Riding without a helmet

[Tumbleweed]

Wouldn't it be funny if they tried to tie helmet rules to the new Aarto amendments?

 

Maybe not.

 

Maybe that's why there's a hold-up with the planned cycling lanes in Jozi...Sanral hasn't figured out how to toll them yet.

 

 

 

 

[Long Wheel Base]

I matriculated in 2002 and there was a girl that I had been with at school since grade 1, For her matric holiday she decided to go to thailand. She was busy hiring a scooter and I'm not sure the exact details around the event but while still organising the hiring of the scooter she was siting on the scooter without a helmut on and managed to fall over. She hit her head on the pavement and pretty much died straight away. She wasn't even moving yet and the impact was obviously just at the wrong angle. So me personally I will always put my helmut on before getting onto my bike.

I've also had a bad crash during the Argus a few years back. We where going under the ladies mile bridge at 68kph(the garmin data was interesting-68 to 0 instantly) when someone touched wheels and a few of us went down. My helmut split into 3 pieces and when I took it off it just fell apart(lucky for the bell replacement deal).

 

Kinda like wearing a seatbelt, Some do, some don't.

[rouxtjie]

It's all risk and reward. Sometimes I dig cruising the hood on my SS sans helmet. I check out the houses and see who is building what.

 

When I train or race I never leave home without a helmet.

 

What I don't understand is why everyone feels its their duty to be the moral authority. If someone wants to drive without a seatbelt, ride without a helmet or weed eat without goggles it is their issue not yours. As long as it doesn't affect you why bother about it?

boom voice of reason...Cooler as ekke syndrome. I think the OP is moerig cause the oke dropped him.

[Joe Low]

What he said, imo its a personal choice. Why get involved if someone else thinks they wont need one?

 

Being a legal requirement is another thing, we all wear one at races because we have to, so IF its law then why not wear it some more?

 

 

The "it's the law argument" is empty and just a cover for people telling other people what to do.  The same (redundant) regs,on helmets require every cyclist to have a bell, I see no-one calling for that because "it's the law".

 

Also illegal as we always point out to ride in the yellow lane.

 

Really dislike people presenting their arguments on grounds you know they don't believe in (not you SV).

[Off_da_brakes]

I think the OP is moerig cause the oke dropped him.

Of course...

[Rocket-Boy]

Im happy to let people ride without helmets(unless they are family or friends)

If someone wants to ride without a helmet then that is their deal, heck they probably wouldnt remember not wearing one when they end up as a vegetable.

 

Still its everyones personal choice, sure its law but one like many others that will never be enforced.

[Zatopek]

I matriculated in 2002 and there was a girl that I had been with at school since grade 1, For her matric holiday she decided to go to thailand. She was busy hiring a scooter and I'm not sure the exact details around the event but while still organising the hiring of the scooter she was siting on the scooter without a helmut on and managed to fall over. She hit her head on the pavement and pretty much died straight away. She wasn't even moving yet and the impact was obviously just at the wrong angle. So me personally I will always put my helmut on before getting onto my bike.

I've also had a bad crash during the Argus a few years back. We where going under the ladies mile bridge at 68kph(the garmin data was interesting-68 to 0 instantly) when someone touched wheels and a few of us went down. My helmut split into 3 pieces and when I took it off it just fell apart(lucky for the bell replacement deal).

 

Kinda like wearing a seatbelt, Some do, some don't.

That example proof that you can get killed if your chair break and tip over at a sidewalk coffee shop. Do you see any cyclists keep their helmets on during coffee stops?

[HappyMartin]

A person who confuses their opinion with fact is very likely to confuse them selves with God.

[Tumbleweed]

That example proof that you can get killed if your chair break and tip over at a sidewalk coffee shop. Do you see any cyclists keep their helmets on during coffee stops?

 

In Cape Town. Apparently they call them "prawns"...

[Dicky DQ]

http://www.bhsi.org/testing.htm

 

Interesting read Tested at 22/3 kph freefall from 2m onto a flat anvil. So effectively only making sure it is OK to going from on your bike to the ground at no additional speed momentum than just falling off your bike. 

[Dicky DQ]

One recent court case in the UK found that in the case of a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from their cycle without any real forward momentum would not have had their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of no more than 75 joules.

So in at least one case now, a High Court has decided that the balance of probability was, in the matter before the Court, that a cycle helmet would not have prevented the injuries sustained when the accident involved simply falling from a cycle onto a fl at surface, with barely any forward momentum.

 

In this same case, the QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work tried repeatedly to persuade the neurosurgeons acting for either side, and the technical expert opposing me, to state that one must be more safe wearing a helmet than would be the case if one were not.

All three refused to do so, claiming that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. Cycle helmets, in their view, were too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim.

[DIPSLICK]

One recent court case in the UK found that in the case of a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from their cycle without any real forward momentum would not have had their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of no more than 75 joules.

So in at least one case now, a High Court has decided that the balance of probability was, in the matter before the Court, that a cycle helmet would not have prevented the injuries sustained when the accident involved simply falling from a cycle onto a fl at surface, with barely any forward momentum.

 

In this same case, the QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work tried repeatedly to persuade the neurosurgeons acting for either side, and the technical expert opposing me, to state that one must be more safe wearing a helmet than would be the case if one were not.

All three refused to do so, claiming that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. Cycle helmets, in their view, were too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim.

Typical Drs everything is too complex, that's why they still practicing, duhhhh

 

I tore my p.c.l not one of the three "top" surgeons could agree on what they thought was the correct course,(all had different ideas of directions to go in) . did I not have a torn P.C.L

[Dicky DQ]

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html

 

Hmmmm?

 

In short do as you will, the odds are slightly in your favour if you wear a helmet but only slightly.

[DJR]

We can easily settle this debate scientifically: Here is how:

 

1. Get 100 riders that believe in wearing helmets to volunteer

2. Get 100 riders that believe helmets are useless to volunteer

3. Get them all to ride into a wall at 30 km/h

4. Count how many end up dead, fractured, concussed or with a headache. See who remember their own names. Perhaps even do a few brain scans?

5. Do the sums, make some pie charts and graphs

6. Never argue about it again

 

Oh, you say no medical ethics board want to OK your study? No wonder! Until then, accident and medical injury data, is the best yardstick we have. Oh, unless you use common sense! Which, sadly, is all too uncommon!

[DJR]

One recent court case in the UK found that in the case of a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from their cycle without any real forward momentum would not have had their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of no more than 75 joules.

 

So in at least one case now, a High Court has decided that the balance of probability was, in the matter before the Court, that a cycle helmet would not have prevented the injuries sustained when the accident involved simply falling from a cycle onto a fl at surface, with barely any forward momentum.

 

In this same case, the QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work tried repeatedly to persuade the neurosurgeons acting for either side, and the technical expert opposing me, to state that one must be more safe wearing a helmet than would be the case if one were not.

All three refused to do so, claiming that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. Cycle helmets, in their view, were too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim.

In this instance, the court, the lawyers as well as the doctors FAILED EPICALLY! They might have arrived at a VERDICT, won money, but they sure as all hell FAILED to find the TRUTH about cycling safety (which I understand is not their purpose)! I have seen 5 year olds use more COMMON SENSE!

[rouxtjie]

We can easily settle this debate scientifically: Here is how:

 

1. Get 100 riders that believe in wearing helmets to volunteer

2. Get 100 riders that believe helmets are useless to volunteer

3. Get them all to ride into a wall at 30 km/h

4. Count how many end up dead, fractured, concussed or with a headache. See who remember their own names. Perhaps even do a few brain scans?

5. Do the sums, make some pie charts and graphs

6. Never argue about it again

 

Oh, you say no medical ethics board want to OK your study? No wonder! Until then, accident and medical injury data, is the best yardstick we have. Oh, unless you use common sense! Which, sadly, is all too uncommon!

I don't think there is any argument about a helmet being better or worse preventing damage. Its about why people feel the need to tell people what to do / wear.