-
I think the point Bad Seed was making is that you can be as skilled as you like, but that doesn't mean you won't fuck up. I wore a helmet when I was new on the roads. I don't any more, but I'm convinced it saved me from concussion or worse at least once.
Having said that, I hate the way they feel and the way they look and the fact that some drivers seem to think it's the cyclist's fault if they sustain grievous injury simply through not wearing a lid.
-
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.
Also, I am an Australian. It's not an 'other' country, it's mine[1].
[1] Although not exclusively so. I'm happy to share with hippy and Kylie. Everyone else can FRO.
-
Well I seem to remember this was about someone visiting Australia so the initial comments were presumably not made by yourself.
However, If you don't like the laws and processes of your own country then work to get them changed and failing that move to another country if it bothers you that much :-) -
I'm encouraging people to realise that you don't need to wear a helmets to be safe.
Also, the best way to teach children how to ride a bike properly is to let them make risk assessment, during the skyride loop, I saw a kid nearly went over the handlebar and got what left of his testicle slammed on the top tube, he's fine though.
He won't be trying that again in a hurry that's for sure.
Someone has already mentioned the adviseability of wearing a cricket box. In fact, the perfect cycle suit would be: http://www.editinternational.com/images/gallery/bikers2_low.jpg
-
^ ha.
I like my helmet. If I hit a ped and fall, maybe it will protect me. If I get hit by a bus at speed..maybe not. Do I care if you use one? Not a hoot.
I've hit my head badly twice before - once climbing and once snowboarding, both times finding myself out cold. I am yet to hit my head coming off a bike - but presumably there's still time. The anecdotal evidence that it will help in this situation, for me outweighs the evidence that it wont.
-
Also, I am an Australian. It's not an 'other' country, it's mine[1].
[1] Although not exclusively so. I'm happy to share with hippy and Kylie. Everyone else can FRO.
I'm going to Australia tomorrow. Should I take a helmet or a Sue Abbott wig? -
I'm going to Australia tomorrow. Should I take a helmet or a Sue Abbott wig?
I heart Sue Abbott. She's made of win.
If you're going to be in Melbourne, the first shout's on me.
-
Not my opinion, the doctor's. Yeah, he should have been looking but then the driver should have checked his fuel gauge before he set out on his journey and then he wouldn't have run out of diesel. I've been riding for over 25 years and I've come of at slowish speeds whilst climbing in the ice more than once and my head has hit the ground. I don't know what would have happened had I not been wearing a lid.
What have you based the 'he would have probably survived' on exactly?
And I'm not sure the most competent rider in the world would ride into a stationary object such as a parked car would they?
(This is just picking up on your points and no disrespect intended)
-
Not4sale was taken off his bike by a car turning across traffic.
This happened almost directly outside my old flat.
I did not see the accident, but I did see the substantial amount of claret on the roads, and I saw the pictures that Not4sale posted up afterward- and met the man himself at the Bike and Kite Festival a little later on.
Now BlueQuin always derides helmets as "nasty foam hats", but I contend that Not4sale would have lost less cranial skin had he had a nasty foam hat on.
Someone has probably made the comparison already in one of the 50 pages before this one, but helmets are similar to gloves in a way- would they protect against a high speed shunt?
No, or the mitigation of the damage would be so minimal as to be undetectable, but at slower speeds they stop you having to get your girlfriend to wipe you arse (TM Hippy).
-
Not my opinion, the doctor's. Yeah, he should have been looking but then the driver should have checked his fuel gauge before he set out on his journey and then he wouldn't have run out of diesel. I've been riding for over 25 years and I've come of at slowish speeds whilst climbing in the ice more than once and my head has hit the ground. I don't know what would have happened had I not been wearing a lid.
The doctors opinion is no more valid than yours, it is pure guess work.
A parked car is a parked car, don't see the relevance of blaming the driver or why the car was parked where it was.
And yes you don't know what would have happened if you had not been wearing a helmet, i.e. could have made no difference - which is why this debate goes on.
-
The doctors opinion is no more valid than yours, it is pure guess work.
A parked car is a parked car, don't see the relevance of blaming the driver or why the car was parked where it was.
Doctors' opinions are always useful but they rarely have enough information about the crash to make an accurate evaluation. If the rider hit a parked car while going at time-trial speed the outcome would depend on the crash dynamics.
If he hit the car head first he would be likely to die, helmet or no helmet.
If he went over the top and landed in the road he would be more likely to survive, helmet or no helmet. -
Guys, the point is not whether helmets are or are not effective. The point is whether cycling is a risky enough activity to justify whinging at people to wear one. To show this, you need to show that the risk of a serious head injury is greater when cycling than when e.g. walking or driving.
Saying that riding with one is going to be safer than without is pointless, because even if we grant that (and I really don't think we should), the same argument is going to apply to walking, driving and pretty every other activity which people do every day without helmets. The fact that walking with a helmet on is arguably safer than without does not mean we should all wear walking helmets. What would show a need for walking helmets is data showing that the risk of head injury when walking is abnormally high.
This is what you need to show if you want to bleat on about helmets. Saying 'oooh, but the cars are so big and fast' does not count as showing this. What would show this is some data about the relative rates of head injury per hour of activity or per mile of mode of transport.
(the standards of logical argument on this forum are really slipping).
-
Guys, the point is not whether helmets are or are not effective. The point is whether cycling is a risky enough activity to justify whinging at people to wear one. To show this, you need to show that the risk of a serious head injury is greater when cycling than when e.g. walking or driving.
Saying that riding with one is going to be safer than without is pointless, because even if we grant that (and I really don't think we should), the same argument is going to apply to walking, driving and pretty every other activity which people do every day without helmets. The fact that walking with a helmet on is arguably safer than without does not mean we should all wear walking helmets. What would show a need for walking helmets is data showing that the risk of head injury when walking is abnormally high.
This is what you need to show if you want to bleat on about helmets. Saying 'oooh, but the cars are so big and fast' does not count as showing this. What would show this is some data about the relative rates of head injury per hour of activity or per mile of mode of transport.
(the standards of logical argument on this forum are really slipping).
Yes and I don't believe that data is available as not all cycling accidents result in a thorough head examination (i.e. unreported, no trip to A+E etc,.) and even when they do the results are not captured.
So there is no logical argument which is why is still goes back to a faith based discussion which is always going to be a non starter.What we do know is the number of actual deaths is very low when compared to other things that will kill you.
-
The doctors opinion is no more valid than yours, it is pure guess work.
A parked car is a parked car, don't see the relevance of blaming the driver or why the car was parked where it was.
And yes you don't know what would have happened if you had not been wearing a helmet, i.e. could have made no difference - which is why this debate goes on.
i hope to God his opinion is more valid than mine! I'm only an accountant he does postmortems etc for a living! The consensus was that a helmet would probably have avoided brain injury but not there would probably have been spinal injury. My attitude is helmets may not look cool to some people but I look a damn sight cooler in a helmet than I do as a drooling wreck in a wheelchair!
-
An engineers opinion is more important in that situation than a medical doctors. A doctor is not the position to determine if the helmet offered and protection in that crash.
-
An engineers opinion is more important in that situation than a medical doctors. A doctor is not the position to determine if the helmet offered and protection in that crash.
surely you don't have to be an engineer to know that the human skull was not designed to smash into 2 ton of metal at even pedestrian speed. Helmets on the other hand are designed by extremely qualified engineers and have spent thousands of hours going through rigorous tests conducted by even more engineers.
user14265
bq
mr_tom
kerley
General_Strike
deleted
Gav86
charlie_lcc
TheBadSeed
Dammit
rhowe
scoober
TheBrick(Tommy)
skydancer
-
Post a reply
About
Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)
Posted by
Spybot; thanks, nice to try anyway. Cycle training might be available during a working day if he has time - a long lunch - or after work. We have quite a few City workers getting training now because they want to use the hire bikes.