Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:18 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 333 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 34  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:49 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 7:13 pm
Posts: 2574
Location: The Cock Inn, Tillett, Herts
Ah, but since when did logic and the law go hand in hand?

The difference is for pedestrians that the skull is designed to protect the brain from almost any impact that a pedestrian is liable to be able to subject it. It Not infallible, but for aeons the situation has been for the most part that pedestrians striking their head do not die or even suffer serious injury, making helmets superfluous and the suggestion that pedestrians should consider wearing them rather bizarre.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:53 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11105
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
Agreed. And the stats relating to pedestrians dying of head injuries are never given in percentage terms.

Cyclists are many times more likely to suffer severe head injury per journey/distance travelled.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:58 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 4:18 pm
Posts: 2336
Chopper1192 wrote:
I know its the same in other vehicles. Chap I know was unfortunate to crash a minibus, and the only passenger wearing a seatbelt got considerably moolah more for their bumps and bruises that his fellow passengers with worse injuries.


The rather important difference there is that you're required by law to wear seatbelts in a minibus if it has them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:01 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 4:18 pm
Posts: 2336
Chopper1192 wrote:
the suggestion that pedestrians should consider wearing them rather bizarre.


I believe that the suggestion is made precisely because it's bizarre and clearly nonsensical, in an effort to illustrate the almost equally nonsensical concept of forcing cyclists to wear them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:05 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 7:13 pm
Posts: 2574
Location: The Cock Inn, Tillett, Herts
MikeD wrote:
The rather important difference there is that you're required by law to wear seatbelts in a minibus if it has them.

You weren't at the time this minibus ended up on its side.

MikeD wrote:
Chopper1192 wrote:
the suggestion that pedestrians should consider wearing them rather bizarre.


I believe that the suggestion is made precisely because it's bizarre and clearly nonsensical, in an effort to illustrate the almost equally nonsensical concept of forcing cyclists to wear them.


No one has suggested here that threshold be compulsory. Viewpoints range form "it's your head" through to "don't come crying to me". No one has suggested compulsion is a good thing. An answer to a question that hasn't been asked.


Last edited by Chopper1192 on Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:05 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11105
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
My last 7.5 tonne truck had no seatbelts. It was weird, I am so used to them now.

I don't feel weird riding helmetless, but when the speed picks up a bit I do think about it.

I never kayak rivers/shoreline without one, never abseil or climb without one.

Just part of the kit, never an afterthought.

I think that is the way it is for many cyclists nowadays, a no brainer as someone mentioned!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:20 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:25 pm
Posts: 924
Location: Near Wendover Bucks
Chopper1192 wrote:
The difference is for pedestrians that the skull is designed to protect the brain from almost any impact that a pedestrian is liable to be able to subject it. It Not infallible, but for aeons the situation has been for the most part that pedestrians striking their head do not die or even suffer serious injury, making helmets superfluous and the suggestion that pedestrians should consider wearing them rather bizarre.

The data for Cyclist deaths or serious injury per mile in England appear to be about the same as those for pedestrians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_he ... ead_injury
"An article published by the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (BHRF) reported that, per mile in the United Kingdom, cycling has an overall risk of injury and death similar to walking but higher than driving, and that in France cycling is safer per hour than motoring"

As for risk of head injury:

"For cyclists admitted to hospital in Western Australia before the helmet law, about 30% of cyclists and 30% of pedestrians had head injuries."

So there would appear to be compelling evidence that if cyclists need to wear helmets then so do pedestrians.

Also, as 37% of of reported road deaths and serious injuries in Britain are car occupants. They too should wear helmets.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:31 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11105
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
"A 2010 study by Tin Tin et al., at the School of Population Health at the University of Auckland, found that in New Zealand the average number of serious (AIS>2) injuries per million hours spent travelling in 2003-07 was 6.2 for cyclists, 1.0 for pedestrians, and 0.8 for car/van drivers.[27]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_he ... ead_injury

Graham, massive respect as I have for your input on this site, it is not necessarily conclusive information we are dealing with here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:00 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 4:18 pm
Posts: 2336
Chopper1192 wrote:
You weren't at the time this minibus ended up on its side.


Fair enough. Presumably the fact that they were there but not worn is what counts as "contributory negligence", so it's still not quite the same situation -- bikes don't have built-in helmets, you have to go out of your way to get one.

MikeD wrote:
No one has suggested here that threshold be compulsory. Viewpoints range form "it's your head" through to "don't come crying to me". No one has suggested compulsion is a good thing. An answer to a question that hasn't been asked.


Also fair, I may have over-extended my point there :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:07 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:25 pm
Posts: 924
Location: Near Wendover Bucks
highlandsflyer wrote:
My last 7.5 tonne truck had no seatbelts. It was weird, I am so used to them now.

I don't feel weird riding helmetless, but when the speed picks up a bit I do think about it.

I never kayak rivers/shoreline without one, never abseil or climb without one.

Just part of the kit, never an afterthought.

I think that is the way it is for many cyclists nowadays, a no brainer as someone mentioned!


I don't have an issue with helmet wearing. What I do have an issue is that too many people believe that a helmet will always protect them from injury. This is a potentially dangerous belief due to the fact that humans take more risks when they feel safe than when they feel vulnerable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_h ... mpensation

If I am right in saying that helmets... :
*are only designed to cope with sub 10mph impacts with flat hard surfaces.
*are not effective at dealing with impacts against sharp kerb edges or angled car bodies etc.
* have foam linings that are too stiff for optimal, real life, energy absorption
* can increase the risk of neck injuries due to their surfaces gripping the road and that they effectively increase the effective diameter of the head and so the twisting impact leverages on the neck.
*that drivers will also "risk compensate by driving faster and closer to cyclists wearing helmets than those without.
....Then helmets are not actually the miracle cure to the dangers of cycling that some believe.

This is not an argument for not wearing them. But, I believe, a sensible view that whilst they may indeed reduce risk, they do not at all remove it. And so should not be relied on as the main focus of cycle safety that they have become.

There is an story to illustrate this.
A Father is given a bicycle for his son but there is no helmet with it. So he checks the function of the brakes etc. and then tutors his son at length on how to ride safely and how dangerous cycling can be.
Another Father is given a bicycle and a helmet. He makes sure his son is waring the helmet before he rides his new bike on the road.
But which of these sons is actually safer?


Last edited by GrahamJohnWallace on Wed Jun 26, 2013 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 333 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 34  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group