Cycle helmet wearers are reckless
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Just to Add....
I don't wear helmets even though I have one, I can't really think of a reason why I don't use it but after an incident last week I realised it actually doesn't matter.
The incident - crossing the road in Bristol at pelican lights one car stops..second car goes through red lights and slams brakes on...third car goes through red lights slams brakes on and smacks into second car
Press the button for a second time (as obviously not able to cross the road)..one car stops ...second car goes through red lights doesn't slam brakes on nearly hits the 2 cars above and continues on.
Third time lucky I reckon press the button and wait for all cars to stop so I manage to cross the road, obviously shaken
I asked the guys in the crashed cars if they are ok, then asked them why they didn't stop, the cheeky gits say its obviously bad lights, so I told them that their bad driving had nothing to do with this?
My conclusion:
I would have been dead both times as no helmet would have saved me
I will still use my head (pardon the pun ) and not cross the road until all cars have stopped as I think this is the only way to avoid these bad drivers.
I am just relieved that it was me crossing that morning and not a family or other cyclist as the outcome would have been horrendous.
Safe riding everyone.
Maz.
I don't wear helmets even though I have one, I can't really think of a reason why I don't use it but after an incident last week I realised it actually doesn't matter.
The incident - crossing the road in Bristol at pelican lights one car stops..second car goes through red lights and slams brakes on...third car goes through red lights slams brakes on and smacks into second car
Press the button for a second time (as obviously not able to cross the road)..one car stops ...second car goes through red lights doesn't slam brakes on nearly hits the 2 cars above and continues on.
Third time lucky I reckon press the button and wait for all cars to stop so I manage to cross the road, obviously shaken
I asked the guys in the crashed cars if they are ok, then asked them why they didn't stop, the cheeky gits say its obviously bad lights, so I told them that their bad driving had nothing to do with this?
My conclusion:
I would have been dead both times as no helmet would have saved me
I will still use my head (pardon the pun
) and not cross the road until all cars have stopped as I think this is the only way to avoid these bad drivers.I am just relieved that it was me crossing that morning and not a family or other cyclist as the outcome would have been horrendous.
Safe riding everyone.
Maz.
OOOH! Who rattled YOUR cage?
I don't think it's boring. It's the sort of thing that one would expect to discuss, surely, on a site about cycling and cycles.
So come on guys and gals--let's hear more on the subject of cycling helmets.
I don't wear one myself by the way.
OK, here is a little helmet story...
My wife threatened to get her bike out at the week-end to go about a mile up the road. Something she doesn't do very often. She came to the question "should I put on my helmet?".
She is generally rather pro-helmets (particularly for the kids) but didn't really want to be bothered with it today (something to do with her hair I think). However, she didn't like the idea of passers by tut-tutting at her as she went past.
What did she do in the end......she took the car!
Hobsons Choice
It seems obvious then dun it, if YOU believe your head is safer in a helmet should you come off your bike, then you wear one, and dont be bullied into not wearing one by those that prefer to not to.
In the same way, I wear gloves when I cycle because I believe that they might also have a fractional positive safety influence should I come off my bike there too.
I can honestly say though that I have never seen one of the winter night-time nutters (those that ride without lights on in the dark) WITH a helmet on.
Maybe we should start a new thread, "Non Cycle Helmet wearers are reckless" (lol)
John
It seems obvious then dun it, if YOU believe your head is safer in a helmet should you come off your bike, then you wear one, and dont be bullied into not wearing one by those that prefer to not to.
In the same way, I wear gloves when I cycle because I believe that they might also have a fractional positive safety influence should I come off my bike there too.
I can honestly say though that I have never seen one of the winter night-time nutters (those that ride without lights on in the dark) WITH a helmet on.
Maybe we should start a new thread, "Non Cycle Helmet wearers are reckless" (lol)
John
Ah but you'd need the sort of evidence that I presented John.
P.S. This thread is on it's way to being one of the most successful of all time!
.
Now you now I havent the stomach to look all that upAh but you'd need the sort of evidence that I presented John.
He he he, well that just caps it all!
This very morning, on my way back from Tesco with my PB neatly loaded with shopping, I saw THE most 'colour co-ordinated' cyclist (pedal power only variety, not an E-bike) that I have ever seen.
He (or she) was bright PINK, from top to toe, including the bicycle itself.
Bright pink helmet, bright pink shell jacket, bright pink trousers, bright pink trainers and bright pink gloves. And, for all I know, bright pink eyes too.
The other vehicles were giving it a VERY wide berth though and it certainly 'stood out'.
I am considering the pros and cons of a helmet, but I suspect that even if I get one, nine times out of ten I won't actually wear it--but it won't be PINK and it won't be 'colour co-ordinated' either.
He (or she) was bright PINK, from top to toe, including the bicycle itself.
Bright pink helmet, bright pink shell jacket, bright pink trousers, bright pink trainers and bright pink gloves.
And, for all I know, bright pink eyes too. The other vehicles were giving it a VERY wide berth though and it certainly 'stood out'.
I am considering the pros and cons of a helmet, but I suspect that even if I get one, nine times out of ten I won't actually wear it--but it won't be PINK and it won't be 'colour co-ordinated' either.
This very morning, on my way back from Tesco with my PB neatly loaded with shopping, I saw THE most 'colour co-ordinated' cyclist (pedal power only variety, not an E-bike) that I have ever seen.
He (or she) was bright PINK, from top to toe, including the bicycle itself.
Bright pink helmet, bright pink shell jacket, bright pink trousers, bright pink trainers and bright pink gloves.
The other vehicles were giving it a VERY wide berth though and it certainly 'stood out'.
I am considering the pros and cons of a helmet, but I suspect that even if I get one, nine times out of ten I won't actually wear it--but it won't be PINK and it won't be 'colour co-ordinated' either.
.... you didn't mention my pink earmuffs.... or my pink rucksack... so wassa matter wiv pink then....?
What was interesting is the compulsion aspect of the DFT article. They state that compulsion was only considered by those countries where helmet use was very high ..."legislation has not been introduced until high levels of helmet wearing have been attained in the population." Presumably they will assumed that compulsion wouldn't reduce cycling rates because everybody was wearing helmets anyway...well they did reduce cycling rates.
So thank you to all those not wearing hemets - keep up the good work.
So thank you to all those not wearing hemets - keep up the good work.
Hmm, is that the best you can find, John!Now now, youre encouragable Frank, u know its pretty much even
For me it's not a religious argument, it's a practical one. If there was moderately convinving evidence from a credible study that bicycle helmets worked for on-road cycling, I would wear one. The burden of proof is obviously on the helmet industry as vendors of a product which claims health benefits, and it has proven too weighty a load!
Sorry guys, I didnt mean to be cryptic, I honestly thought you were just being deliberately sarcastic/sinical to the subject (which is a sense of humour I love by the way), my research (not scientific, just browsing the net looking for agruments both ways back in 2006...) truly was even. I dont mean the '10 reasons (not to/ why you should) wear a helmet, I meant actual results of studies ONLY.
This I summise, seemed about right from what I had read, and so I settled on this as the general tone seems about right to me, basically if your bike skids/you brake hard for some reason, and whilst doing your best to avoid it, you bang the covered part of your head on the kerb/tarmac, then that helmet will indeed make a difference.
Yep, I agree that there is indeed the risk of neck injury if you go 'head over heels', but most (not all) of my accidents from childhood to now have been sideways not forwards.
And I TOTALLY agree that there is absolutely no protection if another vehicle is involved.
However I do not accept that I ride more agressively because I wear a helmet. In my case I ride more aggressively because I want road space, otherwise I wouldnt ride at all.
For ref tho, and I agree with some bits of the 'Conclusion' from the DfT (extract below), but am not in any way in favour of the compulsory enforcement of helmets, BECAUSE I think so much of it depends on riding style, route, conditions, etc. But for me, on my route, at the times and in the conditions I ride, I believe that the is a partial safety advantage to wearing a helmet, in the same way I wear gloves (to avoid scratches to my hands) and long sleeve jackets (even in summer, to avoid arm lacerations). Obviously I could not promote gloves and long sleeves as 'safety apparrel', but I believe that they are JUST as important for protection as the helmet, every little helps.
Remember, I am a commuter, not a leisure cyclist!
Dft Helmet wearing Conclusion:
------------------------------
Section 9: Conclusions
What relevance does the evidence reviewed have for bicycle helmet promotion in Britain?
Unwin (1996), when considering the context of the British legislative system, has put forward four criteria which must be met before bicycle helmet wearing is enforced. These criteria are:
(1) There must be a high level of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets are effective in reducing the rate of head injury to bicyclists.
(2) The benefits to society and others of mandatory bicycle helmets must be convincingly demonstrated, mandatory bicycle helmets cannot be justified simply to protect individual adult bicyclists.
(3) There must be widespread agreement, ideally by a large majority, that the potential benefits of compulsory bicycle helmets outweigh the infringement of personal liberty and other disbenefits.
(4) There must be good evidence to suggest that compulsory helmet wearing would not make the public health benefits of increased levels of bicycling significantly harder to obtain.
Unwin has also suggested that mandatory bicycle helmets for children may be justified for their own protection.
The first of these criteria has been met. There is now a considerable amount of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets have been found to be effective at reducing head, brain and upper facial injury in bicyclists. Such health gains are apparent for all ages, though particularly for child populations (Section 3). Criterion 2 is less easy to demonstrate and must relate to a broader debate about the whole bicycling environment: bicycle helmet promotion and legislation needs to be seen as one part of a broader package of measures which enhances bicycling safety. The experience of countries such as Australia and New Zealand suggests that this process takes time. Barriers to helmet use can be overcome (Criterion 3). An infrastructure which promotes bicycling and provision for bicycle helmet is needed (for example employers, schools providing facilities for bicycle helmet storage).
In relation to Criterion 4 there is some evidence that legislation may have resulted in decreased levels of bicycling (for example in Victoria, Australia) but there are confounding factors and no clear long-term trends. Attention needs to be paid to enhancing the bicycling environment generally rather than concentrating solely on the individual approach of wearing helmets.
Finally, is there a case for mandatory helmets for children rather than all age groups? The UN convention on the rights of a child asserts that the child has a right to a safe environment. In the barriers and facilitators to helmet wearing section, we noted when children and adults bicycle in groups, children are more likely to wear a helmet if adults also do so. The role model effect of adults is an important factor in enhancing helmet wearing in children. It is also more difficult to enforce a law for one age group. Countries such as New Zealand or States or Provinces which have enacted universal legislation have attained high wearing levels. There may also be problems of enforcement if legislation relates to one environment, for example on-road rather than off-road because different sectors of a bicycle journey may encompass both on-road and off-road environments.
I think reason number 4 is the most compelling, to me it says that helmet wearing should never be enforced, it would be suicide to the cycle industry. I still think that conclusion number 1 is flawed, it depends on where, how far, route and conditions, time of day, and so on....
John
This I summise, seemed about right from what I had read, and so I settled on this as the general tone seems about right to me, basically if your bike skids/you brake hard for some reason, and whilst doing your best to avoid it, you bang the covered part of your head on the kerb/tarmac, then that helmet will indeed make a difference.
Yep, I agree that there is indeed the risk of neck injury if you go 'head over heels', but most (not all) of my accidents from childhood to now have been sideways not forwards.
And I TOTALLY agree that there is absolutely no protection if another vehicle is involved.
However I do not accept that I ride more agressively because I wear a helmet. In my case I ride more aggressively because I want road space, otherwise I wouldnt ride at all.
For ref tho, and I agree with some bits of the 'Conclusion' from the DfT (extract below), but am not in any way in favour of the compulsory enforcement of helmets, BECAUSE I think so much of it depends on riding style, route, conditions, etc. But for me, on my route, at the times and in the conditions I ride, I believe that the is a partial safety advantage to wearing a helmet, in the same way I wear gloves (to avoid scratches to my hands) and long sleeve jackets (even in summer, to avoid arm lacerations). Obviously I could not promote gloves and long sleeves as 'safety apparrel', but I believe that they are JUST as important for protection as the helmet, every little helps.
Remember, I am a commuter, not a leisure cyclist!
Dft Helmet wearing Conclusion:
------------------------------
Section 9: Conclusions
What relevance does the evidence reviewed have for bicycle helmet promotion in Britain?
Unwin (1996), when considering the context of the British legislative system, has put forward four criteria which must be met before bicycle helmet wearing is enforced. These criteria are:
(1) There must be a high level of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets are effective in reducing the rate of head injury to bicyclists.
(2) The benefits to society and others of mandatory bicycle helmets must be convincingly demonstrated, mandatory bicycle helmets cannot be justified simply to protect individual adult bicyclists.
(3) There must be widespread agreement, ideally by a large majority, that the potential benefits of compulsory bicycle helmets outweigh the infringement of personal liberty and other disbenefits.
(4) There must be good evidence to suggest that compulsory helmet wearing would not make the public health benefits of increased levels of bicycling significantly harder to obtain.
Unwin has also suggested that mandatory bicycle helmets for children may be justified for their own protection.
The first of these criteria has been met. There is now a considerable amount of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets have been found to be effective at reducing head, brain and upper facial injury in bicyclists. Such health gains are apparent for all ages, though particularly for child populations (Section 3). Criterion 2 is less easy to demonstrate and must relate to a broader debate about the whole bicycling environment: bicycle helmet promotion and legislation needs to be seen as one part of a broader package of measures which enhances bicycling safety. The experience of countries such as Australia and New Zealand suggests that this process takes time. Barriers to helmet use can be overcome (Criterion 3). An infrastructure which promotes bicycling and provision for bicycle helmet is needed (for example employers, schools providing facilities for bicycle helmet storage).
In relation to Criterion 4 there is some evidence that legislation may have resulted in decreased levels of bicycling (for example in Victoria, Australia) but there are confounding factors and no clear long-term trends. Attention needs to be paid to enhancing the bicycling environment generally rather than concentrating solely on the individual approach of wearing helmets.
Finally, is there a case for mandatory helmets for children rather than all age groups? The UN convention on the rights of a child asserts that the child has a right to a safe environment. In the barriers and facilitators to helmet wearing section, we noted when children and adults bicycle in groups, children are more likely to wear a helmet if adults also do so. The role model effect of adults is an important factor in enhancing helmet wearing in children. It is also more difficult to enforce a law for one age group. Countries such as New Zealand or States or Provinces which have enacted universal legislation have attained high wearing levels. There may also be problems of enforcement if legislation relates to one environment, for example on-road rather than off-road because different sectors of a bicycle journey may encompass both on-road and off-road environments.
I think reason number 4 is the most compelling, to me it says that helmet wearing should never be enforced, it would be suicide to the cycle industry. I still think that conclusion number 1 is flawed, it depends on where, how far, route and conditions, time of day, and so on....
John
Last edited:
Love it, what a neat argument.
As soon as these 4 points are generally agreed to have been met, then everyone's wearing a helmet anyway and there's no need for compulsion.
The problem is with point (3). The others are about evidence or analysis. Point (3) is about opinion and persuasion. Point (3) should not be on the list.
Point (3) is the debate that should start when the other points are proven.
Nick
Point three is important and is how most speed limits were worked out, we live in a democracy and many laws are decided by what the majority think rather than hard facts.
Public opinion should be met before enforced wearing is introduced, after all points 1,2 and 4 are just about swaying the result of point 3.
That doesn't mean all laws will be right as the public are often fed a load of rubbish and are too thick or lazy to make their own minds up.
You can John. In the motorcycling world gloves are regarded as safety apparel and often have kevlar guards built in to protect the most important areas, and motorcycle jacket sleeves sometimes incorporate pockets for reinforcing guards.
.
In once sense there is some truth in that John, since I didn't pose the title in order to prove it. I posed it for argument to show that it was gross exaggeration about accident protection from the helmet wearing proponents that accounted for their forecasted accident outcomes.....and I STILL think this whole thread is a wind-up
Diversion from the subject caused that to be a long winded process, but I'm content it was shown in the end using the small forum sample.
That it's been an incredibly successful thread is just a bonus.
.
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
