If only they'd worn a helmet...

Propah tasty!

Here's a good one, trolling. What is it good for?

Lord Sugar?

He’s a c***

On the previous page @mespilus incorrectly stated that Bunk from the Wire was played by the estate of landed gentry; he was in fact played by Wendell Pierce. Additionally, the scene where he cops to being a lacrosse player is not famous, but rather recherché, if hilarious.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xIh9YC6ucPg

Our pug is called “the Bunk”

1 Attachment

There he goes again, giving a pug when it ain't his turn to give a pug

I'm struggling to understand this whole line of thinking. I've always worn a helmet simply because it made sense. Fallen dozens of times. The other day I came off on the ice and walked away with a headache rather than a hospital visit.

I've never fallen down the stairs. Are you suggest the two are comparable?

And are you trying to say cyclists shouldn't wear helmets? And if you're going to make that argument would it also apply to mountain bikers/motorcyclists/skiers?

I’ve also fallen off loads and never hit my head once. I only ever wore a helmet in BMX races as a kid 30+ years ago. Didn’t hit my head then either.

I think this thread is saying it should be up to the rider/skier/whatever to decide what they wear.

Not the State at the guidance of shoddy journalism.

Come on guys. This thread is nothing to do with bike helmets!

In saying that head injuries have various causes, (seems falling down stairs is a major cause), that shit happens occasionally

yet in most other circumstances where people have such an incident in daily life, others don't victim-blame them for not wearing personal protective equipment.

You don't get newspapers reporting:

"Man fell off a ladder while adjusting a TV Arial, he was/wasn't wearing a helmet"

"Car passenger died of head injuries when her head hit the windscreen*, she wasn't wearing head protection"

*This is often a cause of car deaths according to a paramedic I know

But I'd argue that in those cases most people do take a risk aversion strategy that is comparable with wearing a helmet.

Wearing a seatbelt in a car/government regulations enforcing the installation of airbags for example. Not climbing the ladder in high winds.

If someone doesn't chose to wear a seat belt, surely they're being an idiot right? You do see articles highlighting the importance of wearing a seatbelt.

Most news outlets are very unfair towards cyclists, but to see this as a case against taking precautions is an odd way of looking at the world. Fortunately wearing a helmet isn't enforceable, and gives you a choice. Arguably using this choice to communicate that you value your own safety negates the voices that call cycling reckless.

Then the first response to a head injury in an car-on-cyclist traffic accident becomes: "holy shit we should make the road safer for cyclists" rather than "he wasn't even wearing a helmet."

people do take a risk aversion strategy that is comparable with wearing a helmet.

They don't. They probably take risk minimisation strategy that minimises risk of falling from a ladder rather than a strategy that assumes they will fall (which would be putting on a helmet),

so they:
Ensure the ladder is on secure ground
Get a mate to hold it.
Wear non slip shoes
etc.

PPE is (according to the health and safety executive) the thing of last resort.

What's the fucking point of this thread?
I am confused.
Are you going to make people aware of the risks of non-helmet wearing when walking the dog?
What is the fucking point of the point you're trying to make or the fucking point of the evidence you're trying to collect and doing a fucking terrible job of interpreting?

Are you going to make people aware of the risks of non-helmet wearing when walking the dog?

Exactly. You fucking do get it

I haven't taken my helmet off since this thread started.

I think you just rephrased what I was saying.

You may have started this thread with good intentions - to highlight the victimisation of cyclists who aren't at fault - but it's probably best that you stop.

I don't wear a helmet but all my drugs are impeccably sourced.

PPE is (according to the health and safety executive) the thing of last resort.

What are you on about? You can't set foot on a building site without PPE.

I mean the hierarchy of control. IE the steps you take to reduce risk:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/faq.htm#q1

1. Elimination - Redesign the job or substitute a substance so that the hazard is removed or eliminated.
   

2. Substitution - Replace the material or process with a less hazardous one.

3. Engineering controls - for example use work equipment or other measures to prevent falls where you cannot avoid working at height, install or use additional machinery to control risks from dust or fume or separate the hazard from operators by methods such as enclosing or guarding dangerous items of machinery/equipment. Give priority to measures which protect collectively over individual measures.

4. Administrative Controls - These are all about identifying and implementing the procedures you need to work safely. For example: reducing the time workers are exposed to hazards (eg by job rotation); prohibiting use of mobile phones in hazardous areas; increasing safety signage, and performing risk assessments.

5. Personal protective clothes and equipment - Only after all the previous measures have been tried and found ineffective in controlling risks to a reasonably practicable level, must personal protective equipment (PPE) be used. For example, where you cannot eliminate the risk of a fall, use work equipment or other measures to minimise the distance and consequences of a fall (should one occur). If chosen, PPE should be selected and fitted by the person who uses it. Workers must be trained in the function and limitation of each item of PPE.

PPE is used when after all the other means have been considered the risk is deemed still high (on a building site for example). However there are things you can do to minimise risk while climbing stairs, driving, cycling, crossing the road etc without needing to resort to ppe.

Which is why talking about helmets/PPE for the everyday activities I listed above detracts from really thinking about reducing risk, is a red herring.

Which is the point of this thread

Are you trying to change somebody's opinion specifically? Who?

Probably not many 'on here' to be fair. (Perhaps @SpadeRunner who said " I've always worn a helmet simply because it made sense. ")

My original thought was to document other everyday activities that may lead to head injury, just to put things in context in that for those activities, walking, stair climbing, driving, everyday cycling, cooking in the kitchen, while there is a small risk of head injury it is easily mitigated against and it doesn't make sense to jump straight to PPE.

To call people out who bang their heads falling down for not wearing a helmet would be crass victim blaming

And what then?

O think what I mean is:
Gerald.gif
£1 please