Guardian article on bike helmets - good read
- Thread starter anotherkiwi
- Start date
Modification to French helmet law if you are ever over here with your kids or grandkids:
Wearing helmets is not compulsory for adults when cycling in France, but from March 22 2017, children under 12 years of age must wear a cycle helmet when cycling or being carried as a passenger.
Our Spring gift...
Wearing helmets is not compulsory for adults when cycling in France, but from March 22 2017, children under 12 years of age must wear a cycle helmet when cycling or being carried as a passenger.
Our Spring gift...
From the article site:
• This is an edited extract from Bike Nation – How Cycling Can Save the World, by Peter Walker, published by Yellow Jersey on 6 April. To order a copy for £11.04 (RRP £12.99) go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99.
.
" the solution may well be less protection." -this reminds me of a Monster Raving Looney policy to have a 3" metal spike mounted to steering wheels to remind drivers of their own mortality.
Sorry @flecc, it was an American economist not the OMRLP: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tullock_Spike
I remember a conversation I had with a paramedic and the changes he had seen in car accident injuries. Before the introduction of safety belt and improved brakes the injuries were more of the "gone through the front window" and covered in blood and crush type injuries. Following the safety improvements the injuries became arguably more complex internal injuries. I do think there is something in the argument that some safety features can promote greater risk taking in cycling/driving due to a perceived increase in safety. I saw this was a concern on the BBC regarding semi-self driving vehicles making drivers complacent.
An example cropped up in the 1980s after the introduction of compulsory seat belt wearing. The government's Roads Research Laboratory had been monitoring driver behaviour before and after and subsequently reported that the seat belts had brought about roughly 10% increase in driving speeds across the board.
The assumption was of course that drivers had felt more protected and automatically responded accordingly.
.
D
Deleted member 4366
Guest
Yes, but more likely the cars just got faster. As I keep saying, there's nothing wrong with the statistics, it's just the assumptions that people make and the conclusions that they draw.
The RRL data was shortly after the seat belt enforcement, so essentially the same car fleet and drivers.
The measured behaviour had changed.
.
When my son was 5 he was riding his bike up and down the cul de sac where we lived and he said 'Mum, I've got a great way to stop' . Before I could say a word he shoved his feet into his front wheel. Spectacular flip! Luckily his new helmet took the impact.
Fractured three vertebrae landing on my head in a riding accident when I was 15. Fortunately I had my (old style) riding hat on that day. My hat could be folded up after.
It's helmets all the way for us but I would love more bike lanes and less pot holes here in rural Lincolnshire. Or maybe drivers that used mirrors, indicators, common sense, even their eyes.......
Fractured three vertebrae landing on my head in a riding accident when I was 15. Fortunately I had my (old style) riding hat on that day. My hat could be folded up after.
It's helmets all the way for us but I would love more bike lanes and less pot holes here in rural Lincolnshire. Or maybe drivers that used mirrors, indicators, common sense, even their eyes.......
..... Common sense , why is it so rare?.
I don't use a helmet, my wife does , and not only in the. house(joke alert). When my children were small i did insist on them wearing helmets , skulls have not fully formed in infants and small kids.
If i was riding a horse, or careening down a mountain on an MTB , or even a member of the Lycra brigade hurtling along at 30 mph, then I would wear head protection. .. but travelling at 15 mph routinely, I do not see the need. Athletes running travel faster, and they do not require helmets Cycling is not a hazardous procedure, and this should be recognised. I may fall off my bike,( i have not in years ), but the consequences are likely to be no more severe than tripping when running.
Accident and Emergency consultants are probably the least reliable sources for this. They are the group who only see all the filtered cases where those with severe injuries are selected. This is sure to colour their perceptions. In another context, .. other consultants might see doorknobs as a particular hazard.!!
Since more people are injured by trips down stairs, would it not be prudent to insist on helmets in all two story residences.?
Speed kills , height kills, kinetic energy kills but slow speed ambling either on foot or bike meets neither criteria.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 4366
Guest
I went over the handlebars when I was 12. I've still got the hole in my head from it. I went over them again a few years ago and it knocked me completely senseless. That time, the helmet took most of the impact. Whenever you go over the handlebars, you land on your head. Thankfully, it doesn't happen very often, but it can happen just by chance.
I landed on my nose, it absorbed the impact but made a mess.
A helmet with a visor would most probably caused more damage, it's just my glasses are now a bit wonky.
You don't need to being fast to get head injury, <5mph will do it.