nickc Posted June 5, 2013 Share I hit the tar at 50 km/h last week, landed on my pip.I ended up with a concussion and my helmut was crunched.That little bit of polystyrene kept me from a hospital bed at the very least. and the Dale, AND THE DALE ???? Edited June 5, 2013 by nickc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EZRider Posted June 5, 2013 Share and the Dale, AND THE DALE ???? She's fine Nick, I threw my body between her and the Tarmac!Expensive mistake though: di marchi bibs, s works helmet, sram carbon levers, look carbon pedals, bars and seat all toast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V12man Posted June 5, 2013 Share I am genuinely interested in the topic of helmet use and was hoping for some constructive debate. Advocating not wearing a helmet in any city is not constructive... The only constructive thing I am trying to achieve is to keep you OUT of my ER. So - the stats you posted on cycling creating the most head injuries of any sport is at best misleading, because inside the number of head injuries to cyclists quoted includes cyclists using bikes as toys (kids) commuters (transport) and sporting cyclists, and head injury stats often include facial injuries - which few helmets will reduce or prevent. The fact of the matter is that wearing a helmet while cycling is likely to reduce the severity of a head injury in the event of an accident to some extent - and that's in a general sense a good thing - remembering that reducing the severity of an injury does not mean that the injury (and associated injuries) won't hurt, kill or disable you permanently - but it very well might give you enough of an edge to keep you alive - or best case - keep you out of an ER entirely - and they often do that - just read the posts in this thread. Capricorn and johannrissik 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kranky Posted June 5, 2013 Share If anyone is interested, there is a bicycle safety, law and infrastructure debate happening in Cape Town tonight. I'm not sure if it has been posted on The Hub already. Link: https://www.facebook...43433462506650/ Advocating not wearing a helmet in any city is not constructive... The only constructive thing I am trying to achieve is to keep you OUT of my ER. So - the stats you posted on cycling creating the most head injuries of any sport is at best misleading, because inside the number of head injuries to cyclists quoted includes cyclists using bikes as toys (kids) commuters (transport) and sporting cyclists, and head injury stats often include facial injuries - which few helmets will reduce or prevent. The fact of the matter is that wearing a helmet while cycling is likely to reduce the severity of a head injury in the event of an accident to some extent - and that's in a general sense a good thing - remembering that reducing the severity of an injury does not mean that the injury (and associated injuries) won't hurt, kill or disable you permanently - but it very well might give you enough of an edge to keep you alive - or best case - keep you out of an ER entirely - and they often do that - just read the posts in this thread. All valid points. Except "Advocating not wearing a helmet in any city is not constructive...". If your aim is to get people on bicycles, then yes it has been shown to be extremely constructive to not have mandatory helmet laws. As a result, many pro-commuting organisations advocate letting the commuter decide. In places like Amsterdam commuters believe that there is not sufficient need to wear a helmet. If the risk of head injury is indeed low, then why force them? In South Africa, I believe commuters should take more precaution. I would definitely wear a full face helmet but for the discomfort. However, this is perceived to be an acceptable risk to take. I even went as far as getting an AM/trail helmet to cover the back of my pip. The question is how far do we go in the quest for safety? Some militant Aussies made this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujs6DJAMGp0 Edited June 5, 2013 by Nick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V12man Posted June 5, 2013 Share All valid points. Except "Advocating not wearing a helmet in any city is not constructive...". If your aim is to get people on bicycles, then yes it has been shown to be extremely constructive to not have mandatory helmet laws. As a result, many pro-commuting organisations advocate letting the commuter decide. In places like Amsterdam commuters believe that there is not sufficient need to wear a helmet. If the risk of head injury is indeed low, then why force them? In South Africa, I believe commuters should take more precaution. I would definitely wear a full face helmet but for the discomfort. However, this is perceived to be an acceptable risk to take. I even went as far as getting an AM/trail helmet to cover the back of my pip. The question is how far do we go in the quest for safety? Some militant Aussies made this video: [media] There is a difference between forcing people to wear helmets and advocating that people not wear them. Even in Amsterdam there are advocate of wearing helmets - and many people actually do wear them too - especially when they ride for sporting purposes - even in Holland. It does not take a huge impact to sustain a brain injury - just falling over at a stop street and clipping your head on the tar/pavement is enough to kill - although the risk is fairly low. But for the sake of argument - work in reverse - show me any country that has implemented a mandatory helmet law and lost cyclists of any description? We have a mandatory helmet law in SA on public roads - do you even know anyone who does not cycle as a result? they may well ignore the law, but they don't stop cycling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocknRolla Posted June 5, 2013 Share had this exact same topic on a motorbike forum a couple of years ago. Let those who ride decide: If you have enough sense to know that falling off a moving vehicle at any speed could be potentially fatal, there is no need for a law to force you to wear a helmet. It will also not change the fact that some people will ride without a helmet. In america motorcycle helmet use is optional.The guys with braincells to protect - wear helmets. And of course the opposites also exists. End of story. The only way a "law" ( i use quotes, because we live in South Africa) will make a difference is in a nanny state, where everyone obeys the law, and the cops needs to be kept busy enforcing silly little nanny by-laws. As a matter of interest - i see people using scooters on a daily basis wearing strange forms of head protection - from hardhats to cycling helmets, and yes - also no helmets. The best form of helmetless protection i have witnessed was a scarf - to protect the nose and ears in winter from the cold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capricorn Posted June 5, 2013 Share again, this is not as simple as a personal choice. The city and your and my tax pays for the services that go out to save your empty vessels when you prefer to leave it unlidded. I would like to believe that i still have a say in how the taxes get spent? If and you lived in a vacuum, then fine: it's only your choice, but like all things, it really isn't just you being affected. If you own the road and you and only you use it, then fair enough, your choice. That said, i do appreciate other nations with civilians on the same page with well established infracstructure to support commuting by bicycle, where the risk of incident is low (note: not non-existent). But why argue for that which is not a reality here. Lets keep it realistic and relevant to here. So what exactly is the hardship in wearing a helmet if safety is not the applicable criteria for some? Or are some just that belligerent that not wearing it is just an excuse to flick establishment the finger, or so hell bent on #1 screw the rest? In that case, please feel free to apply DNA and DNR stickers to your person and bike in case you have an head injury during an accident on your bicycle on a public road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agteros Posted June 5, 2013 Share again, this is not as simple as a personal choice. The city and your and my tax pays for the services that go out to save your empty vessels when you prefer to leave it unlidded. I would like to believe that i still have a say in how the taxes get spent? If and you lived in a vacuum, then fine: it's only your choice, but like all things, it really isn't just you being affected. If you own the road and you and only you use it, then fair enough, your choice. That said, i do appreciate other nations with civilians on the same page with well established infracstructure to support commuting by bicycle, where the risk of incident is low (note: not non-existent). But why argue for that which is not a reality here. Lets keep it realistic and relevant to here. So what exactly is the hardship in wearing a helmet if safety is not the applicable criteria for some? Or are some just that belligerent that not wearing it is just an excuse to flick establishment the finger, or so hell bent on #1 screw the rest? In that case, please feel free to apply DNA and DNR stickers to your person and bike in case you have an head injury during an accident on your bicycle on a public road.No they don't. Netcare 911 or one of the myriad other private ambulance services will "take care" of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted June 5, 2013 Share No question from me if this saved me having to have a brain scan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kranky Posted June 5, 2013 Share There is a difference between forcing people to wear helmets and advocating that people not wear them. True. A bit of false logic on my part. Going out an advocating not wearing is not constructive. What I should have said is that forcing helmet use where it is detrimental to the riding experience is not beneficial. Best example being dense European cities where 35% of people commute on bicycle and the average ride is 2-5km, bikes are low tech, speeds are slow, and infrastructure is bike orientated, instead of motor vehicle focussed. And this is how most cities with large commuting populations actually work. PPA are against mandatory laws in South Africa: "The Pedal Power Association supports the use of helmets by its members, but we are against making the use of helmets compulsory by law, as it discourages cycling. Pedal Power Association regularly hands out helmets to cyclists in poor neighbourhoods. From our experience we can tell you that less than one per cent of poor cyclists use a helmet. In affluent neighbourhoods and amongst sports cyclists the percentage of helmet use is higher. This requirement in law is largely ignored and should be repealed." http://www.pedalpowe...ic-regulations/ Edited June 5, 2013 by Nick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambithunt Posted June 5, 2013 Share Head into ground with no helmet = Splat! Zzzzz indefinite. Head into ground while wearing helmet = Crash Zzz wake up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Az- Posted June 5, 2013 Share I still have a brother thanks to helmets EZRider, SyncSA, V12man and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V12man Posted June 6, 2013 Share True. A bit of false logic on my part. Going out an advocating not wearing is not constructive. This requirement in law is largely ignored and should be repealed." http://www.pedalpowe...ic-regulations/ No logic at all I am afraid.... PPA also have no ability to think sometimes - repealing a law because it's not enforced is insane... lets repeal driving on the left side of the road because the taxi's dont follow that rule.. and see where we land up. They should rather focus on getting laws enforced and advocate helmet useage.... that is much more constructive. johannrissik 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kranky Posted June 6, 2013 Share No logic at all I am afraid.... PPA also have no ability to think sometimes - repealing a law because it's not enforced is insane... lets repeal driving on the left side of the road because the taxi's dont follow that rule.. and see where we land up. They should rather focus on getting laws enforced and advocate helmet useage.... that is much more constructive. Enforcement is not the main reasoning behind the PPAs position. This is: "The Pedal Power Association supports the use of helmets by its members, but we are against making the use of helmets compulsory by law, as it discourages cycling." It is also happens to be impossible to enforce the law, as a penalty has never been legislated. Edited June 6, 2013 by Nick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickc Posted June 6, 2013 Share She's fine Nick, I threw my body between her and the Tarmac!Expensive mistake though: di marchi bibs, s works helmet, sram carbon levers, look carbon pedals, bars and seat all toast! Hell - glad you okay Ray, how did you fall? Thats the problem with riding a Dale - they are so fast !! Edited June 6, 2013 by nickc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now