Don't forget your helmet

[flecc]

What I do notice is a creeping increase in 20 mph speed limits in built up areas, and even an extension of 50 mph limits on Motorways. The M4 at Port Talbot is 50 mph for over 5 miles now, all in the name of reducing pollution as it passes through a built up area.
Of course, the fact that lowering speed limits will favour range for ecars is entirely co-incidental!.

Indeed, my entire large London Borough is 20 mph limited now, excepting the through roads which are 30 limited. I'm quite sure the reasons of safety and pollution reduction are genuine though and the second very necessary. There are few existing e-cars and today's ones on sale now are effectively not range limited, though it will take a long time for that to be understood by the public who still think in fossil fuel terms.
.

 

[Danidl]

There is good evidence that wearing a helmet reduces or eliminates head injuries for cyclists. I'm an A&E consultant & I always wear a helmet. 90% of the time I go cycling with my wife & we both wear a Sena R1 helmet which have a fantastic Bluetooth intercom system. They cost £100 but are utterly brilliant.

Sena R1 Smart Cycling Helmet (Electric Tangerine, Large) : Amazon.co.uk: Sports & Outdoors

Shop Sena R1 Smart Cycling Helmet (Electric Tangerine, Large). Free delivery and returns on all eligible orders.

www.amazon.co.uk

Nigel, Without in any way undermining your position and experience and expertise, what you see is one side of the equation. .. Those who have fallen, and fallen badly enough to need going to hospital and then even more so to need the services of the consultant. The simple cuts and grazes would not come to your attention. This inevitably colours ones perceptions. If I did downhill off road or BMX or even rode a S elect at 45km.hr the logic of a helmet is obvious. But at 20km.hr ..basically running speed the argument is overstated.

 

[soundwave]

 

[nigelbb]

Nigel, Without in any way undermining your position and experience and expertise, what you see is one side of the equation. .. Those who have fallen, and fallen badly enough to need going to hospital and then even more so to need the services of the consultant. The simple cuts and grazes would not come to your attention. This inevitably colours ones perceptions. If I did downhill off road or BMX or even rode a S elect at 45km.hr the logic of a helmet is obvious. But at 20km.hr ..basically running speed the argument is overstated.

Personally I would make cycle helmets compulsory as the evidence is overwhelming that they protect the wearer from serious head injury. There is no downside to wearing a helmet. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds

I am old enough to have legally ridden a motorcycle without a helmet but I'm sure that this is just the same argument made by motorcyclists until helmets were made compulsory in 1973.

 

[vidtek]

Personally I would make cycle helmets compulsory as the evidence is overwhelming that they protect the wearer from serious head injury. There is no downside to wearing a helmet. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds

I am old enough to have legally ridden a motorcycle without a helmet but I'm sure that this is just the same argument made by motorcyclists until helmets were made compulsory in 1973.

@Nigebb
You are entitled to your opinion, but we already live in a nanny state in so many ways. If making helmets compulsory came to pass, then many thousands like myself would give up cycling for good. The imposition of draconian laws for the sake of a statistically very few head injury accidents with cyclists is totally unwarranted and self-defeating for the health of the population as a whole. You need to look at the whole picture of what cycling is about for the majority of adults out there not just your own petty obsessions.

 

[montwo]

Personally I would make cycle helmets compulsory as the evidence is overwhelming that they protect the wearer from serious head injury. There is no downside to wearing a helmet. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds

I am old enough to have legally ridden a motorcycle without a helmet but I'm sure that this is just the same argument made by motorcyclists until helmets were made compulsory in 1973.

Was the argument made that bringing in motorcycle helmets would reduce motorcycle use and thus reduce the health benefits broiught by motorcycling?
Because that's what happens wherever compulsory cycle helmets are imposed.

 

[StuartsProjects]

Personally I would make cycle helmets compulsory as the evidence is overwhelming that they protect the wearer from serious head injury. There is no downside to wearing a helmet.

The overwhelming evidence is that there is a downside to making helmets compulsory, it significantly reduces the numbers of people cycling.

 

[vfr400]

Personally I would make cycle helmets compulsory as the evidence is overwhelming that they protect the wearer from serious head injury. There is no downside to wearing a helmet. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds

I am old enough to have legally ridden a motorcycle without a helmet but I'm sure that this is just the same argument made by motorcyclists until helmets were made compulsory in 1973.

The logical extension to that is that the government orders you not to come out of your house nor allow anyone else in so that you can't catch a disease or have an accident. That's after banning the use of ladders, of course

 

[flecc]

Personally I would make cycle helmets compulsory as the evidence is overwhelming that they protect the wearer from serious head injury.

Of course they do, any form of absorbent padding would. But that isn't the point. Huge numbers of cyclists thoughout the world ride safely and never suffer head injuries from cycling. I'm one of them, over 70 years of cycling without any form of injury from cycling, plus 23 years of motorcycling without a helmet before they became compulsory. So helmets would have been a huge and totally unnecessary inconvenience to me throughout all those many years.

In life I've suffered four head injuries, two of them in my home, one in unusual circumstances at work and the worst one, a fractured skull at 12 years old on a sports field, but unusual once again since I wasn't engaged in the sport. Of course no helmets for those, and that's the point, no helmets because they weren't when one expects an accident. But when cycling I know an accident is possible so ride accordingly in complete safety and as proven, don't need others to legislate my cycling safety.

There is no downside to wearing a helmet.

There speaks a man who hasn't thought before posting, the downsides to cycle helmet wearing are overwhelming. Wherever it's been made compulsory the rate of cycling has slumped. Australia is a good example, compulsion resulted in the lowest rate of cycling anywhere in the world. So to save a rare case of a severe head injury, many millions whose health could benefit greatly from lifelong cycling, don't cycle.

Which would you rather have, The Netherlands where 70% of the population cycle daily into old age and public health is excellent with obesity very rare, or Australia where barely 1% ever cycle and cars dominate the roads? Surely as a medical man yourself, the answer to that question is blindingly obvious?

I'll happily concede one thing to you, the way so many cycle in Britain as apparently wannabee Tour de France competitors, racing around at over 20mph, often head down on drop bars, does make helmet wearing highly desirable. But to make helmet wearing compulsory for all those like me with the sense to cycle safely in the manner of most of the world, thus greatly reducing the rate of cycling here, is not just silly but pointless when there is no benefit.
.

 

[Nealh]

My use of a helmet is only when I go for longer off road rides and then I mostly don't wear it when I get to warm.
The assertion from some quarters is that drivers see someone wearing a helmet changes the way they think and the cyclist is treated differently.
For every day a riding they aren't needed but for extreme or fast road racing there may be reason to wear one as the likelihood of an off may be greater.

Look as an example of cyclists killed in cities how man wore a helmet which didn't help them because in the whole other severe life causing injuries were the case.

An argument can be made time and time again in both camps, none will win. Extreme sports helmets are worn but for every day riding isn't extreme unless one considers commuting in traffic is.

What we need is the UK is a legal change in the law that any motor vehicle in an accident is attributed as being the major & primary cause of any accident when it involves a vulnerable road user, and then if that person driving is found to be the primary caused banned for life from driving as a minimum.

 

[nigelbb]

You can ignore the evidence all you like. It's indisputable that wearing a cycle helmet drastically reduces serious head injuries. If you want to risk your brain then I don't & I don't think the NHS should be treating a serious avoidable issue like this never mind the cost to taxpayers of long term care for brain damaged victims.
As someone who obviously never wore a helmet when they were a kid as they didn't exist but now always does now I have returned to cycling my maturity I don't see any problem with wearing a helmet. What is the issue that people have with helmets that would stop them cycling? Isn't that cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The same arguments regarding freedom were made with regard to compulsory seat wearing plus the even more bonkers argument that without a seatbelt you would be thrown free in the event of an accident when that's exactly what would kill you!

 

[StuartsProjects]

If you want to risk your brain then I don't & I don't think the NHS should be treating a serious avoidable issue like this never mind the cost to taxpayers of long term care for brain damaged victims.

What about those who need treatment because they abuse alcohol, drugs, driving cars too fast or dont get vacinated ?

Or those that need treatment because they eat too much, dont exersize enough etc etc ?

 

[vidtek]

You can ignore the evidence all you like. It's indisputable that wearing a cycle helmet drastically reduces serious head injuries. If you want to risk your brain then I don't & I don't think the NHS should be treating a serious avoidable issue like this never mind the cost to taxpayers of long term care for brain damaged victims.
As someone who obviously never wore a helmet when they were a kid as they didn't exist but now always does now I have returned to cycling my maturity I don't see any problem with wearing a helmet. What is the issue that people have with helmets that would stop them cycling? Isn't that cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The same arguments regarding freedom were made with regard to compulsory seat wearing plus the even more bonkers argument that without a seatbelt you would be thrown free in the event of an accident when that's exactly what would kill you!

The figures do not support your argument. Just because you believe something does not make it true.

 

[nigelbb]

The figures do not support your argument. Just because you believe something does not make it true.

Do you have a link to evidence that proves cycle helmets do not reduce head injuries because I have plenty of evidence that they do.
What is the problem that you personally have with wearing a helmet? Are they uncomfortable or cissy or what?

 

[joelectric]

Personally I would make cycle helmets compulsory as the evidence is overwhelming that they protect the wearer from serious head injury. There is no downside to wearing a helmet. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds

I am old enough to have legally ridden a motorcycle without a helmet but I'm sure that this is just the same argument made by motorcyclists until helmets were made compulsory in 1973.

Do you have a link to evidence that proves cycle helmets do not reduce head injuries because I have plenty of evidence that they do.
What is the problem that you personally have with wearing a helmet? Arse they uncomfortable or cissy or what?

Freedom of choice

 

[nigelbb]

What about those who need treatment because they abuse alcohol, drugs, driving cars too fast or dont get vacinated ?

Or those that need treatment because they eat too much, dont exersize enough etc etc ?

There are already laws in place to mitigate the risks of those harms but most of them can't be fixed with a binary law ie wearing legal but not wearing illegal which has worked so well with motorcycle helmets & seatbelts. I would however make vaccination against COVID-19 compulsory because anyone now who suffers serious illness or death is almost certain to be unvaccinated.

If I could pass a law that would effectively prevent fat parents from fattening up their fat children by overfeeding them I would. It's a form of child abuse that generally goes unremarked.

 

[nigelbb]

Freedom of choice

Are people really still trotting out this nonsense like they did with regard to compulsory motorcycle helmets & seatbelts?

 

[joelectric]

Are people really still trotting out this nonsense like they did with regard to compulsory motorcycle helmets & seatbelts?

Here's a pic to get you choking in your cornflakes.
damn those non helmet wearing Dutch..

 

[Amoto65]

Are people really still trotting out this nonsense like they did with regard to compulsory motorcycle helmets & seatbelts?

I'm afraid so and they get worse every time the subject appears and regarding your previous post ( Isn't that cutting off your nose to spite your face. ) Yes it appears they would, but then as the saying goes" there's no fool like an old fool"

 

[vidtek]

Do you have a link to evidence that proves cycle helmets do not reduce head injuries because I have plenty of evidence that they do.
What is the problem that you personally have with wearing a helmet? Are they uncomfortable or cissy or what?

Head injuries are a tiny proportion of injuries to cyclists. Crushing, grazing and broken limbs are the vast majority of injury types. The benefits of compulsory headgear wearing have been proved over and over again to be minimal compared with the reduction of fitness levels of the general population with Australia's laws in particular proving a complete disaster.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjmxc7i5qrxAhVREWMBHZgLAnsQFnoECBgQAw&url=https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=173283f8-7b1c-4cb7-9e9f-52ee031627a2&subId=354928&usg=AOvVaw1BVg1iRbeXVwK7b3z9WlqA.

and this from the ABC:https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/should-we-ease-mandatory-helmet-laws-to-get-people-cycling/9564586

and this: http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_statistics.html

for participation pre and after mandatory helmets: http://www.cycle-helmets.com/cycling-1985-2019.html

But what most of these studies do not say is the proportion of head injuries to other injuries. That is the key statistic which pro-helmet studies omit.
This taken from the last link:

Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US - average overall 45.7% vulnerable road user fatality reduction and average 43.7% cyclist fatality reduction.


All non-helmet law countries - average overall 62.8% vulnerable road user fatality reduction and average 75.3% cyclist fatality reduction.


Where is the evidence that Australia's all-age mandatory bicycle helmet laws enforced from 1990 have resulted in less cyclist deaths than in non-helmet law countries?