Compulsory Cycle Helmet Wearing (O/T)

[perseus]

The British Medical Association has done a complete U-turn and is now in favour of forcing cyclists to wear crash helmets, despite there being no evidence supporting this position.

If you wish to protest about this ridiculous decision, sign this
petition:

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/bma-petition.php

 

[Marc]

I dont wear a helmet when I'm flying down a Black Run in the French Alps dodging in and out of trees with huge rocks either side of me, so no chance I'll be wearing one for riding a bloody pushbike

 

[Meade's Ball]

Why shouldn't we wear helmets?
I don't, but i ought to.

 

[REDLAND]

I only wear a helmet when downhilling apart from that its easy to get ya head out of the way in a crash !!

I feel silly in a helmet, though mine is full face !!

 

[tomysupercup]

The British Medical Association has done a complete U-turn and is now in favour of forcing cyclists to wear crash helmets, despite there being no evidence supporting this position.

is that a joke?

no evidence?

 

[perseus]

But the Mountain Bike Patrol will be out, sneaking up in the van with big black letters saying MOUNTAIN BIKE CONTROL, and then with a five minutes head start to allow the B (ike)-squad put on their regulation cycle helmets (with or without blue flashing lights on top). Then its D-lock versus truncheon or ammonia spray (in the water bottle for use against dogs) against noxious pepper spray. Who do you think will win? The B-squad will probably have electric motors on their bikes and the ambushes will learn (despite hitting their bonces on the ceiling of the van) to emerge helmets on, a ready for pursuit of the heinous cycle bandits (who may have already been caught and prosecuted for hanging around street corners without permission).

Non wearing of cycle helmets will be an arrest and your DNA will be sent to the headquarters. You will not be allowed to go abroad to watch football matches, join the Civil Service or go to America. Just like Muslims (and fox hunters) as a convicted felon (or suspicious character) you can then be incarcerated without reason.

 

[Rangdo]

You don't need evidence. Common sence says if you smash your noggin on the tarmac it will recieve more damage if you're not wearing a helmet. Numbnuts. I always wear one.

 

[fatboy]

Something lik ethis should be up to the individual as you are only going to harm yourself by not wearing one.

It is not like wearing a seatbelt, where if you don't wear one you can harm others.

 

[Marc]

I really should but here are my main reasons for not doing so:

1) The airflow in winter means my shaven head gets cold bloody quick.

2) If I wear a wooly hat underneath I dont get sufficient air circulation to keep my head at a decent tempreture, hence it gets bloody hot and I end up fainting!

3) the straps on my helmet are annoyingly shite and tight

4) I look like a right DIN! Personal Appearance is EVERYTHING when you're the sole leader of the Cycle Lane

 

[fatboy]

I look like a right DIN!

I know.

 

[lincs seagull]

So there is no evidence of if you fall off your bike land on your head a helmet wont stop you from fracturing your skull.

must have a very good chance of reducing it

 

[perseus]

Two points, when you fall off your bike, you rarely invert and land on your bonce. Less than 5% chance, probably less than 1%. Shoulder pads are a better bet, (even if you get knocked off by a car and use you bonce as a brake).

68% of bicycling injuries are caused by cars smashing into the cyclist and a puny little cycle helmet is not going to help much. (80% will be side impact.)
A cricket or motorcycle helmet makes more sense for the careless and unlucky. (Cricket helmet could prevent a Joe Jordan.)

It is more dangerous, per mile travelled, to walk than to cycle, and it is more dangerous indoors. So are pedestrians, especially indoors, going to be forced to wear cycle helmets?

It is downright prejudice against cyclists. As well as being a downright fraud pretending falsely that cycle helmets are any good whatsoever. (Children could benefit as their lighter build makes them more likely to invert, they muck about on bikes with tricks etc, and have thinner skulls.)

Lots of people are seriously injured putting their socks on in the morning. What has that got to do with cycle helmets? A good point.

 

[Cian]

I never wear a helmet - head gets too hot underneath it, only had two bike accidents in my life and both got my legs and not my head

I probably cycle a few hundred miles a month, on a mix of urban and rural roads.

 

[Marc]

I never wear a helmet - head gets too hot underneath it, only had two bike accidents in my life and both got my legs and not my head

I probably cycle a few hundred miles a month, on a mix of urban and rural roads.

I do twelve miles a day, 5 days a week, unless is pissing down the the Bus comes into play!
Only time I broke something was when I was hammered beyond belief - riding up a slight hill and I fell off onto my left shoulder and snapped my collarbone!

 

[Rangdo]

Two points, when you fall off your bike, you rarely invert and land on your bonce. Less than 5% chance, probably less than 1%. Shoulder pads are a better bet, (even if you get knocked off by a car and use you bonce as a brake).

68% of bicycling injuries are caused by cars smashing into the cyclist and a puny little cycle helmet is not going to help much. (80% will be side impact.)
A cricket or motorcycle helmet makes more sense for the careless and unlucky. (Cricket helmet could prevent a Joe Jordan.)

It is more dangerous, per mile travelled, to walk than to cycle, and it is more dangerous indoors. So are pedestrians, especially indoors, going to be forced to wear cycle helmets?

It is downright prejudice against cyclists. As well as being a downright fraud pretending falsely that cycle helmets are any good whatsoever. (Children could benefit as their lighter build makes them more likely to invert, they muck about on bikes with tricks etc, and have thinner skulls.)

Lots of people are seriously injured putting their socks on in the morning. What has that got to do with cycle helmets? A good point.

But if you get hit by a car you don't get a say in whether you invert or not. At the end of the day if you do hit your head on the tarmac, no matter what the likelyhood, you're better off wearing a helmet. Simple as that.

 

[Beach Hut]

I always wear one and make my kids wear one as well - it is the best way to protect your brain !

BTW a colleague of mine would have died if he had not been wearing one a few years back.

 

[Marc]

But if you get hit by a car you don't get a say in whether you invert or not. At the end of the day if you do hit your head on the tarmac, no matter what the likelyhood, you're better off wearing a helmet. Simple as that.

not true, imagine this amazingly rare scenario!

You get hit by said car, you fly towards the curb and your head lands right next to hit but safely rests against the curb and you get slight bruising.

Now the same rare scenario but you're wearing a helmet, the extra inch or so means the helmet clips the curb and forces your head to turn which buckles your neck and it snaps and you die!

NOW which is best?

 

[perseus]

You have to assess the risks. Statistically (and common sense as well), I am more likely to hit my bonce walking down stairs or walking on a pavement that I am flying through the air and hitting my bonce (only a cricket helmet or motorcycle helmet would prevent most injuries) after being bashed up by a car.

If you want to be really safe, best to be covered in armour plating all around, they you would want a weather proof device with a motor to propel the armour around. Best bet to get a car and go around running over cyclists.

Except, there is a better case for the medical profession to back wearing cycle helmets in cars as more bonce injuries would be prevented.

The whole idea of cycle helmets is so ridiculous it is a gigantic fraud.

If the Trade Descriptions people had any bite they would prosecute the sellers of these useless items of equipment. Except they are sold as a fashion accessory not as a safety device.

Cycle helmets are only designed for prevention against low impact crashes of less than 5 mph. And this is only recent. A dated Which report found more than half of the cycle helmets completely ineffective for even these crashes (the report was so damming that these helmets are now probably off the market). Don't buy secondhand helmets though for your children.

 

[Little Piggy]

I don't like the fact that (and I have come to this conclusion through doing it myself) motorists consider you safer by wearing one so can therefore drive a bit closer to you and pull out in front of you that bit earlier. After all, you MUST be safer with a helmet , so he'll be FINE if I ping pong him across the road into the path of a lorry.

It applies to the cyclist as well. If they feel safer they can do more dangerous things because "They'll be alright now". Plus having your view impaired doesn't help.

I don't wear them and I'd like that to stay my decision. If one of the unlikely scenarios arises where it would have helped and I die, fair enough. Better that than die old!

 

[Cian]

I'd rather die in a bike accident than spend 72 hours in a critically overfull Dublin A&E ward and then spend the rest of my life getting paralysis treatment in the manky old wing of the James Connolly hospital out the northside....