Negotiate with her: invite her to suggest some kind of behaviour modification in your own life, in exchange for her wearing a helmet. The tougher it is for you, the better. Having seen a cyclist fatality under a lorry, I'd do anything to encourage my sister to wear a bike helmet.
bib - if a cyclist is hit by a lorry the chances of survival with or without a helmet are going to be minimal
Many serious injuries - in the thousands which are I agree are at least an equal deterrent, and arguably a greater one.
Update: 1017 serious injuries last year apparently.
How many fewer of both fatalities and serious injuries if helmets were compulsory is perhaps the real question.
Personally feel wearing items of high visibility clothing make me at less risk of becoming a statistic in the first place. Along with not wearing headphones.
Personally feel wearing items of high visibility clothing make me at less risk of becoming a statistic in the first place. Along with not wearing headphones.
I think hi vis clothing has a much more protective effect than a helmet. The jury is very much out on the impact of wearing a helmet.
I do wear one but don't think it's at all a clear cut choice. If I had to choose for instance between leaving off my helmet or riding too close to the kerb I'd leave off my helmet every time but riding to close to the left doesn't generate the same debate.
I know, I know... I am an anxious so and so but I just want her skull to stay in one piece. Might try and bring it up again and if she won't listen then I'll just have to try and forget about it.
I personally wear a helmet, but agree that the jury is still out concerning whether or not they offer significant protection. If I had a choice between wearing my helmet, and wearing my high-vis, I'd go for the high-vis every time.
I personally wear a helmet, but agree that the jury is still out concerning whether or not they offer significant protection. If I had a choice between wearing my helmet, and wearing my high-vis, I'd go for the high-vis every time.
Every single journey I have my cycle helmet and high vis jacket in place without exception. On dark mornings and nights I have flashing lights on front, back and helmet too. On our roads I wouldn't risk not being seen, I like to set a good example.
On the flip side the cyclists who go through red lights really annoy me so because I'm usually going faster than them when the lights turn green and I catch them up I ask them why they think they're special and shouldn't have to wait at a red light like everyone else. Okay it's a bit pretentious and possibly not the best way to be but it annoys me as drivers see cyclists as the enemy when this happens, we should all be looking out for each other on the roads.
I don't care who causes the injury the cyclist will always come off worse so the onus should be on them to protect themselves as best they can.
That's really screwed up. It's blame the victim stuff. The onus is on car drivers to drive at an appropriate speed and appropriate attention to not kill anyone else on the road. Talking about high-viz in daytime and helmets is really missing the point.
Again, in most cyclist deaths the cyclist is not to blame. In collisions with HGVs, a helmet isn't going to help you much.
I'm surprised our "nanny state" hasn't made it compulsory before now for cyclists to wear helmets.
What about wearing seat belts in cars? Should the evil 'nanny state' have reserved to us the right to be smashed head first through a car windscreen just so we could have the freedom to do so?
What about wearing seat belts in cars? Should the evil 'nanny state' have reserved to us the right to be smashed head first through a car windscreen just so we could have the freedom to do so?
Compulsory seat belts were not universally popular when they came in, many people swore blind that they were actually causing more accidents than they prevented.
Of course, a high profile TV campaign featuring a much loved nation treasure soon persuaded even the most recalcitrant to 'clunk-click, every trip';)
Seriously though - helmets may well be useless in a lot of accidents, but, like hard hats on building sites, the brain damage they do prevent makes them well worth having.
-no insurance
-no road tax
-no mot of sorts for your bike.
Yet us mere motorists must make sure the cyclist is okay.
yet if one shoots a red light and we hit em, its our fault.
Bout time we made them contribute a small amount to our roads, since we make lanes etc for them. Also a helmet should be compulsory. whatever it does it may just protect you more than you might think.
sorry that's how I feel. we use the roads and pay you use the roads and don't? what makes a cyclist different to a car or motorbike?
That's really screwed up. It's blame the victim stuff. The onus is on car drivers to drive at an appropriate speed and appropriate attention to not kill anyone else on the road. Talking about high-viz in daytime and helmets is really missing the point.
Again, in most cyclist deaths the cyclist is not to blame. In collisions with HGVs, a helmet isn't going to help you much.
You can't argue whose fault the accident was when you're in the morgue or in intensive care with as much life in you as a turnip though.
Talk about missing the point.
I also don't think that if a friend or family member ever - God forbid - was involved in such an accident that "well the car/van/lorry driver was in the wrong, so..." would help make me feel any better for having a cabbage as a friend/relative. In fact I'd probably curse the car/van/lorry driver as well as the friend/relative for not taking as many safety precautions as is practical and reasonable.
In answer to the OP, I'd suggest you mind your own business. People who are killed on bikes are killed by having their internal organs squashed when a lorry or other vehicle runs them over. If you can find any evidence that shows un-helmeted cyclists are being killed daily AND those deaths are the result of head injuries I'd be amazed.
The Safety Industry loves helmets as it's something else to sell us that we never knew we needed, yet the standards for a helmets are such that they're useless at much above 12mph, and totally ineffective at higher speeds.
Someone mentioned Boris Bikes, yet there's been just one fatality and that was due to being run over by a lorry.
When mandatory helmets were introduced in Australia there was no observable change in the KSI (killed, seriously injured) rates.
-no insurance
-no road tax
-no mot of sorts for your bike.
Yet us mere motorists must make sure the cyclist is okay.
yet if one shoots a red light and we hit em, its our fault.
Bout time we made them contribute a small amount to our roads, since we make lanes etc for them. Also a helmet should be compulsory. whatever it does it may just protect you more than you might think.
sorry that's how I feel. we use the roads and pay you use the roads and don't? what makes a cyclist different to a car or motorbike?
I don't know how many times this has to be repeated but road tax - apart from not existing - doesn't pay for the roads. It goes into the pot like everything else and pays for the NHS, defence, welfare, education and everything else the govt spends our money on.
If you could let me know though how as a cyclist I can be excused boots on the tax front I'd much appreciate it so that I can stop paying a four figure sum every month in PAYE & NICs, and the 3/4 of the cost of the roughly £2500 worth of diesel that I'll pour into the car this year that the govt takes as tax. Perhaps I can get my wine bill reduced by a chunk as well, and the airport taxes, insurance tax etc. I don't smoke so you can keep that one thanks. It must be great being a cyclist, not paying tax. Oh I forgot the £175 VED I pay too. Whoops.
Edit - forgot to add that my OH has a Band A car that pays zero VED. Is it ok with you if she carries on driving on your roads? Just asking like.
Buy a watermellon, get her to stand on the pavement whilst you drive over said watermellon.
Tell her that's what her head will look like if she doesn't wear a helmet.
Job Done!
I will waive my fee for this advice if you can pursuade your silly sister to wear a helmet in future.
Then - in the interests of making it a valid comparison - drive your car over her helmeted head and note the difference. Let us know how you get on with this. Or put a helmet on the melon. Go on.
What about wearing seat belts in cars? Should the evil 'nanny state' have reserved to us the right to be smashed head first through a car windscreen just so we could have the freedom to do so?
Well maybe the fact that thousands of drivers & passengers were being killed every year and that seatbelts could be proven to save thousands of lives with no downside (other than a bit of personal restriction) made it a no-brainer to enforce the use of something that's already fitted to a car. The reason helmets are not compulsory and why any helmet debate always generates such a volume of opinion is that there is no clear cut evidence to prove they're effective, indeed there is evidence to show that they're counter-productive and that the benefits of cycling so far outweigh the risks (20-1, in terms of increasing life expectancy, reducing cardio-vascular and mental illnesses later in life etc) that mandating something that would significantly reduce cycling & its benefits and as a result significantly increase traffic and with it pollution, road damage, KSI from cars etc would be an enormously retrograde step for any govt to take.
If the evidence was there we'd accept it, but it isn't.
That's really screwed up. It's blame the victim stuff. The onus is on car drivers to drive at an appropriate speed and appropriate attention to not kill anyone else on the road. Talking about high-viz in daytime and helmets is really missing the point.
Again, in most cyclist deaths the cyclist is not to blame. In collisions with HGVs, a helmet isn't going to help you much.
When it comes to life and death I stand by what I say.. I'd rather there be no victim to blame so if a helmet can prevent a terrible injury then it is ignorant not to wear one... Yes the roads should be safe but they aren't.
It's why pedestrians have to take car when crossing roads.
'You' (as a cyclist or a pedestrian) may not be at fault but 'you' (as a cyclist or a pedestrian) are smaller and much more vulnerable than a vehicle so it makes sense to protect yourself.
Well maybe the fact that thousands of drivers & passengers were being killed every year and that seatbelts could be proven to save thousands of lives with no downside (other than a bit of personal restriction) made it a no-brainer to enforce the use of something that's already fitted to a car. The reason helmets are not compulsory and why any helmet debate always generates such a volume of opinion is that there is no clear cut evidence to prove they're effective, indeed there is evidence to show that they're counter-productive and that the benefits of cycling so far outweigh the risks (20-1, in terms of increasing life expectancy, reducing cardio-vascular and mental illnesses later in life etc) that mandating something that would significantly reduce cycling & its benefits and as a result significantly increase traffic and with it pollution, road damage, KSI from cars etc would be an enormously retrograde step for any govt to take.
If the evidence was there we'd accept it, but it isn't.
So would you prefer to be knocked off a bike while not wearing a helmet?
Comments
I would personally show your sister this thread and offer to buy her a helmet.
How many injuries were there though?
bib - if a cyclist is hit by a lorry the chances of survival with or without a helmet are going to be minimal
Many serious injuries - in the thousands which are I agree are at least an equal deterrent, and arguably a greater one.
Update: 1017 serious injuries last year apparently.
How many fewer of both fatalities and serious injuries if helmets were compulsory is perhaps the real question.
Personally feel wearing items of high visibility clothing make me at less risk of becoming a statistic in the first place. Along with not wearing headphones.
I think hi vis clothing has a much more protective effect than a helmet. The jury is very much out on the impact of wearing a helmet.
I do wear one but don't think it's at all a clear cut choice. If I had to choose for instance between leaving off my helmet or riding too close to the kerb I'd leave off my helmet every time but riding to close to the left doesn't generate the same debate.
This site is an interesting read.
I know, I know... I am an anxious so and so but I just want her skull to stay in one piece. Might try and bring it up again and if she won't listen then I'll just have to try and forget about it.
I personally wear a helmet, but agree that the jury is still out concerning whether or not they offer significant protection. If I had a choice between wearing my helmet, and wearing my high-vis, I'd go for the high-vis every time.
Every single journey I have my cycle helmet and high vis jacket in place without exception. On dark mornings and nights I have flashing lights on front, back and helmet too. On our roads I wouldn't risk not being seen, I like to set a good example.
On the flip side the cyclists who go through red lights really annoy me so because I'm usually going faster than them when the lights turn green and I catch them up I ask them why they think they're special and shouldn't have to wait at a red light like everyone else. Okay it's a bit pretentious and possibly not the best way to be but it annoys me as drivers see cyclists as the enemy when this happens, we should all be looking out for each other on the roads.
Given the risks that some urban cyclists take when riding, I'm surprised the nanny state hasn't made it compulsory for them to wear nappies!
That's really screwed up. It's blame the victim stuff. The onus is on car drivers to drive at an appropriate speed and appropriate attention to not kill anyone else on the road. Talking about high-viz in daytime and helmets is really missing the point.
Again, in most cyclist deaths the cyclist is not to blame. In collisions with HGVs, a helmet isn't going to help you much.
What about wearing seat belts in cars? Should the evil 'nanny state' have reserved to us the right to be smashed head first through a car windscreen just so we could have the freedom to do so?
Compulsory seat belts were not universally popular when they came in, many people swore blind that they were actually causing more accidents than they prevented.
Of course, a high profile TV campaign featuring a much loved nation treasure soon persuaded even the most recalcitrant to 'clunk-click, every trip';)
Seriously though - helmets may well be useless in a lot of accidents, but, like hard hats on building sites, the brain damage they do prevent makes them well worth having.
you all use the roads yet have:
-no insurance
-no road tax
-no mot of sorts for your bike.
Yet us mere motorists must make sure the cyclist is okay.
yet if one shoots a red light and we hit em, its our fault.
Bout time we made them contribute a small amount to our roads, since we make lanes etc for them. Also a helmet should be compulsory. whatever it does it may just protect you more than you might think.
sorry that's how I feel. we use the roads and pay you use the roads and don't? what makes a cyclist different to a car or motorbike?
You can't argue whose fault the accident was when you're in the morgue or in intensive care with as much life in you as a turnip though.
Talk about missing the point.
I also don't think that if a friend or family member ever - God forbid - was involved in such an accident that "well the car/van/lorry driver was in the wrong, so..." would help make me feel any better for having a cabbage as a friend/relative. In fact I'd probably curse the car/van/lorry driver as well as the friend/relative for not taking as many safety precautions as is practical and reasonable.
The Safety Industry loves helmets as it's something else to sell us that we never knew we needed, yet the standards for a helmets are such that they're useless at much above 12mph, and totally ineffective at higher speeds.
Someone mentioned Boris Bikes, yet there's been just one fatality and that was due to being run over by a lorry.
When mandatory helmets were introduced in Australia there was no observable change in the KSI (killed, seriously injured) rates.
Waste an hour two trawling through this: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
Now then I don't know how many times this has to be repeated but road tax - apart from not existing - doesn't pay for the roads. It goes into the pot like everything else and pays for the NHS, defence, welfare, education and everything else the govt spends our money on.
If you could let me know though how as a cyclist I can be excused boots on the tax front I'd much appreciate it so that I can stop paying a four figure sum every month in PAYE & NICs, and the 3/4 of the cost of the roughly £2500 worth of diesel that I'll pour into the car this year that the govt takes as tax. Perhaps I can get my wine bill reduced by a chunk as well, and the airport taxes, insurance tax etc. I don't smoke so you can keep that one thanks. It must be great being a cyclist, not paying tax. Oh I forgot the £175 VED I pay too. Whoops.
Edit - forgot to add that my OH has a Band A car that pays zero VED. Is it ok with you if she carries on driving on your roads? Just asking like.
Tell her that's what her head will look like if she doesn't wear a helmet.
Job Done!
I will waive my fee for this advice if you can pursuade your silly sister to wear a helmet in future.
If the evidence was there we'd accept it, but it isn't.
When it comes to life and death I stand by what I say.. I'd rather there be no victim to blame so if a helmet can prevent a terrible injury then it is ignorant not to wear one... Yes the roads should be safe but they aren't.
It's why pedestrians have to take car when crossing roads.
'You' (as a cyclist or a pedestrian) may not be at fault but 'you' (as a cyclist or a pedestrian) are smaller and much more vulnerable than a vehicle so it makes sense to protect yourself.
So would you prefer to be knocked off a bike while not wearing a helmet?