ACU?

no idea, i dont have access to that information.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Careers?? I manage a Shared Service Centre. Why do I need a helmet?

If it's one of our company's 'shared service centres' you should wear full body armour ....

 

[thelawnet]

Most cyclists are also motorists and only use their bikes for short distances ( like me).
Despite what the media keeps telling us, cars are getting cleaner and more efficient all the time so pollution is not such a bit debate in my book ( not for cars anyway).
Cyclists also create pollution by breathing out ( co2) faster than pedestrians. It may seem strange but it is true so forget the " save the planet" crap and enjoy living.

This is very poor argument on your part.

I chose to go on a 100 mile bike ride last week, down to the seaside and back again.

My impact on my environment over that 100 miles was minimal. I used quiet roads, which remained quiet because my bicycle makes no measurable sound at a distance of beyond a couple of metres - by car each house and building I passed would have suffered momentary disruption, albeit brief. Along the way I saw a substantial number of squashed animals and birds, killed by motor vehicles. The chance of my bicycle causing the same is near-zero.

Cars are in fact very polluting, the most noxious substance I might produce is a bit of gas after eating a can of beans, whereas cars produce numerous unpleasant and life-threatening substances:

"Air pollutants from transport include nitrogen oxides, particles, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. All have a damaging impact on the health of people, animals and vegetation locally. Air quality in the UK is slowly improving, but many areas still fail to meet the health based national air quality objectives and European limit values – particularly for particles and nitrogen dioxide. In town centres and alongside busy roads, vehicles are responsible for most local pollution. Vehicles tend to emit more pollution during the first few miles of journey when their engines are warming up."

http://www.environmental-protection.org.uk/transport/car-pollution/


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/22/air-pollution-deaths

"Fifty-thousand people a year may be dying prematurely because of air pollution, a influential committee of MPs has reported after a six-month investigation.

According to the environment audit committee, minute sooty particles, emitted largely from the burning of diesel and other fuels and inhaled deeply into the lungs, shortens lives by seven to eight months. In pollution hotspots like areas of central London and other cities, the particles could be cutting vulnerable people's lives short by as much as nine years."


Also:
"Noise from road traffic affects 30% of people in the UK. Sources include engine noise, tyre noise, car horns, car stereos, door slamming, and squeaking brakes."

Then there is the impact on communities. If you live on a through road your children cannot play outside because of the risk of being killed by speeding traffic. If I walk along even a 30mph road with my children, it is unpleasant, the pavements are narrow compared with the road, and I am constantly alert to the risk of my 3-year-old daughter straying into the road and being killed by a car; what should be a pleasant stroll is made unpleasant by cars. The result of cars thundering through communities making walking and cycling unpleasant is of course even more car usage - it's dangerous and/or unpleasant to walk so people decide to use the car for half-mile journeys.

 

[snorri]

I consider the use of helmets as an essential element to ensure the safety of a rider.

It would be helpful to the debate if you explained the reasons for your views.

 

[david k]

arent helmets desinged to protect you in the unfortunate event of hitting your head?

 

[thelawnet]

arent helmets desinged to protect you in the unfortunate event of hitting your head?

I saw a cyclist yesterday wearing one of these

No doubt it would also protect the head?