whitestuffracer = most successful troll post I've seen on here, hm, all year, really.
He is kind of correct, but you would need to land on something rather pointy and hit the very thinnest part of your skull. Then again a fall of 18" onto a metal spike could also cause death if it punctured your chest, abdomen or groin area.
I have not found any research papers that suggest wearing helmets increases the risk of brain damage in accident with a majority of published studies suggesting there is a decreases in the risk and severity of such injuries. All the studies that argue against helmet legislation are based on the assumption that a large percentage of cyclists stop riding when helmet legislation is introduced and the associated health impacts from these people stopping riding outway the benefits of helmet usage. However in all these cases the pre-legislation helmet usage rate is 0-10%, while in Briton at the moment it is closer to 60% (anecdotal) and rapidly increasing.
You just need to see all the new cyclists on the roads this summer with new bikes, fluro nodder tops and shiny new helmets to realise that helmet usage is on the rise in this country despite helmets not being a legal requirement. The arguments that compulsory helmet legislation have a huge impact on cycle usage rates become invalid when the majority of cyclists use helmets already depite not being legally required to.
I'm affraid to say Oliver, but the pro-helmet scare monger campaign has worked, people now assocaite riding bikes with wearing helmets. Kids learning to ride for the first time, and adults starting to commute by bicycle will almost invariably wear helmets. Helmet usage legislation is not really required here as the pro-helmet education campaigns have been so successful that helmet usage in this country is approaching that of countries like Australia and Canada were helmets are compulsorary.
Now if only Evans could sell cycling skills, bike maintenance techniques and road confidence we might have some more decent cyclists on the roads.
He is kind of correct, but you would need to land on something rather pointy and hit the very thinnest part of your skull. Then again a fall of 18" onto a metal spike could also cause death if it punctured your chest, abdomen or groin area.
I have not found any research papers that suggest wearing helmets increases the risk of brain damage in accident with a majority of published studies suggesting there is a decreases in the risk and severity of such injuries. All the studies that argue against helmet legislation are based on the assumption that a large percentage of cyclists stop riding when helmet legislation is introduced and the associated health impacts from these people stopping riding outway the benefits of helmet usage. However in all these cases the pre-legislation helmet usage rate is 0-10%, while in Briton at the moment it is closer to 60% (anecdotal) and rapidly increasing.
You just need to see all the new cyclists on the roads this summer with new bikes, fluro nodder tops and shiny new helmets to realise that helmet usage is on the rise in this country despite helmets not being a legal requirement. The arguments that compulsory helmet legislation have a huge impact on cycle usage rates become invalid when the majority of cyclists use helmets already depite not being legally required to.
I'm affraid to say Oliver, but the pro-helmet scare monger campaign has worked, people now assocaite riding bikes with wearing helmets. Kids learning to ride for the first time, and adults starting to commute by bicycle will almost invariably wear helmets. Helmet usage legislation is not really required here as the pro-helmet education campaigns have been so successful that helmet usage in this country is approaching that of countries like Australia and Canada were helmets are compulsorary.
Now if only Evans could sell cycling skills, bike maintenance techniques and road confidence we might have some more decent cyclists on the roads.