I think I may have been misunderstood.(as is often the case!!) I am not advocating compulsory helmets, just airing a line of argument..
Cycle helmets debate
- Thread starter musicbooks
- Start date
. . . .
. . . . .This debate is always a heated one in which there's all manner of misrepresentation of what others say in order to convince, as a couple of my responses have shown where it's happened to me.
.
Sorry. Yes, I agree, it should be choice. BUt where do you stand on someone who chooses not to wear a helmet and then who receives a serious head injury which may not have occurred if they were wearing a helmet (motorcycle)? Whp should pay for the lifetime carer, medical consequences etc?
Freedom to choose also means taking responsibility for that choice.
I've partaken in activities that many would consider a little hazardous, like caving. As a caver, I accepted that I was exposing myself to risks that could also expose others to risks in trying to rescue me if I had an accident. Like many (perhaps most) cavers, I volunteered to join Cave Rescue and trained to rescue others. As the emergency services don't do cave rescue, they call in the volunteers from the sport, I was effectively self-insuring myself.
The same applies to the case of wearing helmets. If it this were made voluntary, then I firmly believe that the cost of head injury treatment should fall to the injured party, or perhaps be met by insurance. If insurers opted to give motorcyclists who wore helmets a reduction in premium, due to their lower risk of requiring treatment for head injury, then that's fine - they still have the freedom to choose and don't burden society as a consequence of that choice.
I think it's difficult once you bring the whole issue of "who pays?" into things though, as the next obvious question to ask is "should smokers who develop lung cancer pay for their own treatment?", or heavy drinkers for that matter.
The real issue here is over behaviour, not safety aids. If people are encouraged to take responsibility for their own safety, and the safety-net of the nanny state is removed, then I am sure that we'd see less dangerous behaviour overall.
There is nothing quite like feeling very vulnerable to make people take more care.
Jeremy
I've partaken in activities that many would consider a little hazardous, like caving. As a caver, I accepted that I was exposing myself to risks that could also expose others to risks in trying to rescue me if I had an accident. Like many (perhaps most) cavers, I volunteered to join Cave Rescue and trained to rescue others. As the emergency services don't do cave rescue, they call in the volunteers from the sport, I was effectively self-insuring myself.
The same applies to the case of wearing helmets. If it this were made voluntary, then I firmly believe that the cost of head injury treatment should fall to the injured party, or perhaps be met by insurance. If insurers opted to give motorcyclists who wore helmets a reduction in premium, due to their lower risk of requiring treatment for head injury, then that's fine - they still have the freedom to choose and don't burden society as a consequence of that choice.
I think it's difficult once you bring the whole issue of "who pays?" into things though, as the next obvious question to ask is "should smokers who develop lung cancer pay for their own treatment?", or heavy drinkers for that matter.
The real issue here is over behaviour, not safety aids. If people are encouraged to take responsibility for their own safety, and the safety-net of the nanny state is removed, then I am sure that we'd see less dangerous behaviour overall.
There is nothing quite like feeling very vulnerable to make people take more care.
Jeremy
I'm in favour of them bearing the costs in one way or another, but as posted before, those who brought in the NHS took it upon themselves to bear the liability instead. They and NHS supporters cannot start blaming others for the consequences of their own actions in introducing care for all.
If they didn't want to pay for others, they should not have started the dependency culture in the first place. So it's no use thrusting any liability on me or others, they brought these support cost problems on themselves, and the answer lies in their hands. Accept the costs or scrap the health welfare so we can all support ourselves.
The half-cock notion of having an NHS which only supports accident victims under some circumstances as decided by some busybody who thinks they know best is unacceptable. The service has already gone too far that way with routine medicine.
.
Just so. If we wish to live in a fine society then we will be here for one another. Knowing our own foibles we do not expect perfection in others. What is risky is LIFE. If that sounds flabby then so be it. To me it seems common sense.
"A man's reach should exceed his grasp,
Or what's a heaven for?"
Flecc,
As you seemed to appreciate the pilot medical anomaly, I have just unearthed and re-read the full paper. As part of the analysis, the doctor who undertook the study calculated the cost-per-life-saved as a consequence of pilot medicals. This varies for different countries, but the two extremes were:
UK male pilots spend £60,000,000 in medical fees to save one life
French female pilots spend £1,500,000,000 in medical fees to save one life
The very senior aviation medicine specialist who wrote this paper has also looked at the effectiveness of health screening in the general population. One example he has quoted compares breast cancer detection and successful treatment with the introduction of screening programmes using mammography. There's no apparent correlation between screening test results and overall diagnosis rate, which seems to show that screening doesn't actually give that much of a benefit, apart from raising public awareness of symptoms so that people monitor their own health more carefully.
Jeremy
As you seemed to appreciate the pilot medical anomaly, I have just unearthed and re-read the full paper. As part of the analysis, the doctor who undertook the study calculated the cost-per-life-saved as a consequence of pilot medicals. This varies for different countries, but the two extremes were:
UK male pilots spend £60,000,000 in medical fees to save one life
French female pilots spend £1,500,000,000 in medical fees to save one life
The very senior aviation medicine specialist who wrote this paper has also looked at the effectiveness of health screening in the general population. One example he has quoted compares breast cancer detection and successful treatment with the introduction of screening programmes using mammography. There's no apparent correlation between screening test results and overall diagnosis rate, which seems to show that screening doesn't actually give that much of a benefit, apart from raising public awareness of symptoms so that people monitor their own health more carefully.
Jeremy
And where do you stand on someone who chooses to wear a helmet and then receives a serious head injury which may not have occurred if they weren't wearing a helmet?
A helmet, by increasing the effective size of the head has a greater potential to cause injuries by catching on the ground etc and jerking the neck violently.
I know that when I was thrown from my bike recently (off the left side after a front wheel skid) I tucked my head in, used my hands to protect me, landed on my shoulder (on the nice soft grass luckily) and rolled up onto my feet facing the way I had come. My head did not impact the ground by any meaningful amount (I think it gently rolled onto it). Now if I had been wearing a helmet the extra 2" or so of plastic on my head would have impacted with the ground and would have deflected my neck 2" further, possibly injuring it.
Jeremy
That is astonishing, a 25 to 1 ratio on expenditure between those pilot cases. There could also be a very un PC inference there, that female pilots are more of a risk, and French female pilots a very great risk indeed.
I had come across the breast cancer fact previously, my (wholesome) interest in that area from years ago when the company I was with (Xerox) was experimenting with early mammography systems.
.
That is astonishing, a 25 to 1 ratio on expenditure between those pilot cases. There could also be a very un PC inference there, that female pilots are more of a risk, and French female pilots a very great risk indeed.
I had come across the breast cancer fact previously, my (wholesome) interest in that area from years ago when the company I was with (Xerox) was experimenting with early mammography systems.
.
The difference is largely artificial, I think, Flecc. The sample size for French female pilots is low and hence the probability of an accident caused by pilot incapacitation is also low. The other issue seems to be that women tend to suffer less from sudden incapacitation-type medical problems at an age when they might still be flying. The incidence of heart disease, for example, in men of working age is higher than that of women.
The really astonishing thing is that we seem to feel it's perfectly reasonable for UK male pilots to pay out £60,000,000 from their own pockets to save one life. I wonder what the government would be prepared to pay out to save one life? The "post code lottery" with regard to potentially life-saving drugs comes to mind.
Jeremy
The really astonishing thing is that we seem to feel it's perfectly reasonable for UK male pilots to pay out £60,000,000 from their own pockets to save one life. I wonder what the government would be prepared to pay out to save one life? The "post code lottery" with regard to potentially life-saving drugs comes to mind.
Jeremy
Yes of course, I hadn't considered the small sample size.
That figure is astonishing, and I wonder if the pilots have expressed a view on this themselves. They aren't usually reticent in expressing themselves on issues.
As for the government's view on a suitable amount, I'm a born cynic who believes the answer lies in what they can gain or lose politically in any given situation. The more something is hidden from general view, the less they would be likely to spend.
.
Helmets don't usually catch on the ground and I know that the BS standard for motorcycle helmets specifically addresses that point... they have to have low profile studs, no protrusions etc. Bike helmets look pretty slick to me and, far from catching on the ground would slide along it, I would have thought. But, as I mentioned earlier re car seat belts, there is always the instance of someone who escaped death by NOT having a seat belt on and much is made of it and used (like your example) to supposedly illustrate that wearing seat belts is unnecessary. The point is that, in the case of seat belts, in the majority of accidents... the great majority... they are beneficial and save lives, faces, heads etc. The statistics on that prove it beyond any doubt whatsoever.
People often use a similar logic when talking about smoking.. " I know someone who is 81 and smoked since they were 10 and they are fine. (therefore) Smoking can't be that bad". It's false logic. Just because you feel you escaped a broken neck (which you don't really know for certain) by not wearing one, doesn't mean to say that, in general, they are not worth wearing. People bleed to death from the severing of an artery in the skull....fact.... it's a major blood vessel that will produce a 12" fountain of blood if severed and, unless compressed, you will bleed to death. That is indisputable, anatomical fact and I have seen this happen myself (a bike accident in Pakistan). So, I'd rather protect even a little bit against that possibility by wearing at least some protection even if there is a 'risk' of it catching on the ground.
And I absolutely support your right to wear a helmet Jimmy, and even agree that they do look slick, when worn by those suited best to them anyway.
My perspective is coloured by the fact that for my first years of motorcycling there were no helmets available, and for a major part of my cycling life there were no helmets, facts little appreciated by those too young to know.
Therefore as I've posted, our emphasis in those days was always on primary safety, not having the accident, since on motorbikes especially, we were very vulnerable.
There seems today to be far too much acceptance that accidents are inevitable, I'm sure as a result of so much attention being paid to secondary safety. They aren't inevitable, as many of those of my generation show clearly. I've had full no claims bonus for all of my life, I've never come off a motorbike on the road in 53 years of riding them (though a few times off in competition), and I've only had one gentle slide off a bicycle, but staying upright, in several decades now. But I don't pussyfoot around and often enjoy high speeds safely. Large numbers of older rider/drivers have similar records, as shown by the regular awards that bus and Royal Mail drivers get for decades of blameless driving.
By contrast when I had charge of a fleet of 140 engineer and sales cars in Southern England, the average accident rate was one per three years per driver, all taking the very wrong attitude that accidents are inevitable.
.
My perspective is coloured by the fact that for my first years of motorcycling there were no helmets available, and for a major part of my cycling life there were no helmets, facts little appreciated by those too young to know.
Therefore as I've posted, our emphasis in those days was always on primary safety, not having the accident, since on motorbikes especially, we were very vulnerable.
There seems today to be far too much acceptance that accidents are inevitable, I'm sure as a result of so much attention being paid to secondary safety. They aren't inevitable, as many of those of my generation show clearly. I've had full no claims bonus for all of my life, I've never come off a motorbike on the road in 53 years of riding them (though a few times off in competition), and I've only had one gentle slide off a bicycle, but staying upright, in several decades now. But I don't pussyfoot around and often enjoy high speeds safely. Large numbers of older rider/drivers have similar records, as shown by the regular awards that bus and Royal Mail drivers get for decades of blameless driving.
By contrast when I had charge of a fleet of 140 engineer and sales cars in Southern England, the average accident rate was one per three years per driver, all taking the very wrong attitude that accidents are inevitable.
.
Four years ago I was knocked of my bike from the rear, I had severe injuries from where my glasses shattered and lacerated my face, my helmet was a mess but my head intact, From that experience I always wear a helmet,I do feel that it is wise to do so. A personal choice,agreed, but think about it
Presumably you apply the same rationale to the costs and don't want other people to pay when your head gets broken? If so, I would agree with you...
You have not been misunderstood (nor misquoted). In fact I carefully avoided the word "compulsory" even though it was in your post twice (once quoting flecc). Sorry if it looked that way to you.
I just wanted to point out that when you are looking at the cost of a particular action, you need to compare it to the cost of doing the opposite. Admittedly, that cost would differ between looking at an individual to looking at a population.
What I mean by that is the cost of wearing a helmet for an individual would be small (the cost of the helmet etc) but the cost of promoting (in whatever form) helmet use could be large due to the associated loss in health benefits caused by reduced cycle use (cyclists live longer than no-cyclists).
I have paid my national insurance since leaving school, never missed a days work for over 15 years, {touch wood}. The state is in debt to me for the large portion of cash I have had drained from my wage packet. I don't begrudge you or the entire legal population of these Islands hospital care if accidental or self inflicted. With this in mind if the fickle gods decide to reduce my fine coconut like skull into several pieces, I demand to be put back together if at all possible.
Precisely.
Health care for all they called it. Those who institute these all embracing protection schemes accept the cost and cannot be selective many decades later after taking my money, since that is the criminal offence of false pretences. If they don't want to pay, they shouldn't have introduced the schemes.
If I'm denied the support that I've been forced to pay for, they must deny it to everyone, since every activity in life has danger, but I would rather not have had the protection in the first place.
.
I do hate it when this topic comes up as it does reminds me that an accident is a possibility and then somebody will go into graphic detail about the injuries I am likely to have. I don't need to be put off cycling, however...
I have a colleague at work who is partially sighted, actually he is registered blind. He likes to ride into work on his bike with headphones on, listening to the radio. So you can see that his senses are somewhat numbed. He is always having little mishaps and they are always somebody else's fault. Last year he had a really bad accident that left him in hospital with a head injury, he cannot remember how it happened. What outraged everybody most was that he wasn't wearing a helmet, never mind that he is mostly blind and rendered deaf with his headphones. For me this sums up our attitude to primary/secondary safety.
My choice is to wear a helmet. I will do my best to avoid an accident but have to accept that it is a possibility and won't have a choice about the type of accident it will be. It could be that wearing a helmet will be more dangerous but on balance I think this is unlikely.
I have a colleague at work who is partially sighted, actually he is registered blind. He likes to ride into work on his bike with headphones on, listening to the radio. So you can see that his senses are somewhat numbed. He is always having little mishaps and they are always somebody else's fault. Last year he had a really bad accident that left him in hospital with a head injury, he cannot remember how it happened. What outraged everybody most was that he wasn't wearing a helmet, never mind that he is mostly blind and rendered deaf with his headphones. For me this sums up our attitude to primary/secondary safety.
My choice is to wear a helmet. I will do my best to avoid an accident but have to accept that it is a possibility and won't have a choice about the type of accident it will be. It could be that wearing a helmet will be more dangerous but on balance I think this is unlikely.
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
