Anti Helmet Protest Irony

[Sagalout]

Those going on about freedom of choice clearly are a touch on the selfish side. You don't think for one second the costs (monetary, yes, but others too) associated with someone's head splattered all over a road - things people will never forget, could haunt them - especially if you caused it. It's much like many train drivers are on depressants (know two myself), as when people throw themselves in front, they get lovely blood splatters up the front of the train and such, plus the guilt factor. It's not a massive ask, especially since you can get half-helmets anyway, which are essentially no more than a hat - and it's still legal.

This is no different to those who refused to wear seatbelts when they were made law. It's not 'the nanny state', but simply trying to protect others as well.

What a pillock.

We've been here before. It annoys me when people assume the level of risk they are prepared to take is the right amount. Why can't you see that by even riding a bike you're adding to the risk. What would you say to an anti bike MP that said bikes are too dangerous and should be banned?

Like I said, I wouldn't not wear a helmet personally, in the same way that I wouldn't race the TT, but I'm not so arrogant to enforce my own level of risk onto others

 

[Hagar]

I rode a bike before the helmet law and did not wear a helmet then. Of course it has saved lives as have seatbelts in cars. It does mean that in a serious crash you may be alive but paraplegic though.

Helmets (and seat belts) do give a degree of confidence to the rider, try riding at 50+mph with or without a helmet (seat belt) and see how secure you feel.

I do agree with the helmet law in retrospect, as long as they do not end up being totally prescriptive with boots, leathers, body armour etc. all reduce the risk but at a cost to enjoyment possibly.

It is quite cool on a sunny day with no helmet cruising along the country roads, insects can be ****** painful though.