Compulsory Cycle Helmet Wearing (O/T)

[Tom Bombadil]

This all sounds like the sort of arguments that were trotted out when compulsory seat belts were introduced.
Perseus you are a strange man indeed. There are things to get upset about that are real restrictions of our civil liberties, being forced to wear a crash helmet isn't one of them.

 

[pasty]

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

Well said Crabtree - neither do I, although depending on the number of lunchtime vin chauds I've had, I probably should do!

Rarely wear my cycle helmet, although I did for the Ldn-Btn. I do however insist my 12 year old wears one - a tad hypocritical but tough. Children should do as I say, not do as I do !!

 

[Little Piggy]

Maybe they are the same arguments that were "trotted out" before the seatbelt laws! I am not going down the route of civil liberties and all that malarkey, it is valid but that all gets boring. This is about facts and statistics. I see (and I have researched this) no reason why I should wear one, except for a few rare cases. In which case if I had that attitude I would wear it to bed and while doing my shopping as well. Someone else may think I am a stupid idiot with a death wish for not wearing one, but so what? They are going to enforce it upon me? Now if my not wearing a helmet is somehow dangerous to others or offensive thats another story.

Since we are on this line, perhaps all motorists should wear helmets as well? And if not why?

 

[Marc]

Well said Crabtree - neither do I, although depending on the number of lunchtime vin chauds I've had, I probably should do!

Rarely wear my cycle helmet, although I did for the Ldn-Btn. I do however insist my 12 year old wears one - a tad hypocritical but tough. Children should do as I say, not do as I do !!

yeah I did for that ride too, only because there was a massive chance of collision and falling off...which never happened, oh and coming down from the Beacon at 50mph or something

 

[perseus]

It is not like seat belts legislation. Safety was scientifically proven beyond reasonable doubt.

It could be like motorcycle helmet legislation. The protection that helmets afford to motorcyclists has been rather disappointing. However the accident rate is so horrendous compared to other activities that the case was a good one for compulsion.

No such thing occurs with cycle helmets. If they compelled cricket helmets the case would be stronger. It is just that the cycle helmets are bloody useless both for pedestrians (where the case is stronger) and cyclists.

Unless you are walking under bridges and things might fall on top of you.

Cycle helmets are a fraud. They are not even any good if cycling (like horse riding is perceived to be) is reckoned to be a dangerous activity. It is not dangerous at all. It is only the car drivers that make it more dangerous than going by car, but not as dangerous as walking around.

 

[Rangdo]

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....

Why does wearing a helmet mean that you would end up paralysed? It may be what saves you from not getting paralysed.

 

[Rangdo]

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?

Good point. You should join the anti-helmet lobby

 

[Cian]

Why does wearing a helmet mean that you would end up paralysed? It may be what saves you from not getting paralysed.

If I was in a crash that could potentially injure my head, there is no doubt I'd injure my neck as well, hence the possibility of paralysis.

Bike helmets offer no neck protection, unlike motorbike helmets.

 

[Marc]

blimey Rangdo you are beefed up about this, personally I think it should be "personal choice". Why you're getting in such a huff about it is beyond me

 

[Tom Bombadil]

It is only the car drivers that make it more dangerous than going by car, but not as dangerous as walking around. [/B]

My sister got knocked off her bike by a dog that swerved in front of her. As far as I can recall it wasn't driving a car.

 

[pasty]

Of course it should be personal choice. If, by not wearing one, you put other poeple in danger then fair enough. If the only person you are going to hurt if not wearing one is yourself, then surely it's up to the individual.

 

[Rangdo]

blimey Rangdo you are beefed up about this, personally I think it should be "personal choice". Why you're getting in such a huff about it is beyond me

I'm not in a huff at all. This is supposed to be a discussion isn't it. Sorry for disagreeing. How you can possibly tell what mood I'm in from some text on your monitor anyway.
I think it should be personal choice too. I wear my helmet because I know that if I fall (or get knocked off which is more likely) and crack my head against a wall, railing, curb, road, I have more chance of escaping serious injury with a helmet.
I couldn't give a toss if anyone else wears one or not but I don't think people who don't wear them are really aware of how small a knock to your head you need to result in paralysis, coma, or death.

 

[Rangdo]

If I was in a crash that could potentially injure my head, there is no doubt I'd injure my neck as well, hence the possibility of paralysis.

Bike helmets offer no neck protection, unlike motorbike helmets.

But you don't have to injure your neck to end up disabled. My point was that you were saying that wearing a helmet would end up in you paralysed as opposed to dead but it would probably be more likely that you would end up with permanent disability/illness as opposed to escaping with minor injuries.

 

[Marc]

I'm not in a huff at all. This is supposed to be a discussion isn't it. Sorry for disagreeing. How you can possibly tell what mood I'm in from some text on your monitor anyway.

the smiley gave it away and you hardly discussed it in that post did you?

 

[Rangdo]

the smiley gave it away and you hardly discussed it in that post did you?

Because it was a flippant post that deserved a flippant response

 

[Little Piggy]

Bike helmets offer no neck protection, unlike motorbike helmets.

 

[fatboy]

Seat belts are different. If you are not wearing one and crash, the chances are you will injure someone else.

This is not the case with cycle helmets. (unless, of course, they prevent bits of your brain flying out of your head and hitting innocent bystanders.)

 

[Yoda]

oh and coming down from the Beacon at 50mph or something

He he! That bit was fun, especially after riding all the way up as well.

If they are going to enforce it, they must make them free with all new purchases of bikes. Which we know will never happen.

Why should we have to fork up for something that’s meant to make us safe if it's law to have it?

 

[Cian]

Motorbike helmets, by coming down below your chin, restrict neck movements and hence help prevent serious movements that could cause spinal damage.

Help prevent, not prevent.

 

[fatboy]

My helmet is purple.

Would anyone like to polish it?