Doctors Against Helmet Laws

[Falco]

Thanks, but I'll keep my helmet on, seen too much close up proof that they do work. They are a small inconvenience for a huge potential benefit.

[Longbarn Killer]

I've had 2 bad accidents, both I landed on the tar, on my back, with my head wip lashing on to the ground. My helmet, on both occasions, shattered at the back, but my head remained intact. I would not be here today, if it were not for a helmet.

 

I believe that there should be a law forcing people to wear helmets, especially children, whose parents seem to ignor their safety.

[Eldron]

I don't know anyone that would stand up and say that wearing a helmet is not safer than no helmet at all. It's pretty frikkin obvious.

 

I just hate laws that are designed save stupid people from themselves.

 

Wearing of seatbelts (front), helmets etc should not be a legal requirment. All it does is chew up our tax money on policement to save dumbass people from themselves.

 

Whats next? Enforced wearing of eye protection while you prune your roses?

 

Nah - give me common sense over nanny state any day.

[The Drongo]

I've had 2 bad accidents, both I landed on the tar, on my back, with my head wip lashing on to the ground. My helmet, on both occasions, shattered at the back, but my head remained intact. I would not be here today, if it were not for a helmet.

 

I believe that there should be a law forcing people to wear helmets, especially children, whose parents seem to ignor their safety.

 

I believe that children need to be taught to do what is best for them. Forced, no.

It is up to parents to do that, by primarily setting the example.

Sadly, as noted by the number of 'parents' who allow their children to travel around in cars with no restraints, it appears that the likelihood of them being taught to wear helmets is bleak. That part is sad, sadder still is the backlash received when pointing it out to them.

 

As for adults. It's their head, use it, don't use it...the choice is Darwinian. I couldn't care less.

[The Drongo]

I don't know anyone that would stand up and say that wearing a helmet is not safer than no helmet at all. It's pretty frikkin obvious.

 

I just hate laws that are designed save stupid people from themselves.

 

Wearing of seatbelts (front), helmets etc should not be a legal requirment. All it does is chew up our tax money on policement to save dumbass people from themselves.

 

Whats next? Enforced wearing of eye protection while you prune your roses?

 

Nah - give me common sense over nanny state any day.

 

+100 there Elder Ron.

[The OriginalSpartacus]

It's a conspiracy, the doctors know they'll make more money stitching up peoples brains if they don't wear helmets. I wonder if they would feel the same way if it is their kids on the bikes??

[ajwinters17]

There should be no law!! Its a common sense thing. If I go running at night I wear reflective clothing if I quickly walk to the shops at night I don't bother.... I'd be well annoyed if I got arrested or fined for that. Same goes when riding my bikes.

 

All research into whether wearing a helmet or not saves you is flawed because you can't say with certainty that it would.. I'm mean what are you going to do? Convince some guy to ride into a wall with a helmet, then pick him up, dust him off, remove the helmet, get him to ride into the wall again and see if it kills him?

 

If I go ride I wear a lid because it COULD save me not because it WILL.

[Eldron]

+100 there Elder Ron.

 

Oi! Who you calling Elder buddy???

 

On a slightly different note...I spent loads of time in Copenhagan - the epicentre of socialism and enlightenment where you would expect the helmet law to be enforced. Not at all. 90% of commuters wear no head protection at all - the only people I saw wearing helmets were the lycra lights who seemed to take it all rather seriously.

 

Most also talk on the cellphone, smoke and drink coffee while they ride.

 

In almost 6 months there I never saw a single accident.

 

Actually scratch that - I saw a few cases where men were so drunk they had fallen asleep at a traffic light and slid slowly to the ground on their bikes and were happily snoozing in the road.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

 

I just hate laws that are designed save stupid people from themselves.

 

Wearing of seatbelts (front), helmets etc should not be a legal requirment. All it does is chew up our tax money on policement to save dumbass people from themselves.

 

Whats next? Enforced wearing of eye protection while you prune your roses?

 

Nah - give me common sense over nanny state any day.

 

The argument that its a personal decision is moot in motor accidents, seat belts are compulsory in every country in the world in some form or other, one assumes there is some quantitative research behind this that suggests they do save lives.

 

Sure there will be the odd one here and there who lived because they DIDN'T wear a belt, but they are the minority, believe me. Hitting a windscreen with your face at 120 before flying out the front of the vehicle is guaranteed to leave a scar.

 

As for bicycles, its just the same, hitting the tar with a bare skull at 20 is going to be painful, it may not kill you but you will have a few nights of sleeping with the aid of some pain killers. Hitting the tar at 80 with no helmet is guaranteed to leave a lasting impression, if you live.

 

Now the point of the legislation is you don't know what's going to happen, you may be tooling around the neighbourhood at 20 when suddenly a dog chases you downhill, you didn't intend going 80 but suddenly you are - you crash what now.?

 

Same as belts, you may just be shooting down to the cafe for a pint of milk, done it thousands of times, a tyre blows and you roll down an embankment - no belt and you are a quadriplegic for life - think it cant happen, it can and do's, ask my wife, she is representing a young man of 22 who is now a quadriplegic because of this very same incident - he was just going to visit his mate 5 km away.!!

 

The future is unknown to us, hence legislation - a way of ensuring we have at least some protection for ourselves and third parties.

 

I am totally against nanny states, but I believe in certain legislation, we do not all accept responsibility equally, nor do we anticipate the future equally, I know you are an intelligent person who takes matters seriously, however not everyone thinks like that, so although some legislation may and usually dos impinge on our sense of responsibility, it dos not mean it is equally so across the nation.

[Grebel]

I am pro choice. If it's your head, do whatever you like. My head as well as my kids will be protected by a helmet.

[TNT1]

The argument that its a personal decision is moot in motor accidents, seat belts are compulsory in every country in the world in some form or other, one assumes there is some quantitative research behind this that suggests they do save lives.

 

 

Yes, it's called NCAP, I dunno what the yank version is anymore, but the problem is that although bicycle helmets undergo destruction testing to ANSI or whatever standards, I don't think they are crash tested in the way that NCAP assesses safety of a car, so there is very little evidence other than anecdotal to prove that they prevent injury. Weylandts was wearing a helmet, casartelli wasn't, Soler was, what is the conclusion?

[Chubba]

I reckon more people should be allowed to ride without a helmet, great way for cleansing the population of stupidity!

[SwissVan]

Here in good ole Schweiz they are also arguing about it. The government want to make it law for children up to 15 yrs old to wear helmuts, after that it’s your own decision.

Howz that for a typical swiss middle of the road approach....LOL

 

Me, in hindsight I agree that it should not be law. Not because of nanny state issues but because this planet already has to many humans on board. Loosing a few who are silly enough not to want to follow obvious safety precautions will do the planet and it's inhabitants a favour.

 

If your inclined to want to know more about bicycle helmet debates such as this one check the link below which has plenty of links to various countries and studies in this regard, and in Engleesh.....

 

http://translate.google.ch/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.pro-velo.ch/themen-und-angebote/verkehrssicherheit/ausruestung/velohelm/&ei=epU7TqWSBIWf-QbyrYmxAg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=7&sqi=2&ved=0CFIQ7gEwBg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dvelo%2Bhelm%2Bpflicht%2Bschweiz%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D626%26prmd%3Divns

[Joe Low]

• 
   
  
• It's not the law here;
  
• The vast majority of cyclists don't wear helmets;
  
• It's a good idea to wear one;
  
• You shouldnt be fussed about what the other guy does or doesn't do.
  

The Uk figured helmets were a disincentive to people taking up the sport so would rather have the benefits of less cardio problems in the population, than enforce a helmet law.

 

Also the rights of Uk road users increase as their size decreases. It's pretty civilised over there.

[SwissVan]

Yes, it's called NCAP, I dunno what the yank version is anymore, but the problem is that although bicycle helmets undergo destruction testing to ANSI or whatever standards, I don't think they are crash tested in the way that NCAP assesses safety of a car, so there is very little evidence other than anecdotal to prove that they prevent injury. Weylandts was wearing a helmet, casartelli wasn't, Soler was, what is the conclusion?

 

I'm not sure what type of head injury they suffered, but IMO no helmet will protect your brain from smashing against your skull i.e. internal head or brain injury which results in death. Helmets cannot help much in accidents where a sudden stoppage of the head is suffered at high speed where your head hits the ground or another immovable object such as a wall, pole etc...

[dman2]

People who ride without helmet make excellent organs donors!

 

Organs are in short supply, doctors know this!!

 

I'm against a nanny state but I can do the maths and I never ride without a helmet!