Helmet debate... new twist

[eTim]

The vast majority of head injuries are sustained by people in cars and on foot - why is there no discussion on the merits of of wearing helmets in these conditions? If the aim is to save life that is where to start for maximum life saving. But it isn't about that, is it? it's about imposing one's will on others.

There are so many examples of imposing one's will on others, that it is just human nature.

People in power do it.
Large groups of people do it, by persuading the people in power.
Small groups of people do it, by terrorising people in power.
Individuals have no voice unless they pick option 2 or 3.

Personally I sometimes wear a helmet, sometimes I don't and I don't care what others think unless they try to force me to wear a helmet. I like to make my own risk assessment, most of the time I get it right, sometimes wrong, who cares ?

 

[NRG]

from the site that Daniel referenced in post 152:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

 

[Old Timer]

I convinced my wife to wear a helmet and she is glad because with a beani underneath it keeps your head nice and warm

Like Lemmy, I could care less what other people do because at the end of the day it is up to the individual to decide on whats best for them.

 

[lemmy]

from the site that Daniel referenced in post 152:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

It's an interesting read. What it amounts to is, if you tell me what accident you propose to have, I will design something to alleviate the results.

In the absence of that vital information, a helmet may help or hinder, depending on the accident.

The author of the piece plainly sees no reason for advocacy of helmets or otherwise. You pays (or not) your money and you makes your choice.

 

[eTim]

From a social POV, I think the wearing of helmets is like the many other things that we are made to feel guilty about if we do/do not do it:

Talking to children (as an adult male), smoking, fox hunting, 4x4 driving, off road motorcycling, appropriate speeding, making money. There may be legitimate reasons for one activity or another, but some do-gooder, lawmaker, tree hugger, will always try and stick the boot in, such is the culture in the UK and now we have the Euro-idiots to contend with.

 

[flecc]

You can be sure that neither Europe not the UK government will make helmets compulsory. That's because they know it deters cycling and that's the opposite of what they want. The UK governments have even made it clear they will block any attempt to make helmets for children compulsory.

From the chart below you'll see that in the Netherlands where helmet wearing incidence is very low (0.1% from another source), 27% of trips are made by bicycle. In Australia where helmet wearing is compulsory, hardly anyone cycles:

 

[Lloyd]

That is an interesting chart there Flecc. It saddens me to see the UK so low down

Dft figures for 2009 show that 58% percent of all car journeys made in the UK are under 5 miles, so why the hell are we so low on that chart?!?!

I can understand OZ being low, as the infrastructure is so varied.

And Netherlands would be high as it is flat and has the perfect infrastructure to support cycling.

What's our excuse?

 

[Old Timer]

Can I come in again!

As I said, people do what they want to do. Having said that(IMHO) I hardly notice when wearing my helmet, they are so light. I wonder what the main reason that people don`t like them?
When riding the other day a fairly largish twig/branch dropped off of a tree in front of me( I stopped and the weight was about 2 Kilos) 2 secs later might have seriously injured me
I know the chance of that happening is rare but have you ever noticed just how many times you meet another vehicle and a crossroad?

 

[flecc]

What's our excuse?

As much as a third of us have the excuse of the hilly territory Lloyd, the demarcation between relatively flat South London and the Surrey hills is quite marked with very different rates of utility cycling, high in South London, negligible in the Surrey hills of the North Downs. The effects of that seems much greater than the effects of heavy traffic.

But for two thirds of the country there really is no excuse, I see it just as a cultural thing, Britain is not a cycling nation though we were only sixty years ago. That was through necessity though, not desire, as as soon as motorised transport could be afforded, the population made the switch. As ever, the USA is our cultural model, not Europe.
.

 

[Lloyd]

Tis a shame. Would be a far better place if more people cycled! One can but dream eh?

I think that as a country the UK is not very cycling-friendly. Certainly the attitude of many motorists I encounter would put off a new cyclist in an instant I think. Our cycle lanes are a joke, too.

I think I am having one of my more negative, moany days

 

[flecc]

I hardly notice when wearing my helmet, they are so light. I wonder what the main reason that people don`t like them?

Motorcycle helmets weren't available for the first 23 years of my motorcycling and cycle helmets not available for around the first 30 years of my cycling so I'm used to being without the latter and ride accordingly. Since I've never hurt myself in any way in 63 years of cycling I'm content to carry on without helmets or any other cycling gear which are just inconveniences. I like to just get on and ride at a moments notice in just the way the Dutch do, street clothes and no special preparations when going on utility trips.
.

 

[onmebike]

I'm not sure how true it is, but I was told long ago that the motorcycle crash helmet law was pushed through by an MP with interests in Stadium helmets?
Apparently, this was done more for the reason of cutting the cost of treating head injury's which could involve life long care, than rider safety.
In two particular cases of head injury I know of the injury's were due to the brain impacting the inside of the skull. There was no external sign of injury so doubtful a helmet would have helped in these cases.

I'm not so sure the nanny state is interested in protecting us, rather reducing the cost of treating us should we have an accident. Plus the obvious benefit of fixed penalties should we break the law.

I also think there's some myth around seat belt effectiveness. In the attached advert, I believe the same injuries would occur had the driver been wearing a seat belt. Internal organs don't become stationary because their outer protection is restrained, do they?


YouTube - New Seatbelt Advert

 

[flecc]

I also think there's some myth around seat belt effectiveness. In the attached advert, I believe the same injuries would occur had the driver been wearing a seat belt. Internal organs don't become stationary because their outer protection is restrained, do they?

The Government's Road Research Laboratory published their research into this a few years after the law was introduced. They concluded that there was a "hinge" speed at which the seatbelt itself caused death through internal organ damage like burst spleen or liver. That speed was circa 26 mph, that's the terminal speed at the driver's body, not the accident impact speed which is much higher but absorbed by the vehicle structural collapse.
.

 

[Patrick]

When riding the other day a fairly largish twig/branch dropped off of a tree in front of me( I stopped and the weight was about 2 Kilos) 2 secs later might have seriously injured me

Imagine if it had headed towards the pavement instead of the road, it could have easily hit a pedestrian. Maybe we should be wearing helmets when walking. Not all the time, that would be silly, just when we're doing something dangerous like walking under trees, drinking alcohol, wearing stiletto shoes, going up stairs, crossing the road etc.

 

[onmebike]

Imagine if it had headed towards the pavement instead of the road, it could have easily hit a pedestrian. Maybe we should be wearing helmets when walking. Not all the time, that would be silly, just when we're doing something dangerous like walking under trees, drinking alcohol, wearing stiletto shoes, going up stairs, crossing the road etc.

You'd have to wear the appropriate helmet, cycling helmets only work for cycling accident's? I wear a minors helmet cos I live near a school.

 

[onmebike]

The Government's Road Research Laboratory published their research into this a few years after the law was introduced. They concluded that there was a "hinge" speed at which the seatbelt itself caused death through internal organ damage like burst spleen or liver. That speed was circa 26 mph, that's the terminal speed at the driver's body, not the accident impact speed which is much higher but absorbed by the vehicle structural collapse.
.

There must be a point where a helmet ceases to help? What I mean by this is, it could save you from an otherwise quick death and leave you in a vegetative state for the rest of your days. What help would that be?

 

[flecc]

True, though a lower speed impact could produce the reverse, the helmet protecting but without helmet producing the vegetative state.

This chart is interesting, cyclist death rate against cycling incidence and helmet wearing rate. You'll see that Finland where 20% wear helmets and only about 7% of trips are by bike has a death rate well over twice that of the Netherlands where 27% of trips are by bike and helmets are virtually never worn. It shows very clearly that helmets are not necessary for personal safety, there are other factors at work:

.

 

[musicbooks]

there are other factors at work:

.

Yes, potholes and irresponsible drivers

BW
musicbooks

 

[eTim]

wearing stiletto shoes,

Hmm interesting Patrick, is there something you want to tell us?

Flecc - you must have a graph or chart for any statistic we can think of!

 

[eTim]

.

Surely this reflects the number of 4 wheel vehicles on the roads, causing accidents? And in those cases a helmet would most probably not have had any life saving effect.