Why cycle helmets are dangerous

[MarkF]

3. Nobody on here is calling for compulsion.

Good Josh, but debates like this help some to see the issue is most definitely not easily proven, one way or another. You have nothing to lose, I do.

[Huertecilla]

You can't legislate for the half a percent of people who live in mud huts when 90 percent of your population is in urban areas.

As I wrote several times earlier, that larg part is excempted since adult within unban boundaries are nót obliged to wear a helmet here. When they choose to go take their bike for a spin in the countryside or to the next village they are.

Spain is part of the EC and in our hole in the mountains, some 20% of resident population is .... of british nationality.

I remain that the spanish state is using the mandatory use of a bicycle helmet as an income genrating alibi for not doing the job of protecting the cyclists rights.

But, by all means think it is far from you bed.
Just wait.
Horse riders are already covered in the UK.

I KNOW that if I pedal around with a large riot gun on my back, even a chain saw, I am a LOT safer than with even a motorcycle integral.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't legislate for the half a percent of people who live in mud huts when 90 percent of your population is in urban areas.

As I wrote several times earlier, that larg part is excempted since adult within unban boundaries are nót obliged to wear a helmet here. When they choose to go take their bike for a spin in the countryside or to the next village they are.

Spain is part of the EC and in our hole in the mountains, some 20% of resident population is .... of british nationality.

I remain that the spanish state is using the mandatory use of a bicycle helmet as an income genrating alibi for not doing the job of protecting the cyclists rights.

But, by all means think it is far from you bed.
Just wait.
Horse riders are already covered in the UK.

I KNOW that if I pedal around with a large riot gun on my back, even a chain saw, I am a LOT safer than with even a motorcycle integral.

[Josh B]

Good Josh, but debates like this help some to see the issue is most definitely not easily proven, one way or another. You have nothing to lose, I do.

Well we both have brain function to lose. And freedom of choice. Which, like you and even 'Cilla, I quite like.

[scottbombedout]

That's because they have to wear one these days. Before it was made mandatory these pros, who know a lot about bikes, would very frequently be seen in just a baseball cap.

What would those Pros know about brain injuries?

[MarkF]

Mark, could you clarify the point in post 176 please, I think we may be talking at cross purposes here about contributory negligence.

Sorry Josh, I am going to watch the football!

but hey once again it's just in my experience, but this is what i do for a living

Enjoyed your posts. How, considering your profession do you feel about this? (More of a social article I know)

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1249.html

[guinea]

Anyone who actively chooses not to wear a helmet when cycling on the roads is, simply, a fool. Why would you chose not to, its just daft.
Reading this thread it strikes me that those that oppose seem to object to being told to have to do something, ultimately for their own benefit, rather than actually not wanting to do it.

I'll watch the Tour next month. I imagine I'll be able to count those participants without helmets on one hand (or rather there won't be any) but hey what do they know about riding bikes safely on the roads (closed roads at that).

So much crap in one post. First of all, I wear a helmet, so I'm not an anti...

You are more likely to get a head injury in a car than a bike and mandatory helmets in cars would save far more lives. So by your logic, anyone who gets in a car without a helmet is a fool, right?

I'll also be watching the tour. I first watched it before the mandatory helmet rules came in and when they were allowed to drop them before a mountain top finish. When riders had the choice they almost never wore them. If they had a choice I bet they'd rid themselves of them again.

the most disturbing part of you post is "Reading this thread it strikes me that those that oppose seem to object to being told to have to do something, ultimately for their own benefit, rather than actually not wanting to do it." There are lots of things that are scientifically proven to be beneficial that we could impose on society. We could ban alcohol, tobacco, sweets, cakes, cars and make people wear hi-viz at all times. This would save lives, but it is fucking ridiculous. As is mandating helmet wearing.

All the evidence suggests that a cyclist who doesn't wear a helmet with have a longer and healthier life than a non-cyclist. So how about we mandate everyone in the country has to cycle for an hour a day. You don't seem to have a problem with people being told to do things for their own good.

[mjb]

You are more likely to get a head injury in a car than a bike and mandatory helmets in cars would save far more lives. So by your logic, anyone who gets in a car without a helmet is a fool, right?

I agree but unfortunately I think this logical argument will be lost on some. You'd save even more lives if it was mandatory for pedestrians.

[mjb]

Max speed on this morning's commute was 64.1 km/h for me.

Going home yesterday max was 67 km/h.

two standard days commuting I should add, nothing unusual.

I find it odd that you are happy to commute in London traffic at those speeds but appear to think those that don't wear helmets are risking their lives.

[Franky Four Fingers]

So much crap in one post. First of all, I wear a helmet, so I'm not an anti...

You are more likely to get a head injury in a car than a bike and mandatory helmets in cars would save far more lives. So by your logic, anyone who gets in a car without a helmet is a fool, right?

I'll also be watching the tour. I first watched it before the mandatory helmet rules came in and when they were allowed to drop them before a mountain top finish. When riders had the choice they almost never wore them. If they had a choice I bet they'd rid themselves of them again.

the most disturbing part of you post is "Reading this thread it strikes me that those that oppose seem to object to being told to have to do something, ultimately for their own benefit, rather than actually not wanting to do it." There are lots of things that are scientifically proven to be beneficial that we could impose on society. We could ban alcohol, tobacco, sweets, cakes, cars and make people wear hi-viz at all times. This would save lives, but it is fucking ridiculous. As is mandating helmet wearing.

All the evidence suggests that a cyclist who doesn't wear a helmet with have a longer and healthier life than a non-cyclist. So how about we mandate everyone in the country has to cycle for an hour a day. You don't seem to have a problem with people being told to do things for their own good.

I see you and common sense aren't best friends then?

[mrpgkennedy]

Sorry Josh, I am going to watch the football!



Enjoyed your posts. How, considering your profession do you feel about this? (More of a social article I know)

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1249.html

ahhhhh i've read that one before

first let me start with a story from a security specialist i sat next to on a long flight to singapore once. We got talking about airport security and how much of a pain it was especially when changing flights, he made the point that it wasn't worth it. I was somewhat surprised by this and surely trying to stop suicide bombers blowing up planes was a good thing. he pointed out that the cost of providing the security combined with the total loss of productivity of the extra hour of work of everyone who now had to arrive early at the airport was with more then two 747s per day. He suggested we could give up and as long as the terrorists only blew up one plane a day on average, we'd be better off. It gives the lovely mental picture of the prime minister announcing with great loss that 350 people had died in another suicide bomb attack, but on the plus side 2000 people had been born today in the uk, your success hasn't even dented our population growth, good luck tomorrow but you'll run out of suicide bombers before we run out of people to put on the planes.

Now of coarse this is stupid, because although right on a population point of view, on an individual point of view it makes no sense, as an individual I want to know the flight is safe.

The same applies to cycle helmets, although that paper suggests less people will cycle if forced to wear helmets and the reduction of cycling will cause more years to be lost due to the reduction of exercise of these people who will get more heart disease, but once again this is looking at populations rather then individuals, i doubt many wives are comforted to be told, yes but by having the choice not to wear a helmet he's prevented more years of life being lost in people who wouldn't have cycled

Before we move onto the flawed assumptions of the paper, brutally not all years of our life are worth the same. The NHS has just spent a fortune improving trauma services, why? because trauma affects the youngest, most productive, most promising members of society, also the morbidity of those that survive it means that living with the injuries costs more then if the same event was to happen 40 years later. Trauma takes out the most valuable members of society when it comes to health economics. It costs the state much more for one 30 year old to die 40 years early then 20 65 year olds to die 5 years early. If you really wanted to be brutal you'd make it compulsory for net tax payers, optional for everyone else, and illegal for the retired. ( i'm really not suggesting this)

The paper is from 1992 ( the original figures they use)

1) Cycling has taken off massively in the last 20 years, i was back in london last month and was amazed how many people cycle now ( which is think is great) will the drop off be so great if people have to wear a helmet, most seem to anyway
2) It assumes that the cycling is the only exercise people do, and those that stop will just do nothing, they will refuse to exercise if they can't cycle without a helmet, which seems a little simplistic and unlikely
3) It assumes everyone with the cycling is now just the right amount of exercise,it doesn't take into account some people by cycling may be doing too much, hence a reduction may actually make them live longer, some people may be cycling such short distances that them stopping makes no impact
4) Some of them will walk rather then cycle which is another great form of exercise
5) It looks at years of life and not morbidity ( i.e. the non fatal consequences of heart disease and trauma)
6) Heart disease prevention and treatment has changed massively in the last 20 years, now more people survive for longer, so the exercise has a smaller impact
7) heart disease takes 30-50 years to develop, hence in 1992 they were using data from the people born 1940-1960, it means the paper was out of date the moment it was written, it's the problem when you use cohort data, it only tells you what you needed to know 20 odd years ago
7) you may just be delaying the heart disease
8) everyone has to die somehow, for the health economics better to die of heart disease then dementia in your 90s in a nursing home

from my own point of view, i don't really care if it's legal or not, i know i wear one, i recommend everyone to wear one, i've sent countless injuries that would have been prevented or reduced if they'd had one

I think things have moved on since 1992, i don't think it would have such a big negative impact, i think people are more accepting of safety laws. There will always be those who don't want to wear one, the same was true with motorbike helmets and seat belts

My final point is i also work for the medical travel insurance industry, read your insurance forms carefully, most of them will expect you to wear a helmet if you cycle overseas, it's something like you have to wear all relevant safety equipment, lots of people on motorbikes and cycles have chosen not to, and found themselves paying for their own medical costs overseas and it gets expensive, really expensive really really fast

i hope this makes sense, sorry i've gone on so long

[MarkF]

Thanks "mrpgkennedy", I appreciated the reply.

Many points were interesting and I accept them, food for thought:-) You listed 8 variables addressing the article but there were no variables in the man hits head on kerb scenario you used earlier. I don't accept that mandatory use would not have a large negative impact, I believe that is the reason why no helmet manufacturer (AFAIK) lobbies for compulsion, most cycle forums go into meltdown at that word and those folk are the "spenders".

It's strange, commuting in heavy traffic every day, I'd guess helmet use at 75/25, non wearing. Leisure riding on the safe canal towpath on a weekend, I'd guess it's the opposite!

[Josh B]

I find it odd that you are happy to commute in London traffic at those speeds but appear to think those that don't wear helmets are risking their lives.

Every action in life has risks and I am happy to engage with risk. I believe that it is our obligation, both personally and as a member of society, to take such steps as are reasonable and prudent to mitigate those risks. I do not believe we should avoid risk at all costs nor do I believe in taking risks for no reason.

i think you will find that attitude is pretty common amongst all people who engage in high risk sports and activities from diving to mountain climbing, base jumping etc.

based on my research, I conclude a helmet is unlikely to hurt me, might help me and is minimally inconvenient. It is therefore the prudent and sensible thing to do.

my astonishment here is really how people who claim to have read the same things I have can come to diametrically opposed conclusions!

[teknicolourfox]

Regarding the 'pros' image - lets not forget they were riding in a controlled environment...

[mjb]

Every action in life has risks and I am happy to engage with risk. I believe that it is our obligation, both personally and as a member of society, to take such steps as are reasonable and prudent to mitigate those risks. I do not believe we should avoid risk at all costs nor do I believe in taking risks for no reason.

i think you will find that attitude is pretty common amongst all people who engage in high risk sports and activities from diving to mountain climbing, base jumping etc.

based on my research, I conclude a helmet is unlikely to hurt me, might help me and is minimally inconvenient. It is therefore the prudent and sensible thing to do.

my astonishment here is really how people who claim to have read the same things I have can come to diametrically opposed conclusions!

Most people don't see cycling as a high risk sport, rather it is a means of transportation. It's funny how cyclists in the UK tend to think this way. I think the best quote I read was from a German cyclist who wondered why all cyclists in the UK go out as if they are "ready to cycle to the moon."

Personally I don't cycle at that speed. I choose not to cycle in rush hour traffic. I don't cycle in London. I choose not to wear a helmet most of the time. I think the risk I take is much less than yours.

[Huertecilla]

My final point is i also work for the medical travel insurance industry, read your insurance forms carefully, most of them will expect you to wear a helmet if you cycle overseas, it's something like you have to wear all relevant safety equipment, lots of people on motorbikes and cycles have chosen not to, and found themselves paying for their own medical costs overseas and it gets expensive, really expensive really really fast

OMG, I nearly wet myself.
This means that it is mandatory by effect for every Brit with UK insurance even where not obliged under spanish traffic law!!!

Blokes coming to these ´.....´ parts of Europe to spend their holiday budget having to don a helmet on the rent-a-bike in the hhhhhót cities.





They would indeed be unwise not to.

This deserves a proper belgian beer!

[cbh]

Sure be mad not to wear one in the middle of this!

http://www.steephill.tv/players/yout...UvSHk0&yr=2014

[Josh B]

Most people don't see cycling as a high risk sport, rather it is a means of transportation. It's funny how cyclists in the UK tend to think this way. I think the best quote I read was from a German cyclist who wondered why all cyclists in the UK go out as if they are "ready to cycle to the moon."

Personally I don't cycle at that speed. I choose not to cycle in rush hour traffic. I don't cycle in London. I choose not to wear a helmet most of the time. I think the risk I take is much less than yours.

I'm not suggesting cycling is a high risk sport. Simply that, like everything in life, it has risks which one needs to recognise and mitigate is all.

[Huertecilla]

All the evidence suggests that a cyclist who doesn't wear a helmet with have a longer and healthier life than a non-cyclist.

Hence my objections to creating aggravation about a questionable mandatory use of a crappy helmet preventing me from riding a bike.

[Josh B]

Or you could say:

All the evidence suggests that a cyclist who does wear a helmet will have a longer and healthier life than a cyclist who does not.

[Huertecilla]

ahhhhh i've read that one before

first let me start with a story from a security specialist i sat next to on a long flight to singapore once. We got talking about airport security and how much of a pain it was especially when changing flights, he made the point that it wasn't worth it. I was somewhat surprised by this and surely trying to stop suicide bombers blowing up planes was a good thing. he pointed out that the cost of providing the security combined with the total loss of productivity of the extra hour of work of everyone who now had to arrive early at the airport was with more then two 747s per day. He suggested we could give up and as long as the terrorists only blew up one plane a day on average, we'd be better off. It gives the lovely mental picture of the prime minister announcing with great loss that 350 people had died in another suicide bomb attack, but on the plus side 2000 people had been born today in the uk, your success hasn't even dented our population growth, good luck tomorrow but you'll run out of suicide bombers before we run out of people to put on the planes.

Now of coarse this is stupid, because although right on a population point of view, on an individual point of view it makes no sense, as an individual I want to know the flight is safe.

The same applies to cycle helmets, although that paper suggests less people will cycle if forced to wear helmets and the reduction of cycling will cause more years to be lost due to the reduction of exercise of these people who will get more heart disease, but once again this is looking at populations rather then individuals, i doubt many wives are comforted to be told, yes but by having the choice not to wear a helmet he's prevented more years of life being lost in people who wouldn't have cycled

Before we move onto the flawed assumptions of the paper, brutally not all years of our life are worth the same. The NHS has just spent a fortune improving trauma services, why? because trauma affects the youngest, most productive, most promising members of society, also the morbidity of those that survive it means that living with the injuries costs more then if the same event was to happen 40 years later. Trauma takes out the most valuable members of society when it comes to health economics. It costs the state much more for one 30 year old to die 40 years early then 20 65 year olds to die 5 years early. If you really wanted to be brutal you'd make it compulsory for net tax payers, optional for everyone else, and illegal for the retired. ( i'm really not suggesting this)

The paper is from 1992 ( the original figures they use)

1) Cycling has taken off massively in the last 20 years, i was back in london last month and was amazed how many people cycle now ( which is think is great) will the drop off be so great if people have to wear a helmet, most seem to anyway
2) It assumes that the cycling is the only exercise people do, and those that stop will just do nothing, they will refuse to exercise if they can't cycle without a helmet, which seems a little simplistic and unlikely
3) It assumes everyone with the cycling is now just the right amount of exercise,it doesn't take into account some people by cycling may be doing too much, hence a reduction may actually make them live longer, some people may be cycling such short distances that them stopping makes no impact
4) Some of them will walk rather then cycle which is another great form of exercise
5) It looks at years of life and not morbidity ( i.e. the non fatal consequences of heart disease and trauma)
6) Heart disease prevention and treatment has changed massively in the last 20 years, now more people survive for longer, so the exercise has a smaller impact
7) heart disease takes 30-50 years to develop, hence in 1992 they were using data from the people born 1940-1960, it means the paper was out of date the moment it was written, it's the problem when you use cohort data, it only tells you what you needed to know 20 odd years ago
7) you may just be delaying the heart disease
8) everyone has to die somehow, for the health economics better to die of heart disease then dementia in your 90s in a nursing home

from my own point of view, i don't really care if it's legal or not, i know i wear one, i recommend everyone to wear one, i've sent countless injuries that would have been prevented or reduced if they'd had one

I think things have moved on since 1992, i don't think it would have such a big negative impact, i think people are more accepting of safety laws. There will always be those who don't want to wear one, the same was true with motorbike helmets and seat belts

My final point is i also work for the medical travel insurance industry, read your insurance forms carefully, most of them will expect you to wear a helmet if you cycle overseas, it's something like you have to wear all relevant safety equipment, lots of people on motorbikes and cycles have chosen not to, and found themselves paying for their own medical costs overseas and it gets expensive, really expensive really really fast

i hope this makes sense, sorry i've gone on so long

You think it unlikely, I knów it ís stopping me from using a bike.

The good news is that good, loving sex is also extremely good for one´s mental and physical condition with as a bonus producing a smile inside and out. As a bonus condoms are still not covered by a blanket obligation.

[100thmonkey]

All day in the saddle today and several thousand ft up I removed my lid for the sake of vanity to capture what was a truly epic ride!

Helmets are simple, wear one get injured less, I fall off I bump my head, with a helmet on it gets scuffed, without I get scuffed so you can bore me with stats all day long I wear one because it 'is' safer and I look good doing it

[Si]

...based on my research, I conclude a helmet is unlikely to hurt me, might help me and is minimally inconvenient. It is therefore the prudent and sensible thing to do

That’s my overall view. It doesn’t mean that I always wear a helmet, but I am finding it harder these days to persuade myself that it’s ok not to, in the environment I usually ride in.

It’s difficult to design good studies on the effectiveness of helmets. A lot of the research available isn’t terribly convincing to me, seemingly often easily picked apart by one side or the other. I’ve read quite a few helmet debates on cycling forums. The debates often founder. I think it is partly due to the (often necessary) limitations of the studies done. The business of individual risk / benefits vs population-wide effects gets used and misused. Actually, by helmet debate standards, this debate is pretty good - informative and thought provoking.

So to form a view on this is a matter of weighing up all of this, warts and all. I often fall prey to anecdotal evidence in the helmet debate: I set great store in my observations and chats with cycling colleagues in the NHS. Among cyclists who work in A&E, general ITU, neuro ITU - technical people, nurses, physios, and - especially - doctors I’d say helmet advocacy is almost universal and I think that is quite telling. I’m sure some just wear a helmet without thinking too much about it, but I’ve met several doctors who have really thought about it and read around it and tied it all in with their own experiences and those of their colleagues. As I say, anecdotal, but it influences me.

Most people don't see cycling as a high risk sport, rather it is a means of transportation. It's funny how cyclists in the UK tend to think this way. I think the best quote I read was from a German cyclist who wondered why all cyclists in the UK go out as if they are "ready to cycle to the moon."

I like the idea of utility cycling and the Dutch way of cycling about in normal clothes. And, as above, I sometimes ride without a helmet myself when I think that I’m less likely to have a mishap. I don’t decry cyclists who I see without helmets: cycling is relatively safe. But in the UK, certainly in London, the road design and infrastructure, is not up to the task of mass utility riding. There is too much conflict with motor vehicles due to the nature of the traffic, road design, and driving speeds and standards (some of the construction traffic in London is driven by loons).

[Huertecilla]

Or you could say:

All the evidence suggests that a cyclist who does wear a helmet will have a longer and healthier life than a cyclist who does not.

All the evidence suggests that it is better still to just forget about the apparent aggravation* and enjoy more sex. Would without a doubt improve the mental state of many too.

* I can think of no other reason for the agression and desire to oblige others here.

[simon-c]

Nicely put, factual and rational

I'm still not sure why this is such an emotional subject for some!

Ride safely everyone

Simon

ahhhhh i've read that one before

first let me start with a story from a security specialist i sat next to on a long flight to singapore once. We got talking about airport security and how much of a pain it was especially when changing flights, he made the point that it wasn't worth it. I was somewhat surprised by this and surely trying to stop suicide bombers blowing up planes was a good thing. he pointed out that the cost of providing the security combined with the total loss of productivity of the extra hour of work of everyone who now had to arrive early at the airport was with more then two 747s per day. He suggested we could give up and as long as the terrorists only blew up one plane a day on average, we'd be better off. It gives the lovely mental picture of the prime minister announcing with great loss that 350 people had died in another suicide bomb attack, but on the plus side 2000 people had been born today in the uk, your success hasn't even dented our population growth, good luck tomorrow but you'll run out of suicide bombers before we run out of people to put on the planes.

Now of coarse this is stupid, because although right on a population point of view, on an individual point of view it makes no sense, as an individual I want to know the flight is safe.

The same applies to cycle helmets, although that paper suggests less people will cycle if forced to wear helmets and the reduction of cycling will cause more years to be lost due to the reduction of exercise of these people who will get more heart disease, but once again this is looking at populations rather then individuals, i doubt many wives are comforted to be told, yes but by having the choice not to wear a helmet he's prevented more years of life being lost in people who wouldn't have cycled

Before we move onto the flawed assumptions of the paper, brutally not all years of our life are worth the same. The NHS has just spent a fortune improving trauma services, why? because trauma affects the youngest, most productive, most promising members of society, also the morbidity of those that survive it means that living with the injuries costs more then if the same event was to happen 40 years later. Trauma takes out the most valuable members of society when it comes to health economics. It costs the state much more for one 30 year old to die 40 years early then 20 65 year olds to die 5 years early. If you really wanted to be brutal you'd make it compulsory for net tax payers, optional for everyone else, and illegal for the retired. ( i'm really not suggesting this)

The paper is from 1992 ( the original figures they use)

1) Cycling has taken off massively in the last 20 years, i was back in london last month and was amazed how many people cycle now ( which is think is great) will the drop off be so great if people have to wear a helmet, most seem to anyway
2) It assumes that the cycling is the only exercise people do, and those that stop will just do nothing, they will refuse to exercise if they can't cycle without a helmet, which seems a little simplistic and unlikely
3) It assumes everyone with the cycling is now just the right amount of exercise,it doesn't take into account some people by cycling may be doing too much, hence a reduction may actually make them live longer, some people may be cycling such short distances that them stopping makes no impact
4) Some of them will walk rather then cycle which is another great form of exercise
5) It looks at years of life and not morbidity ( i.e. the non fatal consequences of heart disease and trauma)
6) Heart disease prevention and treatment has changed massively in the last 20 years, now more people survive for longer, so the exercise has a smaller impact
7) heart disease takes 30-50 years to develop, hence in 1992 they were using data from the people born 1940-1960, it means the paper was out of date the moment it was written, it's the problem when you use cohort data, it only tells you what you needed to know 20 odd years ago
7) you may just be delaying the heart disease
8) everyone has to die somehow, for the health economics better to die of heart disease then dementia in your 90s in a nursing home

from my own point of view, i don't really care if it's legal or not, i know i wear one, i recommend everyone to wear one, i've sent countless injuries that would have been prevented or reduced if they'd had one

I think things have moved on since 1992, i don't think it would have such a big negative impact, i think people are more accepting of safety laws. There will always be those who don't want to wear one, the same was true with motorbike helmets and seat belts

My final point is i also work for the medical travel insurance industry, read your insurance forms carefully, most of them will expect you to wear a helmet if you cycle overseas, it's something like you have to wear all relevant safety equipment, lots of people on motorbikes and cycles have chosen not to, and found themselves paying for their own medical costs overseas and it gets expensive, really expensive really really fast

i hope this makes sense, sorry i've gone on so long

[Josh B]

All day in the saddle today and several thousand ft up I removed my lid for the sake of vanity to capture what was a truly epic ride!

Helmets are simple, wear one get injured less, I fall off I bump my head, with a helmet on it gets scuffed, without I get scuffed so you can bore me with stats all day long I wear one because it 'is' safer and I look good doing it

That looks like a gorgeous ride mate, the Brecon Beacons are stunning!

[Josh B]

All the evidence suggests that it is better still to just forget about the apparent aggravation* and enjoy more sex. Would without a doubt improve the mental state of many too.

* I can think of no other reason for the agression and desire to oblige others here.

I would remind you that Spanish law requires the use of a covering on your head when you ride the village bike.

[Huertecilla]

I like the idea of utility cycling and the Dutch way of cycling about in normal clothes. And, as above, I sometimes ride without a helmet myself when I think that I’m less likely to have a mishap. I don’t decry cyclists who I see without helmets: cycling is relatively safe. But in the UK, certainly in London, the road design and infrastructure, is not up to the task of mass utility riding. There is too much conflict with motor vehicles due to the nature of the traffic, road design, and driving speeds and standards (some of the construction traffic in London is driven by loons).

1. I am Dutch and want to utility cycle in smart clothes in relatively safe circumstandes under which any mishap is extremely unlikely.
2. The mandatory crap thing is plain bád and not meant or collisions with cars.

1. + 2. = No new bicycle, no cycling

[Huertecilla]

I would remind you that Spanish law requires the use of a covering on your head when you ride the village bike.

That would be unfounded advice again as it it does not.
Only for UK insured and that would be choíce, not spanish law.

[Josh B]

That would be unfounded advice again as it it does not.
Only for UK insured and that would be choíce, not spanish law.

I think you are missing the point old chap...

[Tim63]

I would remind you that Spanish law requires the use of a covering on your head when you ride the village bike.

[Huertecilla]

I think you are missing the point old chap...

I know you are missing that I did not stoop to that 'point'. Again.

Thanks for the jurisprudence btw. as in the context of the insurance standpoint it is a rather important piece of info for brits living here or on vacation.
In spite of the at best doubtful arguments it simply is irrelevant for them. For them it is 'mandatory' by effect.

[Huertecilla]

Nicely put, factual and rational

I'm still not sure why this is such an emotional subject for some!

Ride safely everyone

Simon

It is no effort giving up freedom, it needs a revolution to get it back.

In this case the foundation for mandatory use of the crap homologated helmet is doubtfull.
All the more reason to object to obligation.

It beats me why so many get emotional about it being a freedom of decision:
1. They can don one whenever/wherever they like.
2. If society thinks it makes them look good and clever then it is in their interest it is NOT made mandatory one would think.

For me it is simple.
I value my freedom, see no beneficial effect in mandatory use for funcional cycling in daily attire under low rik circumstances.
I choose to shun the bike because of the agravation stemming from mandatory use as that will negate the positive effect of the excersize.
I can get that excersize in at least as beneficial other ways too.

When I think of it... ... hail the bike helmet, hail the mandatory use!
I think I look better and smarter in stylish attire with fedora than the local brits in their spandex kit and mushroom. I am quite happy with them looking like that because of their more clever choice.
It is all relative and being foreigner too, it is the best perspective I could wish for

[Huertecilla]

While writing the previous post two commercials passed on tele selling feel good image. One to sell a cereal fiber diet product, the other a summer clothes collection from an upmarket department store, Both with a romantic couple in ditto circumstances in lovely countryside scenery on two bicycles One stopping for a picnic the other just fooling around... noooo helmet in sight.

Will in the UK versions the couple be in spandex, wearing a hi-viz vest and mushrooms arriving their romantic picnic?

[kungfugerbil]

What is wrong with you. Seriously.

[MarkF]

I'm not suggesting cycling is a high risk sport. Simply that, like everything in life, it has risks which one needs to recognise and mitigate is all.

I accept this. But, as proven in this thread, non-wearers are often accused of being "silly". Yet, if a helmet wearer is asked why he shouldn't wear one whilst out walking, his reply is a default "Don't be silly"!

Walking v Cycling Summary: "Boardman is likely correct when considering a statistically average person in the country, and likely wrong when considering which transport mode to use for a particular journey. But I think his broader point is a fair one: the difference in casualty rates between the two modes of transport is not big enough to justify treating them differently in law."

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/qu...g-than-cycling

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/cycl...olympics-27711

[Huertecilla]

What is wrong with you. Seriously.

Apart from some titanium replacement bits, nothing

Due to a delicious variety of adventures, I have had 8 near death experiences, of which the light extinguished 3 times and I needed to be reanimated. This and my wife dying in an accident while doing what she loved, has given me a lot of perspective to life and living.
I don´t need to be told how to live by scared tight arsed pencil shovers.

It is gréat fun being me

Seriously

A3VT!!!!

[Josh B]

Where is the evidence that this has ever occurred with in court case as a result of a road accident?

Ps. You are welcome.

[kungfugerbil]

It is gréat fun being me

I think that's clear :)

[alexaff]

It is gréat fun being me

It's nice to see an old age pensioner still enjoying life :)

Good on you!

[Mr Curta]

I'm enjoying this one. Any views on airbags?

http://www.hovding.com

[Huertecilla]

It's nice to see an old age pensioner still enjoying life :)

Good on you!

Thanks.

I ´pensioned´ myself age 40 so ´old age pensioner´ is relative. That ánd the fact that you are as old as you feel/act. I leave the acting your age to the conformers as that is again all conventions anyway.

To my huge surprise it is getting móre fun as you get older. The clutter of expectations/responsibilities really holds you back. We are born free and it is baffling that we let ourself be shackled to all sorts of perceived obligations resulting in slavery till we reach old age in years and being.

Going to university post graduate classes again this summer
The specific course is held in the neighboring city. The location is romantic and the route surrealistic in the early morning. I have don it often cycling but the ragtop will bring me there in style with fedora instead of mushroom

[Huertecilla]

I'm enjoying this one. Any views on airbags?

http://www.hovding.com

Sure.

For one they are NOT ´air´bags but explosive devices containing rocket fuel. When reaching end of life it needs to be specially disposed of as hazardous material
It is an item that should be kept secure form children/pets since it is potentially dangerous.

As helmets they are not homogated.

Lastly is comes fitted inside a garment making it suitable for chilly circumstances only.

[Josh B]

Thanks.

I ´pensioned´ myself age 40 so ´old age pensioner´ is relative. That ánd the fact that you are as old as you feel/act. I leave the acting your age to the conformers as that is again all conventions anyway.

To my huge surprise it is getting móre fun as you get older. The clutter of expectations/responsibilities really holds you back. We are born free and it is baffling that we let ourself be shackled to all sorts of perceived obligations resulting in slavery till we reach old age in years and being.

Going to university post graduate classes again this summer
The specific course is held in the neighboring city. The location is romantic and the route surrealistic in the early morning. I have don it often cycling but the ragtop will bring me there in style with fedora instead of mushroom

if they are going to make you wear a helmet then why not buy a classic scooter? I think a Lambretta or Vespa would suit you perfectly!

[OldHooky]

I commute by bike daily, about 18 miles in total and the accidents/near misses I've had have all been at sub 20mph and none have been my fault - all caused by drivers who simply don't look and the odd who who's taken a chance.

One accident, on a day i chose not to wear a lid, resulted in a gash on my forehead and a few stitches, which would have been avoided had I been wearing a lid.

A helmet won't save your life in every single possible accident scenario, but it might, and it will certainly save concussion and stitches in many.

Below is a photo from a very low speed spill. Took 8 months to repair. Can't find the other photo but the humerus ended up in three separate pieces. Head hit the deck at the same time but I was wearing a lid that day. I guess I don't need to say any more.

[Nev]

Helmets are simple, wear one get injured less, I fall off I bump my head, with a helmet on it gets scuffed, without I get scuffed so you can bore me with stats all day long I wear one because it 'is' safer and I look good doing it

The most sensible quote i've seen in this whole thread.

[markie3182]

That looks like a gorgeous ride mate, the Brecon Beacons are stunning!

Not so stunning in march with a 40lb bergan and full kit and a four hour time limit going down that stony path my feet never hurt so much. When the Began came off I had a feeling like i was about to float of the ground. I still remember the sense of achievement 30 years later at completing the Fan Dance. Helmets were not optional either.

[bubi]

if you need protection, wear it.

i ride a motorbike and wear a helmet, but it's a cool helmet. it gets me pussy.
cycling helmets are totally gay.
if it were compulsory to wear helmets when cycling, I'd wear my motorbike helmet instead.
or my snowboarding helmet, which is way cooler than any mushroom helmet for cycling.

but, that's not the point.

the pont is you are not adding protection, you are living in fear.
and fear is how the governement keeps you steady on your tracks and obedient.

like with osama bin laden and water bottles at the airport.

come on!

[deryckb]

I find it odd that you are happy to commute in London traffic at those speeds but appear to think those that don't wear helmets are risking their lives.

And at speeds that are much higher than that helmets are designed.

[jordan-arch]

I don't get why you wouldn't want to stick one on your kids head when they are learning to ride a bike, I don't get why you wouldn't put up with wearing one while your with said kid, I also don't really see much point in not wearing one anyway but then I honestly don't give a shit if anyone doesn't wear one, but I also think that if your going to be riding on the roads you should be made to wear one and you should be made to stick to the laws of the road but that's another point.

The same people who bitch and moan about having to wear one are probably the same types of people who bitched about being made to wear seat belts, do it or don't do it its up to you BUT if you come off and end up a vegetable its on you.

I don't ride, I don't see the point I have a car, but in the last few months I know of about 3 accidents (off road) one wasn't wearing a helmet and he got his head all scraped up, wouldn't have happened with the helmet he admits that and when he came off again a few weeks later he was happy to have it, 3rd one guy was in a bad way helmet probably didn't hurt the situation but he was out for a while and a broke a bone or two but don't know him well enough to tell you how it happened.

[Mr Curta]

Sure.

For one they are NOT ´air´bags but explosive devices containing rocket fuel. When reaching end of life it needs to be specially disposed of as hazardous material
It is an item that should be kept secure form children/pets since it is potentially dangerous.

As helmets they are not homogated.

Lastly is comes fitted inside a garment making it suitable for chilly circumstances only.

According to their website the airbag uses a helium cold gas inflator which doesn't sound like rocket fuel. It probably does pose a risk to children so I guess appropriate storage in a similar manner to medicine and knives would be in order. But I do take the point about it being of limited use in warm climates.