Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)

I hit my head quite badly jumping down the stairs.

I hit mine being pushed down the stairs by my big brother.

All children with big brothers should be made to wear helmets at all times.

If we do that then all activities of a similar level of risk should involve helmet wearing. All kids climbing trees should have a helmet on e.t.c.

Granted, but do you really think that climbing a tree and cycling though London really represent similar levels of risk? Sure the worst-case injuries are similar, but 1) Most kids will spend proportionally far less time climbing trees than they do cycling. 2) When climbing a tree you dictate your own level of risk, and kids are actually not that stupid most of the time and 3) Trees don't tend emerge from side-roads at 30mph without looking.

As for 'It's the same as falling down stairs'; yes, you could hurt yourself very badly, but thousands of journeys up and down stairs are successfully completed every hour without incident. If the chances of having an cycle accident were the same as that of falling down stairs this whole argument would be moot since statistically bike accidents would happen at a rate of about one per decade.

Also, the whole point of these things is that people are learning to cycle. Again, while doing that your risk is increased and I don't think it unreasonable to be encouraged to take greater precautions while doing so.

The logic of assessing what is an acceptable risk for the adult extends to what is an acceptable risk for a child. The factors involved in the decision are the same.

Yes but we're not talking about some kind of objective logic with a definitive answer; whether or not you wear a helmet is a personal choice made on a number of subjective factors, and as a society we generally don't consider kids to be equipped to make such decisions.

tl;dr yeah, you're all going to try and derail my argument with the all the shit that presumably the other 50 pages of this thread are about. My point was something like this: not wearing a helmet is less-safe than wearing one; if we want to choose not to then so be it, but shouldn't we encourage kids to wear one till they are able make that choice for themselves?

I've misunderstood the nature of discourse of the internet

.

can we agree that that not wearing a helmet is less-safe than wearing one?

good luck with that.

good luck with that.

Yeah I realised that was never gonna happen, edited :)

not wearing a helmet is less-safe than wearing one;

That's an unproven assertion and there is a body of evidence that suggests otherwise.

t not wearing a helmet is less-safe than wearing one

Prove it.

That's an unproven assertion and there is a body of evidence that suggests otherwise.

So you're telling me there's evidence to support both sides of the argument? Holy fucking shit. I've heard climate change isn't real too.

Prove it.

I can't. We need to conduct our own study. What I'd suggest is this, I'll go and buy a helmet, we can meet somewhere mutually agreeable, and we'll take it in turns running headfirst into a wall. Whoever remains conscious long enough to call an ambulance wins. Agreeable?

Personally I think kids should be encouraged to wear helmets and if you're in a position where you're being some kind of example to kids then you should probably wear one too.

I did not wear a helmet because the activity I was doing doesn't have any risk that required me to wear a helmet.

The childrens are riding with their parents when we were guiding them to the events, it's up to the parents to encourage children to wear helmets.

If a child isn't wearing one, I talk to the parents about it suggesting that it's worth getting a helmet for their child, at least for the time being until they're perfectly capable of riding on their own in traffic (I.e. When they're old enough or parents trust them enough with their risk assessment).

I can't. We need to conduct our own study. What I'd suggest is this, I'll go and buy a helmet, we can meet somewhere mutually agreeable, and we'll take it in turns running headfirst into a wall. Whoever remains conscious long enough to call an ambulance wins. Agreeable?

Fortunately I have had Running Training so I know how to avoid these incidents. How about we try to see which one of us can get his head up his arse most easily instead? :)

The decision as to whether a child ought to wear a helmet or not, even when making the decision for them, is based on the same assessment criteria as an adult. You logic makes a leap from children not being able to make their own risk assessment to de facto having to wear a helmet. Your paradigm ignores the risk assessment stage being made by anyone, let alone a responsible adult.

The decision is being made for them by a responsible adult, who has the duty to weigh up the risk factors and balance them against the real and perceived benefits.

Your argument doesn't really need derailing as it's not up to much in the first place.

Granted, I'm making helmets the de-facto standard, but I just think why wouldn't you? I have my reasons for not wearing one, but they are not related to safety, and in that sense it's not a particularly evidence-based judgement. If I were learning to cycle I'd wear one, and I'd encourage others to do so too.

I have a feeling that if a child wears a helmet for the first seven years the adult will wear one for life.
I have the helmet discussion with people every week. What strikes me is that people are wearing helmets but do no know why they are wearing them. That is, they believe it is safer but have no information on the subject.
Personally I think bike shops are partly responsible; the more they can make it seem like a helmet is something you must buy at the same time as you buy a bike the more money they make.
There's a general feeling among many people about cycling and risk; or about risk in general perhaps. When you have a cycle training lesson with someone for two hours, it starts at 2 in the afternoon and they ask if they have to have lights on their bike then you know that something is wrong.

Fortunately I have had Running Training so I know how to avoid these incidents. How about we try to see which one of us can get his head up his arse most easily instead? :)

We can do it on out bikes instead if you'd rather (the arses thing, that is, I can't afford any more tacoed wheels this month) :)

How about we try to see which one of us can get his head up his arse most easily instead? :)

i bet on jar man.

i bet on jar man.

wrong thread http://www.lfgss.com/thread50222.html#post1635072

When you have a cycle training lesson with someone for two hours, it starts at 2 in the afternoon and they ask if they have to have lights on their bike then you know that something is wrong.

Should you have lights on at that time? I have to confess that I only turn mine on when it is dark but I suppose one ought to always have lights on to be better seen. Is that your recommendation Will?

Should you have lights on at that time? I have to confess that I only turn mine on when it is dark but I suppose one ought to always have lights on to be better seen. Is that your recommendation Will?

Your wilful misconstruing might impress your varsity chums but it leaves me flat

I have a feeling that if a child wears a helmet for the first seven years the adult will wear one for life.
I have the helmet discussion with people every week. What strikes me is that people are wearing helmets but do no know why they are wearing them. That is, they believe it is safer but have no information on the subject.
Personally I think bike shops are partly responsible; the more they can make it seem like a helmet is something you must buy at the same time as you buy a bike the more money they make.
There's a general feeling among many people about cycling and risk; or about risk in general perhaps. When you have a cycle training lesson with someone for two hours, it starts at 2 in the afternoon and they ask if they have to have lights on their bike then you know that something is wrong.

We do things every day that we believe good for us without having information on the subject. I don't think you'd argue that eating fruit and veg isn't a good idea but have you ever read a peer-reviewed study on it? We can't be arsed to research everything we do, so on some level we have to trust others to do it for us.

Now I'm sure that a lot of it is bullshit invented by marketing departments to increase sales but I personally don't think that it is all founded on crap. The Tour mandates the wearing of helmets; those people aren't idiots (well, not all of them). There are standards for helmet construction, these came from somewhere, and presumably at some point they'd have noticed if the performance of them was indistinguishable from not wearing one. If you really believe that this occurred and that there is some great conspiracy on the part of Skid-lid™ to cover it up then so be it, but I just don't think the PR department at a bike helmet company is really comprised of people who are that smart.

i wore a helmet up until the age of 18 then partly through not riding bmx anymore, not having a nagging worried mother around, and thinking for myself now feel the wind in my luscious scalp.

I did not wear a helmet because the activity I was doing doesn't have any risk that required me to wear a helmet.

The childrens are riding with their parents when we were guiding them to the events, it's up to the parents to encourage children to wear helmets.

If a child isn't wearing one, I talk to the parents about it suggesting that it's worth getting a helmet for their child, at least for the time being until they're perfectly capable of riding on their own in traffic (I.e. When they're old enough or parents trust them enough with their risk assessment).

Firstly you're the guy who's given up his Sunday to help people ride their bikes, so please take all this with a pinch of salt (this is the internet, so I assume you're doing that anyway).

Surely if you're encouraging parents to think about getting their kids a helmet the best way to do it is just to wear one yourself. You and I know that the Skyride is probably the lowest-risk piece of cycling that you'll ever do, but the kid can't distinguish between the risks you're taking on the day compared to those in normal traffic. As an adult, children will look up to you, even if they pretend not to.

We do things every day that we believe good for us without having information on the subject. I don't think you'd argue that eating fruit and veg isn't a good idea but have you ever read a peer-reviewed study on it? We can't be arsed to research everything we do, so on some level we have to trust others to do it for us.

Actually I am not at all convinced on the subject of fruit and veg (and I am a vegetarian) but that is for another thread.

Now I'm sure that a lot of it is bullshit invented by marketing departments to increase sales but I personally don't think that it is all founded on crap. The Tour mandates the wearing of helmets; those people aren't idiots (well, not all of them). There are standards for helmet construction, these came from somewhere, and presumably at some point they'd have noticed if the performance of them was indistinguishable from not wearing one. If you really believe that this occurred and that there is some great conspiracy on the part of Skid-lid™ to cover it up then so be it, but I just don't think the PR department at a bike helmet company is really comprised of people who are that smart.

Extrapolating from what professional racing cyclists do is always dodgy. The UCI obliges them to wear helmets; before that most chose not to do so. That is a fact. What choices they would make now is speculation.
How can it possibly be in the commercial interests of a helmet manufacturer to point out the severe limitations on the efficacy of their product or direct anyone to the research which suggests helmet wearing is not, overall, beneficial? Of course they are not going to and ofcourse the staff in Evans aren't going to. That is not a conspiracy and I did not use the word conspiracy. I am saying there are commercial imperatives involved in the increased wearing of cycle helmets and they have nothing at all to do with informed choices or accurate risk assessments.

If everyone believed that, no-one would go anywhere.

No, the people that go to the places are the people who can accept other countries laws and processes and not feel they need to whinge about them.

Discuss.

Ha! I remember conkers being banned at Junior school on the basis that some lad, somewhere, had had conkers in his pocket, fallen over on them and they had broken his leg.
The really sad thing though was that he was wearing a cycle helmet and it got caught in his shoe laces and he choked to death!!!!!

The first bit is actually true.