How is that remotely relevant to bicycle helmets ?
Unless you are really unlucky and get hit by a Jihad Jeep whilst cycling through the Cotwolds
Someone Ran me over..
- Thread starter jonneymendoza
- Start date
How is that remotely relevant to bicycle helmets ?
Unless you are really unlucky and get hit by a Jihad Jeep whilst cycling through the Cotwolds
How is that remotely relevant to bicycle helmets ?
Unless you are really unlucky and get hit by a Jihad Jeep whilst cycling through the Cotwolds
The statement was 'wearing a helmet has got to be better than not wearing one'. As amigafans link and my previous link already shows - that's not true in the case of bike helmets.
This additional snippet was showing it applies to other helmets too since Kool didn't specify bike helmets.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Even if it encourages drivers to behave in a dangerous manner around you and thus increasing the likelihood of an accident?
Personally, I'd rather have no accident at all rather than an accident that a helmet protected against.
If there were no (or negligible) downsides to wearing a helmet it would be made law to wear one. As it is, the DfT have assessed the impact mandatory helmet use would have on cycling (less uptake), how much they actually do prevent injuries (inconclusive) and how wearing a helmet affects the way drivers behave towards cyclists (more risky manoeuvres) and decided the pro's of mandatory helmet law does not outweigh the cons.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bit different being next to a bomb going off and falling off yer bike!!! lol
Except improper PPE design can, instead of dispersing impact energy, cause it to be focussed which therefore results in a more severe injury.
That was the case with the US army helmets except it was blast rather than impact.
The statement was 'wearing a helmet has got to be better than not wearing one'. As amigafans link and my previous link already shows - that's not true in the case of bike helmets.
This additional snippet was showing it applies to other helmets too since Kool didn't specify bike helmets.
The thread subject is about an RTA involving a bicycle, and logically bicycle helmets.
Why you've opened it up to including 'all helmets' is beyond me
I rode a motorcycle for 25 years and whilst i came away unscathed through my 2 wheel career, i would have never considered not wearing a helmet.
Last edited:
The thread subject is about an RTA involving a bicycle, and logically bicycle helmets.
Why you've opened it up to including 'all helmets' is beyond me
Because despite having several previous links showing it to be crap he's still posting about 'helmets' therefore he couldn't possibly be referring to bike helmets as that point has been answered and nobody is stupid enough to continue posting things like that in the face of evidence when they have none so he must have been talking about helmets in general.
The debate never moves on.
We'll continue to argue things that don't really matter, our government will continue to pretend to give a **** about cycling, whilst cutting funding to it and pandering to the motoring lobbyists, and those of us who do enjoy cycling will continue to look at places like Denmark and Holland with envy.
We'll continue to argue things that don't really matter, our government will continue to pretend to give a **** about cycling, whilst cutting funding to it and pandering to the motoring lobbyists, and those of us who do enjoy cycling will continue to look at places like Denmark and Holland with envy.
Pretty much it in a nutshell.
Cyclists don't buy petrol, so will always be last on the list for a Government to consider.
Petrol = Tax = Revenue
EDIT ;
Unless it is an election year
Cycling=Green= More Votes ( for our future plans which will be forgotten about )
Last edited:
If I could get a job there I'd be over in a heartbeat. Of course all thats going be somewhat more difficult thanks to the referendum vote.Move there!
Quite. I'm not convinced thats the right approach though.
Last edited:
How am I not making sense? Helmet can stop injuries which in turn cost money being fixed with medicine
How am I not making sense? Helmet can stop injuries which in turn cost money being fixed with medicine
Helmet is a real godsend.
I would hate to see a little child out on their bike without a helmet!
Yeah came off mine when I was a kid and ripped my face rather bad, I never go on my bike without a helmet as I know a few people that have had serious brain damage falling off which would have been prevent if they had of worn one. Not wearing them is just plain stupid, if they fit well enough you won't even notice it after a few seconds.
Also too the people that want these cycle ways feel free to start a charity for it (Maybe cycle tax
), I'd like potholes filling in but they are still in the road damaging peoples cars that actually pay tax for that tarmac.
Last edited:
I really cant work out why some people are inclined to believe this tosh. Good luck not wearing a cycle helmet. You'll need it.
Because it's based on provable statistics, where as your opinion is emotional, and hence irrationally based on one freak accident. You need to take away your emotional influence, and look at the figures objectively. Risk compensation is real, people take more risks when they feel protected, and driver's pass closer, just these two factors increase your risk of being involved in an accident dramatically, and subsequently increased risk of injury.
Cycle helmets simply are not designed to protect against serious hard impact, look up the specs and standards.
Last edited:
Except that even the site Dis86 linked to (which I think from looking at it for the last hour or two is a little 'selective' in its presentation) says there is anywhere from 'no effect' of wearing a helmet to some studies that say 'all types of cycle helmet offer protection to all cyclists under virtually all circumstances'.
There isn't any evidence I can find that wearing a helmet actually results in worse outcomes.
If drivers are getting too close the solution as a cyclist is not to take their helmet off, it's to educate motorists and improve roads and cycling infrastructure.
There does seem to be some correlation between wearing a helmet and risk (e.g. they're used more on more busy roads) but nothing as strong as what you're claiming (that I can see anyway).
What the evidence does say is that helmets reduce minor injuries, and have either no effect or some effect against more severe injuries.
I'll personally continue to take the chance of some protection to my head over the certainty of no protection.