Helmets optional?!

[GaryvdM]

I hear you on the momentary freedom part, but statically people are more likely to be involved in serious accidents within 5km of there homes because of complacency with surrounds

Just saying

 

This is a very interesting argument. I plan to research it further when I have some time.

[GaryvdM]

Everyone here has exactly the same wisdom/logic/common sense - most just choose to ignore it.

 

Common sense makes for really short and boring debates

 

Common sense is a fallacy anyway. Lets stick to evidence and logic.

Edited February 5, 2014 by GaryvdM

[DIPSLICK]

 

 

This is a very interesting argument. I plan to research it further when I have some time.

I read once its due mostly to assumptions that every thing WILL be as you know it and we are wired to be more alert in situations we are not comfortable in, so when you driving that last stretch home you brain is already thinking about that cold beer, your sexy wife, and you not paying as much attention as you would normally, then something happens and you not ready to react immediately and you are caught off sides, The statistic could also have to do with over tired last stretch is the hardest,,,,,but many accidents happen within 5km radius

[straatvark]

I read once its due mostly to assumptions that every thing WILL be as you know it and we are wired to be more alert in situations we are not comfortable in, so when you driving that last stretch home you brain is already thinking about that cold beer, your sexy wife, and you not paying as much attention as you would normally, then something happens and you not ready to react immediately and you are caught off sides, The statistic could also have to do with over tired last stretch is the hardest,,,,,but many accidents happen within 5km radius

 

just make sure it is a different lady waiting every time, then no helmet required

[djsam]

You are putting words in my mouth. The risk compensation factor is not a reason why I believe helmet laws/promotion are a bad thing.

 

The reasons why I believe helmet laws/promotion is a bad thing are:

• they discourage and reduce cycling^ref,
  
• this has a knock on effect of making cycling on the roads more dangerous^ref.
  
• Giving a person that would choose not to cycle if required to use a helmet, but who would cycle without a helmet, the health benefits of cycling greatly out weigh the increase in risk of not wearing a helmet.
  

Also, please don't compare seat belts to cycle helmets. Seat belts provide far better protection to car occupants (72% fatality reduction in head-on crashes, for example Crandall, Olson and Sklar, 2001) than helmets provide for bicyclists (no proven reduction for fatal or disabling head injuries – BHRF, 1012; BHRF, 1013).

Sorry I really have to disagree with this entirely i mean seriously if you have a love for sport or want to take up a sport... there are rules that come along with that... if they discourage you from doing it entirely then you probably arent that passionate about it in the first place? shouldn;t be doing it? I don't know who in the right mind answered some survey and stated i chose not to cycle because i had to wear a helmet? oh my word! that

s like i can't even think of an analogy for something so stupid, sorry Garry I am not having a go at you... but this article is a load of Crock! wait i have one i decided not to play Golf because i wasn't allowed on the Golf course during a lightning storm. These things are here for a safety...man.. use don't use it but to say it discourages you from cycling.. load of rubbish....

Edited February 5, 2014 by djsam

[kosmonooit]

My View: Competition / Events / mtb YES

 

Commuting / rec riding: users choice, though it should be encouraged.

[ibruegge]

Did a test today. Took my head and rammed it into the wall, no helmet. It hurt like hell. Did the same with a helmet. Didn't hurt as much. Conclusion - will wear helmet.

[GaryvdM]

Sorry I really have to disagree with this entirely i mean seriously if you have a love for sport or want to take up a sport... there are rules that come along with that... if they discourage you from doing it entirely then you probably arent that passionate about it in the first place? shouldn;t be doing it? I don't know who in the right mind answered some survey and stated i chose not to cycle because i had to wear a helmet? oh my word! that

s like i can't even think of an analogy for something so stupid, sorry Garry I am not having a go at you... but this article is a load of Crock! wait i have one i decided not to play Golf because i wasn't allowed on the Golf course during a lightning storm. These things are here for a safety...man.. use don't use it but to say it discourages you from cycling.. load of rubbish....

 

Actually, what I posted has very little to do with sport. It's mostly about commuting & leisure cycling. (Like I said in other posts, if you are doing cycling as sport, then you should be wearing a helmet.)

 

Nothing I've linked to is about a survey where people are interviewed. Where did you get that from???

 

I you are going to call the evidence I've linked to a "load of rubbish", maybe try read it first.

 

 

 

Also, alot of people seem to think: 1) I don't wear a helmet 2) I believe that other people should not wear a helmet. Both of these are not true.

 

Of the time I spend cycling, I wear a helmet 99% of the time.

 

I don't mind if you wear a helmet or not. My issue is with laws requiring helmet use, and campaigns that promote helmets, especially ones that use scare tactics like the one posted earlier in the thread. Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware of the risks of head injury. The most scary thing for me was witnessing paramedics treat a gent who had received a head injury in a pile up in a race bunch (even though he was wearing a helmet.) The problem is that Avg. Joe who maybe wants to buy a bike to cruse around on in the neighbourhood, looks at a campaign like that and decides that cycling (with a helmet or not) is too risky for him.

Edited February 5, 2014 by GaryvdM

[GaryvdM]

Did a test today. Took my head and rammed it into the wall, no helmet. It hurt like hell. Did the same with a helmet. Didn't hurt as much. Conclusion - will wear helmet.

 

I just did another test. I did not hit my head on the wall. It did not hurt at all. Conclusion - don't hit head on wall.

[Cellar]

I don't mind if you wear a helmet or not. My issue is with laws requiring helmet use, and campaigns that promote helmets, especially ones that use scare tactics like the one posted earlier in the thread. Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware of the risks of head injury. The most scary thing for me was witnessing paramedics treat a gent who had received a head injury in a pile up in a race bunch (even though he was wearing a helmet.) The problem is that Avg. Joe who maybe wants to buy a bike to cruse around on in the neighbourhood, looks at a campaign like that and decides that cycling (with a helmet or not) is too risky for him.

 

Gary, when you're bored, go and find the stats on head injuries per motorcyclist before and after the helmet laws in the US?

 

(ps, if that's you in your avatar, you are the spitting image of my cousin's husband Richard. Just a throwaway for the afternoon.)

Edited February 5, 2014 by Cellar

[GaryvdM]

Gary, when you're bored, go and find the stats on head injuries per motorcyclist before and after the helmet laws in the US?

 

I actually have. But it's a very different scenario. 1) The speeds for motorcyclists are much higher than cyclists. 2) Motorcycle helmets are much more effective than bicycle helmets (ignoring the helmets that DH riders use.)

[droo]

Common sense is a fallacy anyway. Lets stick to evidence and logic.

 

It's not a fallacy, it's just not very common...

[Cellar]

I actually have. But it's a very different scenario. 1) The speeds for motorcyclists are much higher than cyclists. 2) Motorcycle helmets are much more effective than bicycle helmets (ignoring the helmets that DH riders use.)

 

Ta.

[Rata Del Spruit]

I hear you on the momentary freedom part, but statically people are more likely to be involved in serious accidents within 5km of there homes because of complacency with surrounds

Just saying

 

Isn't that because statistically the most commonly travelled area is within 5km of a person's home?

[ibruegge]

 

I just did another test. I did not hit my head on the wall. It did not hurt at all. Conclusion - don't hit head on wall.

I.e. Don't ride your bike, right?

[RockCoach]

 

 

Isn't that because statistically the most commonly travelled area is within 5km of a person's home?

 

I was going to say just that.