Helmets Save Your Bonce

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.

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.

Chopper1192":yt9g5c5y said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Chopper1192":1m6hy8nl said:

the suggestion that pedestrians should consider wearing them rather bizarre.

Click to expand...

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.

MikeD":l4rhgy3t said:

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

Click to expand...

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

MikeD":l4rhgy3t said:

Chopper1192":l4rhgy3t said:

the suggestion that pedestrians should consider wearing them rather bizarre.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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!

Chopper1192":2h3g99u5 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

"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.

Chopper1192":3e2u54y7 said:

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

Click to expand...

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":3e2u54y7 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

highlandsflyer":3oze688g said:

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!

Click to expand...

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?