Cycle Helmets, Yes or No?

Forums › Health and fitness › Cycle Helmets, Yes or No?

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1981636 22-Mar-2018 16:17

MikeAqua:

stuartmac:

I should be able to go cycling as an everyday activity in street clothes. Most people feel they cannot do that as it is perceived as too dangerous. There IS evidence of that, and it is incorrect to state that mandatory helmet laws are not a significant contributor.

I'm struggling to follow your argument here but ...

You can go cycling in everyday street clothes (with helmet). Specialist cycling clothing 't really protect you in the case of an accident - compare it to specialist motorcycling clothing.

Arguably an everyday pair of jeans provides more protection (and privacy) than spandex.

The only down side of cycling in street clothes that I'm aware of is the clothes aren't designed for cycling and may wear faster, and you need to keep the away for the chain.

I think that the perception (if you'll pardon the pun) is that a cyclist nowadays *need* hi-viz stuff. And perhaps strobe lights. And probably quite rightly... most cycle injuries are caused by motorists, and a fair chunk of those by motorists who didn't see the cyclist.

Give it enough time and these would also be mandatory. After all, exactly the same justifications can be applied as for helmets. And I'd hazard a guess that a hi-viz jacket and a strobe light or two would do more for a cyclist's safety than a helmet. And it's far cheaper than separating motorists, who are the root cause, from cyclists.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1981649 22-Mar-2018 16:41

Geektastic:

tdgeek:

No, I hadnt watched it. Just did. It is cumbersome. I don't see its relevance at all. If it happened to be somewhat safer (and many here feel a helmet doesn't make much difference) you just end up with a helmet that is somewhat cumbersome and somewhat safer than the standard helmet. Plus few will buy one as it looks silly around the neck, cumbersome to wear and costs more than many cycles.

Your suggestion that 'few will buy it' rather flies in the face of the success the company is...! Their revenue is over SEK50 million (About NZ$10 million)

Also, the point of a free market is choice. Normal bike helmets look silly also and there are plenty of people in the world (and even in NZ) who are quite willing to pay for what they want. Perhaps you are not one of them, but that does not mean that they do not exist.

Their product is also extremely good.

"In 2012 the Swedish insurance company Folksam tested 13 cycle helmets on the market. They carried out an impact test on the same principles as for CE marking but with a higher impact speed, 25 km/h instead of 20 km/h.

All the traditional helmets achieved G-force ranging from 196 to 294 g. The lower the value, the better the helmet’s ability to protect the cyclist’s head in an accident. Hövding achieved 65 g, providing at least three times better shock absorption than the other helmets"

I doubt many cyclists who whine about having t wear a helmet will outlay $500 to wear a scarf. I doubt that families will outlay for 3 or 4 of them. I also debt there are many people who are bothered with the helmet law, it was just an article about a big protest that ended up being a whimper. He even said that helmets for kids should be voluntary, the parents can decide. Now that is bizarre.

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1981655 22-Mar-2018 17:00

Sometimes a picture says a 1000 words...

What head could have survived this?

Dulouz

883 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1981656 22-Mar-2018 17:05

@PhantomNVD whether or not helmets can provide protection and whether or not helmet laws are a good idea are two separate issues. The title of this thread is misleading because the real issue is with helmet laws not if people should wear helmets when riding in high-risk situations.

Amanon

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1981658 22-Mar-2018 17:07

PhantomNVD:

Sometimes a picture says a 1000 words...

What head could have survived this?

No head. Cannot see the relevance. Helmets, of any kind, add to safety, they dont guarantee it. Cycle helmets are basic, as cyclists don't travel at 100kph, so they very much help lower speed impacts onto hard surfaces. With no helmet, a very very low speed impact to a hard surface is inherently serious.

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1981682 22-Mar-2018 18:56

Dulouz:
@PhantomNVD whether or not helmets can provide protection and whether or not helmet laws are a good idea are two separate issues. The title of this thread is misleading because the real issue is with helmet laws not if people should wear helmets when riding in high-risk situations.

So if we agree helmets provide protection, how can helmet laws NOT be good?

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1981698 22-Mar-2018 19:26

PhantomNVD:
Dulouz:

@PhantomNVD whether or not helmets can provide protection and whether or not helmet laws are a good idea are two separate issues. The title of this thread is misleading because the real issue is with helmet laws not if people should wear helmets when riding in high-risk situations.

So if we agree helmets provide protection, how can helmet laws NOT be good?

Condoms provide protection, but condom laws probably wouldn't be good.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1981709 22-Mar-2018 19:58

PhantomNVD:
Dulouz:

@PhantomNVD whether or not helmets can provide protection and whether or not helmet laws are a good idea are two separate issues. The title of this thread is misleading because the real issue is with helmet laws not if people should wear helmets when riding in high-risk situations.

So if we agree helmets provide protection, how can helmet laws NOT be good?

Then by that logic it should be law that:

all car occupants wear helmets as they provide protection in a crash
All walkers/runners wear hi viz gear and helmets as they provide protection if they trip or fall and when crossing roads
All children playing on the monkey bars at school should wear helmets and have safety harnesses lest they fall
Anyone climbing a tree should have a helmet and a safety harness

Life is full of dangers, so do we legislate against all of them? There use to be a thing when I was young called common sense. My era also use to learn about risk and using good judgement to decide for themselves what they were willing to do and what protection they needed, without requiring the state to specifically legislate against it.

Not saying any of these is a bad idea, just where does it end?

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1981747 22-Mar-2018 22:23

It is really all about managing risk and unsing 'common sense', rather than eliminating it. Compulsory cycle helmets when on roads is doing this, in terms of what is sensible and within reasonable costs. I am not sure it is compulsory if you are cycling in a park is it, I thought it only applied if you are on a road? So I am not even sure it applies if you are on a cycle track? Would be interesting to know.

Tonight I saw the end of something about banning playing ruby in schools, becuase it is too danagerous, and the risk of injury is high. If you are a rugby player, at some stage you are likely to get some injury as a result in your lifetime, as I did myself. We have been heading down a slippery slope with health and safety, and being too PC for a while now.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1981789 23-Mar-2018 06:20

scuwp:

PhantomNVD:
Dulouz:

@PhantomNVD whether or not helmets can provide protection and whether or not helmet laws are a good idea are two separate issues. The title of this thread is misleading because the real issue is with helmet laws not if people should wear helmets when riding in high-risk situations.

So if we agree helmets provide protection, how can helmet laws NOT be good?

Then by that logic it should be law that:

all car occupants wear helmets as they provide protection in a crash
All walkers/runners wear hi viz gear and helmets as they provide protection if they trip or fall and when crossing roads
All children playing on the monkey bars at school should wear helmets and have safety harnesses lest they fall
Anyone climbing a tree should have a helmet and a safety harness
Life is full of dangers, so do we legislate against all of them? There use to be a thing when I was young called common sense. My era also use to learn about risk and using good judgement to decide for themselves what they were willing to do and what protection they needed, without requiring the state to specifically legislate against it.

Not saying any of these is a bad idea, just where does it end?

It does need to end somewhere. For a cycle, it ends with just a helmet, and given that a person is off the ground, often on a hard surface, often near concrete, and competing with other cycles and cars and trucks, thats a good line in the compulsory stand.

Cars, we already have a helmet, thats the crash tested bodywork and chassis. The rest is low risk, low speed = common sense.

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1981822 23-Mar-2018 08:44

Fred99:

Condoms provide protection, but condom laws probably wouldn't be good.

We have a condom law - for the sex industry.

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1981975 23-Mar-2018 11:37

MikeAqua:

Fred99:

Condoms provide protection, but condom laws probably wouldn't be good.

We have a condom law - for the sex industry.

...since when is riding a bicycle to the corner store an "industry".

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek

#1983292 26-Mar-2018 10:55

sxz: If it's summer, and you are at the beach to get the paper and some milk, and you are riding about 10kmh, there is no need for a helmet.

If you're riding on the road, there is always a need to wear a helmet - it doesn't matter how short your trip is or how slow you're going. I was once rear-ended by a car while cycling along Customhouse Quay in Wellington. I was going quite slow, and keeping well to the left, but still hit my head pretty hard when I landed. So when you share the road it's not always about your own behaviour.

Dulouz: The helmet law has contributed to a decrease in cycling along with a perception that cycling is a dangerous activity.

Has the helmet law contributed to a decline in cycling though? Sure, they have statistics that say fewer people are cycling since the helmet law was introduced, but have they looked for other reasons why that might have happened? The number of cars on our roads has increased in that time, and there is a very real anti-cycling mentality among many motorists. Perhaps people are not riding because they don't feel safe? As property prices have increased, people who are likely to take up cycling to work (younger people) can't afford to live close to the city so have moved to suburbs further out. Perhaps people are not riding because they live too far away? With the emergence of the internet/video gaming, perhaps there are just a lot more kids around now who can't be bothered exercising and would rather be on the couch in front of the TV with their PS3 and 2.5 litres of full-sugar Coke? With the rise in the gym culture, perhaps the people who actually want to exercise feel they are already getting enough from other sources?

When people cite the higher number of cyclists in European countries where there is no compulsory helmet law, are there other factors that may contribute to this? Cycling has always been more popular in Europe, both competitively and for social and commuting purposes. There is better infrastructure for cyclists in many Eurpoean cities, and (with the possible exception of the UK) motorists are far more aware and tolerant of cyclists. Perhaps cyclists in the Netherlands and Denmark just feel safer, or travel shorter distances, so it's seen as a more viable means of transport?

In over 40 years of cycling, I have tried to encourage a number of people to ride. Many of them have taken it up. Of the people who said "no thanks", some have quoted safety, the weather, the distance, etc. Some have said they just can't be bothered. But I have never heard one single person say "no, I don't want to ride because I'd have to wear a helmet".

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek

#1983310 26-Mar-2018 11:19

On a separate, but related, note - I have always worn a helmet when I ride, and always will, even if the law changes to make it optional. And I will never mount anything on my helmet. I notice a lot of cyclists with helmet-mounted equipment - usually lights or GoPro-type cameras.

Is that a good idea? I'd be worried that if I landed on my head, some pointy, hard plastic mounting bracket could cause more damage than if I landed on the road with no helmet on. I heard thic scenario may have contributed to the brain injury in Michael Schumacher's skiing accident, but I don't remember whether that was ever confirmed...

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1983362 26-Mar-2018 11:53

The point (pardon the pun) is that you are making a choice to wear a helmet. I am being denied a choice not to. You have the choice, I do not. That is what is being objected to.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22