Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Compulsory Cycle Helmet Wearing (O/T)
- Thread starter perseus
- Start date
Brixtaan
New member
Precisely.Which is why i'll do time before i'm seen in one.
This is all aside from the fact that i'm not pandering to an over-the-top, health and safety driven,busy-bodying,do-gooding nanny state trying to restrict my freedom of movement at every turn.
This is all aside from the fact that i'm not pandering to an over-the-top, health and safety driven,busy-bodying,do-gooding nanny state trying to restrict my freedom of movement at every turn.
Scotty Mac
New member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 24,405
fatboy said:
wjhat about on a tandom bike
dougdeep
New member
Nanny state.
- Thread starter
- #46
Knobheads Charter
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040423/debtext/40423-08.htm
"a respected materials specialist argued that a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from their cycle, without any real forward momentum, would not have had their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of no more than 75 joules (his estimate, with which I was in full agreement).
The court found in favour of his argument. So a High Court has decided that cycle helmets do not prevent injury even when falling from a cycle onto a flat surface, with little forward momentum. Cycle helmets will almost always perform much better against a flat surface than any other."
"Referring back to the Court case mentioned earlier, the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to do so, stating that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made."
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040423/debtext/40423-08.htm
"a respected materials specialist argued that a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from their cycle, without any real forward momentum, would not have had their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of no more than 75 joules (his estimate, with which I was in full agreement).
The court found in favour of his argument. So a High Court has decided that cycle helmets do not prevent injury even when falling from a cycle onto a flat surface, with little forward momentum. Cycle helmets will almost always perform much better against a flat surface than any other."
"Referring back to the Court case mentioned earlier, the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side, and the technical expert, to state that one must be safer wearing a helmet than without. All three refused to do so, stating that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. In their view, the performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made."
- Thread starter
- #47
Friday 12th November 2004
It's not what you know, it's who you know
1 in 8 of those signing our BMA helmet petition are doctors. When the British Medical Journal polled readers on how best to promote cycle safety, helmet compulsion came sixth out of six available options*. So, if rank and file doctors are against forcing all cyclists to wear helmets, who nobbled the BMA?
A great many doctors have already signed our BMA-and-helmet-compulsion petition, worried that their 'trade union' is willing to argue for a measure that could severely reduce the amount of cycling in the UK at a time when Brits are fatter than ever and need more exercise.
Some doctors have told BikeBiz.com they are concerned the BMA has been "hoodwinked" by a single-issue pressure group, and has not adequately researched the "recent evidence" about helmet compulsion's impact on levels of cycle use.
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=4886
It's not what you know, it's who you know
1 in 8 of those signing our BMA helmet petition are doctors. When the British Medical Journal polled readers on how best to promote cycle safety, helmet compulsion came sixth out of six available options*. So, if rank and file doctors are against forcing all cyclists to wear helmets, who nobbled the BMA?
A great many doctors have already signed our BMA-and-helmet-compulsion petition, worried that their 'trade union' is willing to argue for a measure that could severely reduce the amount of cycling in the UK at a time when Brits are fatter than ever and need more exercise.
Some doctors have told BikeBiz.com they are concerned the BMA has been "hoodwinked" by a single-issue pressure group, and has not adequately researched the "recent evidence" about helmet compulsion's impact on levels of cycle use.
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=4886
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
You should NEVER cycle indoors. That is VERY VERY dangerous.perseus said:
Anyway, nobody wore cycling helmets when we were kids (and I'm only talking the 80's here). I don't remember any of my friends having their brains splattered all over the road.
Mind you, my memories never been too good ever since this horrendous cycling accident when I banged my....
...what were we talking about again ?
Why do people who ride bikes think that no laws or rules apply to them? Red lights forget them. One way streets but they are only going one way. No entry. You try stopping me and the best one I don't need lights on my bike. I can see where I am going. But our council love them. Perhaps they will put a 20,000 bike stand in at Falmer.
- Thread starter
- #51
I expect that cyclists are just like motorists who think they can drive on pavements and not signal which way they are going!
Except motorists are in charge of a lethal machine.
Brighton Council hate cyclists. They try to kill them by putting in useless cycle paths.
Except motorists are in charge of a lethal machine.
Brighton Council hate cyclists. They try to kill them by putting in useless cycle paths.
Last edited:
BensGrandad
New member
Simple answer BAN CYCLISTS from our pavements as they spend more time on them than on the road.
I was find 5s for riding on a pavement in 1952 delivering papers.
Now the majority of cyclists do it and also ban those stuipid little rear light that are supposed to flash but invariably cannot be seen until you are 5ft away from them.
I was find 5s for riding on a pavement in 1952 delivering papers.
Now the majority of cyclists do it and also ban those stuipid little rear light that are supposed to flash but invariably cannot be seen until you are 5ft away from them.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
And your source for this alarming statistic is.....?
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
OK, but they're not actually "driving" on the pavement, as in hurtling along mowing people down, are they. Its not ideal having them park on the pavement I grant you, but if there's not enough room on the road to park, then whaddya do ? The council obviously havn't restricted it by planting wooden posts to stop it going on, so it can't be causing much of a problem.
Dover
Home at Last.
I have not rode a cycle for three years now, and would not wear a helmet then, or if I got on a cycle would do now. Unlike a motorcycle helmet, there seems to be no EC or Kite mark, and therefore there has been no proper testing on them.
Krispies is pro cycle helmet, and whilst I was riding, he attempted on various occasions, as did some of his friends of why i should wear a helmet. I explained my reasoning for not wearing one, which went on deaf ears.
Later that day, with Krispies still whinging in my ear re the beneifits of wearing a helmet I then noticed how his was being worn. Essentaly very loose, so that I could get my hand between his skull and the helmet. I then explained to him the potential damage of wearing a poorly fitting helmet.
If, and I hope this does not become law, the doougnuts that work in Halfords etc, should pass some competncy before selling any saftey device, on at least a NVQ3 level. I strongly suspect that this would not be the case though, as the work I have seen on various cycles compelted by them has been shocking.
Krispies is pro cycle helmet, and whilst I was riding, he attempted on various occasions, as did some of his friends of why i should wear a helmet. I explained my reasoning for not wearing one, which went on deaf ears.
Later that day, with Krispies still whinging in my ear re the beneifits of wearing a helmet I then noticed how his was being worn. Essentaly very loose, so that I could get my hand between his skull and the helmet. I then explained to him the potential damage of wearing a poorly fitting helmet.
If, and I hope this does not become law, the doougnuts that work in Halfords etc, should pass some competncy before selling any saftey device, on at least a NVQ3 level. I strongly suspect that this would not be the case though, as the work I have seen on various cycles compelted by them has been shocking.
- Thread starter
- #60
I am sure that the hon. Member for Carlisle will have read the opinion of Brian Walker, who is one of the leading experts on the mechanics of helmets. His company, Head Protection Evaluation, is the principal UK test laboratory for helmets. He argues that
"with only one or two exceptions, the helmets tested"—
these are the helmets in general use now—
"were quite incapable of meeting the higher Snell B-90 standard"—
which pertained in the early 1990s—
"to which many of the models had been previously certified. Some helmets were even incapable of meeting the weak EN1078 standard. Some people argue that helmets are effective if 'properly worn'. How those words have haunted me through many years! Apart from some racing cyclists, I hardly ever see a cycle helmet worn properly . . . we have examined many cycle helmets that were manufactured in such a manner that correct adjustment was completely impossible."
Hansard.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040423/debtext/40423-08.htm
"with only one or two exceptions, the helmets tested"—
these are the helmets in general use now—
"were quite incapable of meeting the higher Snell B-90 standard"—
which pertained in the early 1990s—
"to which many of the models had been previously certified. Some helmets were even incapable of meeting the weak EN1078 standard. Some people argue that helmets are effective if 'properly worn'. How those words have haunted me through many years! Apart from some racing cyclists, I hardly ever see a cycle helmet worn properly . . . we have examined many cycle helmets that were manufactured in such a manner that correct adjustment was completely impossible."
Hansard.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/cm040423/debtext/40423-08.htm