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

This does not make sense - did you even read my post?

Yes I read your post, just adding to the common sense comment.
I was also pointing out that laws have already been passed for horse riding so any subsequent laws for cycling should be in line with those, which would mean helmet use for adults would not be mandatory. Is that not a good basis?

I have it on good authority that hand gliding is more dangerous than horse riding. HMmmm...we need some sort of flow chart here:

Hand gliding > Horse riding > cycling > walking > standing still > sitting down > lying down > sleeping > already being dead

Said in jest I know, but why would helmets not be compulsory for hand gliding and is there even a debate on it.
Why keep going with a debate on cycling helmets when the number of deaths doesn't even warrant a debate to start with.

Glider pilots are licenced, cyclists are not.

I have a paragliding licence and its a condition of my association membership that I wear a helmet. Association membership = insurance.

Glider pilots are licenced, cyclists are not.

I have a paragliding licence and its a condition of my association membership that I wear a helmet. Association membership = insurance.

Thanks, realise I should have now increased my knowledge on that one before commenting :-)

So back to the horse riding comparison then!

Glider pilots are licenced, cyclists are not.

I have a paragliding licence and its a condition of my association membership that I wear a helmet. Association membership = insurance.

The helmet law most be to protect your teeth for dental reconition, should you fall from 2000 ft.

The Bern helmets look good for winter use, cannot help
thinking that I'd melt in seconds wearing it for a fast road ride in the summer.

More likely to come off/be hit in the winter with low light levels etc, so might investigate the Bern option- where stocks them in London that will not mind me trying a few on?

Snap! However, I have seen this: Bern G2 which is available shortly and is their most vented helmet available.

Also, 14 have the Watts in stock if you want to try them on...

^ Guapo would look da Bomb in that hat up there ^

Can we talk about how dangerous seat belts are now?

Can we talk about how dangerous seat belts are now?

Do you have them fitted to your bike?

You can never be too safe.

Sorry about the late replies to everything. I couldn't work out why this thread suddenly exploded and didn't have time to follow it. I've just realised that Aram started another one that got merged.

I don't get the point of this comment. Are you suggesting the rest of us should stop wearing helmets so that it doesn't become law?

No, of course not. But if helmet wearing rates remain low, not only is it more likely that cycling rates will increase and (head) injury rates decrease, but also less likely that helmet compulsion will be introduced. It's counter-intuitive.

Also what percentage use does it need to be before its made law (approx)?

I don't know if a firm percentage has been set. I doubt that it has.

I read somewhere helmet use is below 40% at present.

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_cycle_helmet_wearing_in_2008.htm

An observational survey of pedal cycle helmet wearing rates was undertaken in 2008 on behalf of the Department for Transport. TRL was commissioned to conduct the seventh survey with Accent collecting the survey data. The surveys enable DfT to assess changes over time in wearing rate patterns and to inform policy on the use of cycle helmets. The survey involved observations at 79 fixed locations on major built-up roads and at 20 locations on minor built-up roads around Great Britain. The 2008 survey on major built-up roads showed that cycle helmet wearing was 34.3%, an increase from 30.7% in 2006. The wearing rate has increased each year the survey has been carried out since 1994 when it was 16.0%. The increase since 2006 is due to the increase in adult cyclists wearing helmets from 31.5% to 35.3% as the cycle helmet wearing rate for children remained constant at 17.6% (the same as in 1994 and 2006, having dropped in between). Other findings are reported by age and gender, ethnic origin, time of day, weather, type of bike, riding position, location, and lighting conditions. The overall cycle helmet wearing rate on minor built-up roads increased to 16.7% in 2008 from 13.8% in 2006. The rate has increased each year the survey has been carried out since 1999. When analysed by age and gender, the rate for boys aged 11-16 has decreased since 1999 from 8.6% to 7.0%. Other findings are reported by ethnic origin, time of day, weather, type of bike, riding position, location, lighting conditions, whether riding with a passenger, whether in a school uniform, on a paper round, and the presence of additional safety aids.

isn't this the point where some fuckwit chimes in and says that they don't make any difference and actually make you ride less safely so that's why they don't have to wear one and they're not just being childish at all?

It would indeed not make any sense to say this.

[/ THREAD]

This is a very effective, viral and emotionally manipulative campaign that may be cruel in making people see this picture, but one that I fully support.

hand gliding sounds fruity

I just did a lol in public

Oliver, you're missing my point here, it seems.

Sorry, pascalo, I should have made clearer that I took your point completely. That's why I said the public policy debate is actually at heart quite an unemotional matter--i.e., it doesn't much surprise me that it doesn't address your concerns. Much of the presentation at the site is aimed at that--it only wants to give the known facts. (I don't have any connection with the site, by the way.)

Let's just assume it wasn't about compulsory helmet use for one moment, because it isn't for me, but about the possible benefits of a helmet and what situations they would apply in.
With that in mind, we can all make an informed choice.

And here is where cyclehelmets.org falls short. It's only bringing up statistics that are non-relevant to my personal choice.
If you're interested in the possible benefits of cycle helmets, it does sound as if there should be content to interest you. Yes, much of it is scientific papers:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1157.html

The way it's presented, it tries to convince that helmets have no possible use at all, which is simply not true.
It certainly doesn't claim/try to convince that helmets have no possible use at all--although of course I take the point that that's your impression. There are some limited benefits, which are stated in the intro article:

Cycle helmets provide best protection in situations involving simple, low-speed falls with no other party involved.

From what I gather it might well prevent head injury when you fall over while clipped in at a red light, but that doesn't get mentioned, or at least so well hidden that I didn't see it first glance.

See the quote above. It is in the intro page, although it is certainly in the middle of fairly dry and scientific context-setting. And yes, it doesn't specifically cite anything as intuitive or accessible as your example. It's just the way the site is written. Compare this article to the rest of the site:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

Sill just the hard facts, but not written in the same style as the rest of the site, as it comes from the CTC magazine. You can see the difference there between a magazine and this site. They're still happy to host it, as it provides good quality information.

Instead it's about the health state of the population, or whether the cardio benefits of cycling outweigh the prevented injury if we take into account people that stop cycling when helmets are made compulsory.

Things I don't care much about, to be honest.

That's fair enough--but these are extremely important political concerns.

Also, just from reading your posts on here very often, my impression is that you're on a mission to make people not wear helmets (same like you're on a mission to make everyone take cycle training), and I think the fact that you so often just link to cyclehelmets.org and say "there's the evidence" might actually be counter productive to be listened to in the same way that saying "trust me" is in encouraging trust.
I'm not on a mission to 'make' people not wear helmets. Again, that's personal choice. However, I do think it's beneficial to do the most important things first. Helmets are a massive distraction. Even when cyclist head injuries are rare, the benefits of cycling are well-documented, and it is known what skills make people better and safer cyclists, people still believe that helmets are terribly important. By all means, if after having done the important things to increase their safety, and informed themselves, anyone still feels the need to wear a helmet, they should wear one.

Hang on, I didn't even argue about helmets ...
The discussion right now is whether that that cyclehelmets.org website sucks, not whether one wears one or not. And Oliver asked why ...

I'm just saying it's not convincing, and that if you aim to convince people, just don't overdo it by coming across like you want to convince them ... I'm basically giving Oliver an (unwelcome?) opportunity to fine-tune his message ...

Believe it or not, I'm actually not the sort of person who wants to convince or persuade people of what I think all that much. However, I do want to give as much good information as I can. That may in itself feel like pressure (it's difficult to absorb a lot of information), but I'm actually quite sanguine about whether anyone accepts that information, or about the decisions they make on its basis, as everyone is morally autonomous. I wouldn't want people to force me or try really hard to persuade me, either. It's just that so much false information is constantly spread about cycle helmet use that there's a very strong need to balance it with the facts.

Fair points Oliver. That 'Cycle' magazine PDF article you linked is pretty easy to read and makes most of the points well. I'll use that again. May even print a copy and stick it up at work (bike shop), the points alone it makes on helmet positioning are valuable. I too see no end of ppl riding with helmets that leave their foreheads completely exposed.

Surely if the general impression, amongst a percentage of the population, is that the cyclehelmets.org website reads like the Daily Mail then these points should be made, to the ppl who run it, and perhaps even someone who can could offer to redesign it? I agree that it does contain some useful information, it just seems to be hidden in crap.

I think we all (in this thread) agree that making helmet wearing compulsory would be a bad thing for the health of the nation, so why don't we unite (helmet wearers and non-helmet wearers alike) and petition the government on this matter? Perhaps get a few other forums involved etc... I realise its not even being considered in the law courts right now but nothing wrong with making our feelings felt preemptively. Of course someone would need to write the blurb at the top of the petition.

http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/strip.aspx?id=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27

Sorry if I've missed something, but...

That's treading dangerously close to UTFS.

Mind you, it is funny.

Is John H another of the Schickster's aliases? It's the only plausible explanation...

Is John H another of the Schickster's aliases? It's the only plausible explanation...

No, but I am (half) German.

I have been in the same place as Oliver at the same time, but whether anyone can vouch for that is another matter.

Although I consider the above cartoon extremely amusing I am also finding that it conveys a worthwhile message about the validity of wearing a helmet.

Merge time.