I'm thinking of wearing mine around the house and when out jogging for this very reason. I already wear it to bed in case I fall out. I don't think you can be too careful when it comes to personal safety and small bumps.
Lucky that it does not block reception of the universal consciousness. That would be a bugger.
Say they die after a small bump leads to them banging their head and dying, The other driver, The cyclists family and anyone who witnesses the accident may suffer for years because this person didn't wear a helmet
There's a lot of small probabilities multiplied together to get an even smaller one.
Do you wear a helmet when you are in a car, as I understand head injuries can occur in vehicle accidents.
Had a bad accident two weeks ago when some kids stepped out onto the road and had to brake hard. Went over bars and landed face first - losing front teeth, skin under nose and a very stiff neck due to some compression to spine.
Helmet wouldn't have made jot of difference to face, but the injury to my spine could have been much worse due to the additional rotational force.
i think a bell is a legal requirement now [?] but to be honest they`ve got no business riding on the *footpath [except little kids].
*pavements i mean, i`d imagine they`re allowed on the tow path.
Yeah. Bicycles are allowed on towpaths. To be fair most are reasonably careful but some cycle along it at full pelt. Even through low, blind, tunnels some just duck and plunge into the darkness.
I'm thinking of wearing mine around the house and when out jogging for this very reason. I already wear it to bed in case I fall out. I don't think you can be too careful when it comes to personal safety and small bumps.
That's a good point. Maybe many pedestrian's lives would be saved if they all wore helmets, in case they were knocked down by a car (or a cyclist, for that matter). I'm being serious:
Serious head injuries involving a motor vehicle Cyclists: 86
Pedestrians: 384 (Link)
And: cyclists have a rather lower proportion of head injury than pedestrians (Link)
Say they die after a small bump leads to them banging their head and dying, The other driver, The cyclists family and anyone who witnesses the accident may suffer for years because this person didn't wear a helmet
This.
It is worrying the number of cyclists that do not wear a helmet. It is bad enough thatthey have narcissistic psycho tendencies, and act all Queen on the road but please wear a ****en helmet.
Yeah. Bicycles are allowed on towpaths. To be fair most are reasonably careful but some cycle along it at full pelt. Even through low, blind, tunnels some just duck and plunge into the darkness.
Have you ever used a bell to warn people??? they see it as aggressiveness and insult you as you ride past!
no, i walk if there`s people and i can`t go wide.
some do ring their bell aggressively, one or two flicks is fine, it`s the constant dinger`s - if you don`t think i`ve heard, get off and bloody walk past, i might actually be deaf.
Helmets are just for low speed impacts. I see scruffpot broke 4 bones, so his helmet didn't help much there.
If you cycle at easily attainable speeds of 25-30 mph, I wouldnt put much faith in one protecting me.
How many head injuries in the TdF? I think one where the guy crashed at 50 mph into concrete. Otherwise, broken wrists, collar bones, leg, hip, and loits and lots of painful draped sides.
There is also the issue of rotational neck injury that helmets cause and the simple fact that your head is bigger so you are actually moire like to hit something.
If you do low speed, urban then it is worth having one, high speed rural no real use. Otherwise it is down to the user to decide based on their speed and environment.
ok where to start.....
unfortunatly you are wrong with this sentance...Helmets are just for low speed impacts. I see scruffpot broke 4 bones, so his helmet didn't help much there..... I should of explained a bit more to be honest in my original post...
Pershore roundabout.
I entered the roundabout heading into town (b'ham) about half way round a guy in a 4x4 drives straight on to roundabout without looking or stopping. Straight into me as I begin to signal to exit roundabout. he hits me on my left hand side, I bounce over the bull bars over the bonnet down the right hand side of the car and land on the floor with my head hitting the ground 1st. Resulting impact force 50 miles an hour.
Ok so this is the part where your wrong in the post above
Now my helmet had split and cracked in the accident.
The helmet took a lot of the brunt and impact of me bouncing over the car and hitting the floor. Yes x amount of force is absorbed when I bounced over the car.
If I didnt have my helmet I would not be here, according to the doctor and police.
Only X broken bones is not very much but the helmet saved my life. So actually it did help a lot.
high speed rural no real use... seriously? Ok a bit of science ...hitting something in town and hitting something in rural areas at speed are both the same thing.
You do not magically fly over a hedge and land in a duck pond as you se on tv and films.. you land on the floor in a mess of blood and bones. in both the town and country, tell that to the mountain bikers or the road racers..
Have you ever used a bell to warn people??? they see it as aggressiveness and insult you as you ride past!
Cyclists who have used their bells to let me know that they were coming have flicked the hammer thing lightly. I can imagine people thinking the bell is aggressive if it's used heavily, like maybe twice. I do see a bell as sort of annoying (if used heavily), but don't really bother though and just let them past. I don't see a bell that's used heavily as aggressive, just irritating and annoying.
Had a bad accident two weeks ago when some kids stepped out onto the road and had to brake hard. Went over bars and landed face first - losing front teeth, skin under nose and a very stiff neck due to some compression to spine.
Helmet wouldn't have made jot of difference to face, but the injury to my spine could have been much worse due to the additional rotational force.
Could have been could have been...
Fact is that wearing helmets reduces the odds of getting a serious head injury. I've been in a head-on collision on a small motorbike at a combined speed of 80 mph, with a huge solid object that fell off a lorry and wrecked my bike, sent me and it scraping along the road and could have killed me. It didn't - and only because when my head smashed into the ground (kerb edge I think) the helmet took the force and the resulting 4 inch wide hole was gouged out of the helmet instead of my temple!
Facts, on a high speed crash, not a 'could-have-been'.
The arguments against wearing helmets seem to stem from an unproven theory that drivers are less likely to give cyclists wearing helmets enough room when passing them. It's a dubious argument at best and seems to be used mostly by those who want to have the freedom of the road... freedom to kill themselves as easily as possible.
Fact is that wearing helmets reduces the odds of getting a serious head injury. I've been in a head-on collision on a small motorbike at a combined speed of 80 mph, with a huge solid object that fell off a lorry and wrecked my bike, sent me and it scraping along the road and could have killed me. It didn't - and only because when my head smashed into the ground (kerb edge I think) the helmet took the force and the resulting 4 inch wide hole was gouged out of the helmet instead of my temple!
Facts, on a high speed crash, not a 'could-have-been'.
The arguments against wearing helmets stem from a theory (yes a theory) that drivers are less likely to give cyclists wearing helmets enough room when passing them... and it's a dubious argument at best.
^this plus many ..good post
Go and work with people who have aquired brain injuries due to not wearing helmets..you'll want to wear one afterwards when cycling
The arguments against wearing helmets seem to stem from an unproven theory that drivers are less likely to give cyclists wearing helmets enough room when passing them.It's a dubious argument at best and seems to be used mostly by those who want to have the freedom of the road... freedom to kill themselves as easily as possible.
If people were forbidden from eating junk food and forced to exercise more then many lives would be saved, far far more than by cyclists wearing helmets. Would you support this or would you consider it "nanny state"?
Say they die after a small bump leads to them banging their head and dying, The other driver, The cyclists family and anyone who witnesses the accident may suffer for years because this person didn't wear a helmet
That may well be true, but another side to that argument may be that they (the family) might have done more to persuade him to wear a helmet. I know that if I was being nagged by the Me'm Sahib to wear one, eventually I'd give in just for a quiet life and wear the blessed thing.
There are all sorts of arguments that could be put up about this subject. It might be argued that the family might be delighted to see him dead because he was a miserable old git that nobody really liked. They may be delighted to get their hands on his money. They might even have been culpable in him not wearing one..... "Oh no dear, you don't need one of those, they make such a mess of your hair" in the hope of him having a fatal accident and them getting their grubby paws on his filthy lucre.
So many ifs. If this, if that, if something else. We could dream up the wackiest scenarios all day long if you want to.
I know this sounds discompassionate and I don't like to come over like that, but we have to say that grown ups are responsible for themselves. That's why they're called grown ups. All I can do is my best to a) protect myself and my loved ones and b) be as responsible as I can be when I drive. I can't be held responsible for the stupidity of complete and utter strangers when they cross my path.
The bottom line is, only one person is responsible for their own safety. The individual concerned. If he's too piso to spend a few quid on a helmet, or can't be ar sed to wear one, then that's up to him.
If people were forbidden from eating junk food and forced to exercise more then many lives would be saved, far far more than by cyclists wearing helmets. Would you support this or would you consider it "nanny state"?
No but I certainly support food regulation in general, it saves many lives.
It's all about striking the right balance and the sheer number of annual deaths and injuries of cyclists and motorcyclists on our roads that can be immediately and directly attributed to head injuries makes such regulation more important than the kind of less obvious, delayed and hard to prove thing that you refer to. Balance!
I'd like to read the research about not wearing a helmet (and am too lazy [and busy] to look for it - maybe I will at work tomorrow )
I have a long standing issue - as a pedestrian - with cyclists!
I walk to work and almost daily I have problems with cyclists (mainly jumping red lights and whizzing across pedestrian crossings whilst traffic has stopped and people are crossing) BUT the vast majority are wearing a helmet, although I do see cyclists every day without as well!
I would estimate that if I see 75 cyclists, 10 of them are without a helmet.
If people were forbidden from eating junk food and forced to exercise more then many lives would be saved, far far more than by cyclists wearing helmets. Would you support this or would you consider it "nanny state"?
There are already far more healthy eating campaigns and healthy lifestyle campaigns set up by the government then there are about wearing helmets...turn on the tv and see the fit for life adverts and the media coverage of obeasity and fatties in the paper, the discounts in swimming pools and sport equipment for kids etc.
maybe forbiddening junk food and healthy people would mean more cycling and then promotions for helmet wearing
Also I would like to point out something if you become disabled for aquring a brain injury for not wearing a helmet... good luck in getting the right help and support and getting everything in place and finding the right support services...then arranging the staff to care for you and the benefits and so on.....adaptive equipment, emotional and physical support and a lot lot more
We have 1 aquired brain injury charity in my city (they are great) however they only take on social service referrals....which can be a nightmare in its self.. assesments and so on
There are already far more healthy eating campaigns and healthy lifestyle campaigns set up by the government then there are about wearing helmets...turn on the tv and see the fit for life adverts and the media coverage of obeasity and fatties in the paper, the discounts in swimming pools and sport equipment for kids etc.
maybe forbiddening junk food and healthy people would mean more cycling and then promotions for helmet wearing
Yes there are campaigns though the money spent on them is completely trivial compared to that spent on advertising by the junk food suppliers. However no one is talking about making such food illegal in the same way some people want to make wearing cycle helmets compulsory despite the evidence that cycle helmets make a difference being very sketchy compared to the evidence against junk food.
FWIW I do wear a helmet but it is a tight decision. For example I ride well out in the road because that is safer, if I had to ride further to the left or not wear a helmet it wouldn't even be close, I'd ditch the helmet immediately. The helmet or no helmet argument is not that important. To protect cyclists and pedestrians a 20mph speed limit rather than 30mph would save a lot more lives and serious injuries.
I would ask why so many who do not cycle are so concerned about whether cyclists should or should not wear helmets? If they really want to help cyclists (and pedestrians) then they should drive more slowly and more carefully.
The arguments against wearing helmets seem to stem from an unproven theory that drivers are less likely to give cyclists wearing helmets enough room when passing them.
There is some merit in this but it is not the main argument.
There is no doubt that the more cyclists on the road the less the danger to an individual cyclist because motorists are more used to them being there and expect them to be there. Enforcing helmet use would decrease the number of cyclists on the road and thus make cycling more dangerous.
An before anyone comes in and says that having less cyclists could mean less total cycling accidents that is true. However the statistical all cause mortality for cyclists is less than for non-cyclists as the health benefits outweigh the risks so cycling is statistically safer than not cycling with or without a helmet.
Comments
Lucky that it does not block reception of the universal consciousness. That would be a bugger.
I shall sell the fleet forthwith. Ta for the advice
Do you wear a helmet when you are in a car, as I understand head injuries can occur in vehicle accidents.
You're welcome.
Helmet wouldn't have made jot of difference to face, but the injury to my spine could have been much worse due to the additional rotational force.
That's a good point. Maybe many pedestrian's lives would be saved if they all wore helmets, in case they were knocked down by a car (or a cyclist, for that matter). I'm being serious:
Serious head injuries involving a motor vehicle Cyclists: 86
Pedestrians: 384 (Link)
And: cyclists have a rather lower proportion of head injury than pedestrians (Link)
This.
It is worrying the number of cyclists that do not wear a helmet. It is bad enough thatthey have narcissistic psycho tendencies, and act all Queen on the road but please wear a ****en helmet.
no, i walk if there`s people and i can`t go wide.
some do ring their bell aggressively, one or two flicks is fine, it`s the constant dinger`s - if you don`t think i`ve heard, get off and bloody walk past, i might actually be deaf.
Yes because then it wouldn't be universal consciousness. Well spotted.
ok where to start.....
unfortunatly you are wrong with this sentance...Helmets are just for low speed impacts. I see scruffpot broke 4 bones, so his helmet didn't help much there..... I should of explained a bit more to be honest in my original post...
Pershore roundabout.
I entered the roundabout heading into town (b'ham) about half way round a guy in a 4x4 drives straight on to roundabout without looking or stopping. Straight into me as I begin to signal to exit roundabout. he hits me on my left hand side, I bounce over the bull bars over the bonnet down the right hand side of the car and land on the floor with my head hitting the ground 1st. Resulting impact force 50 miles an hour.
Ok so this is the part where your wrong in the post above
Now my helmet had split and cracked in the accident.
The helmet took a lot of the brunt and impact of me bouncing over the car and hitting the floor. Yes x amount of force is absorbed when I bounced over the car.
If I didnt have my helmet I would not be here, according to the doctor and police.
Only X broken bones is not very much but the helmet saved my life. So actually it did help a lot.
high speed rural no real use... seriously? Ok a bit of science ...hitting something in town and hitting something in rural areas at speed are both the same thing.
You do not magically fly over a hedge and land in a duck pond as you se on tv and films.. you land on the floor in a mess of blood and bones. in both the town and country, tell that to the mountain bikers or the road racers..
Cyclists who have used their bells to let me know that they were coming have flicked the hammer thing lightly. I can imagine people thinking the bell is aggressive if it's used heavily, like maybe twice. I do see a bell as sort of annoying (if used heavily), but don't really bother though and just let them past. I don't see a bell that's used heavily as aggressive, just irritating and annoying.
Could have been could have been...
Fact is that wearing helmets reduces the odds of getting a serious head injury. I've been in a head-on collision on a small motorbike at a combined speed of 80 mph, with a huge solid object that fell off a lorry and wrecked my bike, sent me and it scraping along the road and could have killed me. It didn't - and only because when my head smashed into the ground (kerb edge I think) the helmet took the force and the resulting 4 inch wide hole was gouged out of the helmet instead of my temple!
Facts, on a high speed crash, not a 'could-have-been'.
The arguments against wearing helmets seem to stem from an unproven theory that drivers are less likely to give cyclists wearing helmets enough room when passing them. It's a dubious argument at best and seems to be used mostly by those who want to have the freedom of the road... freedom to kill themselves as easily as possible.
^this plus many ..good post
Go and work with people who have aquired brain injuries due to not wearing helmets..you'll want to wear one afterwards when cycling
If people were forbidden from eating junk food and forced to exercise more then many lives would be saved, far far more than by cyclists wearing helmets. Would you support this or would you consider it "nanny state"?
That may well be true, but another side to that argument may be that they (the family) might have done more to persuade him to wear a helmet. I know that if I was being nagged by the Me'm Sahib to wear one, eventually I'd give in just for a quiet life and wear the blessed thing.
There are all sorts of arguments that could be put up about this subject. It might be argued that the family might be delighted to see him dead because he was a miserable old git that nobody really liked. They may be delighted to get their hands on his money. They might even have been culpable in him not wearing one..... "Oh no dear, you don't need one of those, they make such a mess of your hair" in the hope of him having a fatal accident and them getting their grubby paws on his filthy lucre.
So many ifs. If this, if that, if something else. We could dream up the wackiest scenarios all day long if you want to.
I know this sounds discompassionate and I don't like to come over like that, but we have to say that grown ups are responsible for themselves. That's why they're called grown ups. All I can do is my best to a) protect myself and my loved ones and b) be as responsible as I can be when I drive. I can't be held responsible for the stupidity of complete and utter strangers when they cross my path.
The bottom line is, only one person is responsible for their own safety. The individual concerned. If he's too piso to spend a few quid on a helmet, or can't be ar sed to wear one, then that's up to him.
No but I certainly support food regulation in general, it saves many lives.
It's all about striking the right balance and the sheer number of annual deaths and injuries of cyclists and motorcyclists on our roads that can be immediately and directly attributed to head injuries makes such regulation more important than the kind of less obvious, delayed and hard to prove thing that you refer to. Balance!
I have a long standing issue - as a pedestrian - with cyclists!
I walk to work and almost daily I have problems with cyclists (mainly jumping red lights and whizzing across pedestrian crossings whilst traffic has stopped and people are crossing) BUT the vast majority are wearing a helmet, although I do see cyclists every day without as well!
I would estimate that if I see 75 cyclists, 10 of them are without a helmet.
There are already far more healthy eating campaigns and healthy lifestyle campaigns set up by the government then there are about wearing helmets...turn on the tv and see the fit for life adverts and the media coverage of obeasity and fatties in the paper, the discounts in swimming pools and sport equipment for kids etc.
maybe forbiddening junk food and healthy people would mean more cycling and then promotions for helmet wearing
We have 1 aquired brain injury charity in my city (they are great) however they only take on social service referrals....which can be a nightmare in its self.. assesments and so on
Yes there are campaigns though the money spent on them is completely trivial compared to that spent on advertising by the junk food suppliers. However no one is talking about making such food illegal in the same way some people want to make wearing cycle helmets compulsory despite the evidence that cycle helmets make a difference being very sketchy compared to the evidence against junk food.
FWIW I do wear a helmet but it is a tight decision. For example I ride well out in the road because that is safer, if I had to ride further to the left or not wear a helmet it wouldn't even be close, I'd ditch the helmet immediately. The helmet or no helmet argument is not that important. To protect cyclists and pedestrians a 20mph speed limit rather than 30mph would save a lot more lives and serious injuries.
There is some merit in this but it is not the main argument.
There is no doubt that the more cyclists on the road the less the danger to an individual cyclist because motorists are more used to them being there and expect them to be there. Enforcing helmet use would decrease the number of cyclists on the road and thus make cycling more dangerous.
An before anyone comes in and says that having less cyclists could mean less total cycling accidents that is true. However the statistical all cause mortality for cyclists is less than for non-cyclists as the health benefits outweigh the risks so cycling is statistically safer than not cycling with or without a helmet.