helmets from Why wear black?

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
Oldjohnw
Posts: 2772
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Oldjohnw » 14 Feb 2020, 5:50pm

Smudgerii wrote:
BlueRider wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:Even if one of those choices is proven to be detrimental not just individually but has an overall detrimental affect on society including the likes of you and me?
This is why I am so anti helmet and think that those wearing and more so those pushing for hi-vis garments and helmets have a direct negative effect on a societal level, such that laws are broken without any action by the police or justice system, such that laws that apply to one group are bent to protect criminals. This is the reality of hi-vis and helmets and the normalising of it, including that by CUK, British cycling, Bikeability, lcal and national government, police and other groups such as headway.

The bottom line is that personal choices for matters that have direct and indirect negative consequences, that are excluding, persecuting, discriminating, removing freedoms and ultimately costing thousands of lives should be taken out of the hands of the general population.

Having laws that ban helmets and hi-vis and push the focus of not getting killed/injured back onto those that are doing the harm, as it is in pretty much every aspect of life when criminals/people don't obey the law/rules, would be massively beneficial to everyone.


This is a gross missunderstanding of cause and effect. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and this seems to be a common misconseption with the anti-helmet/hi vis lobby.

The secondary effects of wearing PPE whilst cycling (discontent) is not the fault of the PPE itself and discontent is not a valid reason for it not to be used. You either weigh up for yourself if wearing PPE for cycling is worth any personal cost to yourself and cycle, or not.

What you really mean to say, is that the wearing of PPE when cycling is not necessary and that the discontent is imparts is unjustified. You are insisting that because PPE causes discontent, that it should not be used.

Apply that to society in general and we would be back in victorian era with hospitals full of the dead and dying.

The correct stance you should have is that like all activities, cycling has inherant dangers and risks and those should be fully understood and respected by cyclists and the pedestrians/road users they share the infrastructure with. Drivers should be taught to respect all road users. Cyclists likewise. Safety is everyone's responsibility.


And where do you stand on freedom of choice?

Safety is everyones responsibility, but in this instance only the rider should decide on the level of protection they provide to themselves.

I will give up on cycling and motorcycling should hi-vis ever be made compulsory, at no point will hi-vis improve a drivers ability/concern. Put the emphasis on improving driving standards, not on victim blaming.


I completely agree that making wearing hi-vis compulsory would be appalling but to give up cycling? Isn't that cutting off your nose to spite your face? The ill-advised legislators would be the winners.
John

Mike Sales
Posts: 4131
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Mike Sales » 14 Feb 2020, 6:07pm

BlueRider wrote:But i don't understand the obsession with looking at non cycling activites for justification or not of helmet use. Judge it on its own merits.


The contention is that there is a movement to "dangerize" cycling. That it is, to portray it as an especially dangerous pursuit.
There have been mentioned several other everyday activities for which it would be thought absurd to wear a helmet. Yet all of these are about as safe (or dangerous) as cycling. Many of them result in many more head injuries in absolute numbers.

We are asking, why is cycling the only normal activity which provokes a helmet campaign?

Is it because we share the road with "normal" people in cars?

Smudgerii
Posts: 64
Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 8:41pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Smudgerii » 14 Feb 2020, 7:00pm

Oldjohnw wrote:
Smudgerii wrote:
BlueRider wrote:
This is a gross missunderstanding of cause and effect. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and this seems to be a common misconseption with the anti-helmet/hi vis lobby.

The secondary effects of wearing PPE whilst cycling (discontent) is not the fault of the PPE itself and discontent is not a valid reason for it not to be used. You either weigh up for yourself if wearing PPE for cycling is worth any personal cost to yourself and cycle, or not.

What you really mean to say, is that the wearing of PPE when cycling is not necessary and that the discontent is imparts is unjustified. You are insisting that because PPE causes discontent, that it should not be used.

Apply that to society in general and we would be back in victorian era with hospitals full of the dead and dying.

The correct stance you should have is that like all activities, cycling has inherant dangers and risks and those should be fully understood and respected by cyclists and the pedestrians/road users they share the infrastructure with. Drivers should be taught to respect all road users. Cyclists likewise. Safety is everyone's responsibility.


And where do you stand on freedom of choice?

Safety is everyones responsibility, but in this instance only the rider should decide on the level of protection they provide to themselves.

I will give up on cycling and motorcycling should hi-vis ever be made compulsory, at no point will hi-vis improve a drivers ability/concern. Put the emphasis on improving driving standards, not on victim blaming.


I completely agree that making wearing hi-vis compulsory would be appalling but to give up cycling? Isn't that cutting off your nose to spite your face? The ill-advised legislators would be the winners.


It would be.... but to have to don the hi-vis just to nip to the shop or around to family would be something I’m unwilling to do. May as well stay in my shorts, t shirt and jump in my diesel guzzling 4x4 sat on the drive.

As far as the motorbike goes, i’d just trackday it because I refuse to wear a tw@t vest with polite on the back.

I’m happy for others to don hi-vis and helmets as they see fit, it’s their choice, just don’t force their choices on me.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9933
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Cunobelin » 15 Feb 2020, 8:56am

The discussion of how to compare is interesting, and distance, time, etc are all valid arguments, but have flaws

I remember one "road safety advocate" "who proved" that if you looked at KSI and miles travelled, cyclists killed and injured more people per year than white van man!

Personally the way I look at it is this...

The only real measure is the number of head injuries occurring. These are the ones that could be "prevented" or "mitigated" by a helmet

When you look at cohort studies of hospital attendances for head injury, cycling rarely gets a mention.

reohn2
Posts: 37370
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby reohn2 » 15 Feb 2020, 8:57am

The utility cyclist wrote:
reohn2 wrote:MickF
Is that graph's percentages of all people in the UK or people doing each activity?
If it's all people in the UK it's skewed

Is it, what % is it then?
The data directly from hospitals/medical centres tells us that 1.4million (up from 1.3million) people report a head injury every year, 160,000+ actually stay in hospitals as a consequence and seriousness of such, we also know that many head injuries, generally minor, go unreported.

How many of those reported head injuries and hospital stays due to a cycle related incident? 1% would be 14,000 of the reported cases, 'serious' head injuries if using the total number of circa 3100 SI (from STATS19) of cyclists and the guesswork of various orgs would put that number between 800-1200 per year.
So how many minor and serious head injuries are reported to medical professionals across the country, how many of those are the result of criminals and how many are self inflicted?.......


I'm still no wiser.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9933
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Cunobelin » 15 Feb 2020, 9:03am

BlueRider wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:
Smudgerii wrote:As with "why wear black", the answer is simple.

Because we have freedom of choice on if/when we wear helmet. Long may it remain a choice, it is a personal assessment of the risks.

Parents decide what is best for their child, it is not for others to interfere.

Even if one of those choices is proven to be detrimental not just individually but has an overall detrimental affect on society including the likes of you and me?
This is why I am so anti helmet and think that those wearing and more so those pushing for hi-vis garments and helmets have a direct negative effect on a societal level, such that laws are broken without any action by the police or justice system, such that laws that apply to one group are bent to protect criminals. This is the reality of hi-vis and helmets and the normalising of it, including that by CUK, British cycling, Bikeability, lcal and national government, police and other groups such as headway.

The bottom line is that personal choices for matters that have direct and indirect negative consequences, that are excluding, persecuting, discriminating, removing freedoms and ultimately costing thousands of lives should be taken out of the hands of the general population.

Having laws that ban helmets and hi-vis and push the focus of not getting killed/injured back onto those that are doing the harm, as it is in pretty much every aspect of life when criminals/people don't obey the law/rules, would be massively beneficial to everyone.


This is a gross missunderstanding of cause and effect. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and this seems to be a common misconseption with the anti-helmet/hi vis lobby.

The secondary effects of wearing PPE whilst cycling (discontent) is not the fault of the PPE itself and discontent is not a valid reason for it not to be used. You either weigh up for yourself if wearing PPE for cycling is worth any personal cost to yourself and cycle, or not.

What you really mean to say, is that the wearing of PPE when cycling is not necessary and that the discontent is imparts is unjustified. You are insisting that because PPE causes discontent, that it should not be used.

Apply that to society in general and we would be back in victorian era with hospitals full of the dead and dying.

The correct stance you should have is that like all activities, cycling has inherant dangers and risks and those should be fully understood and respected by cyclists and the pedestrians/road users they share the infrastructure with. Drivers should be taught to respect all road users. Cyclists likewise. Safety is everyone's responsibility.


Again the HSE has unequivocally stated that cycle helmets are NOT PPE in the formal sense

BlueRider wrote:
The correct stance you should have is that like all activities, cycling has inherant dangers and risks and those should be fully understood and respected by cyclists and the pedestrians/road users they share the infrastructure with. Drivers should be taught to respect all road users. Cyclists likewise. Safety is everyone's responsibility.


Same question as before....

You state "all activities" yet refuse to discuss the areas where head injuries are more common, and cycle helmets are better designed to deal with

The correct stance you should have is that any activity has inherent dangers and risks and those should be fully understood and respected by participants users they share the infrastructure with.

Why should pedestrian helmets NOT be included.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2712
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby The utility cyclist » 15 Feb 2020, 2:32pm

Smudgerii wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:
Smudgerii wrote:As with "why wear black", the answer is simple.

Because we have freedom of choice on if/when we wear helmet. Long may it remain a choice, it is a personal assessment of the risks.

Parents decide what is best for their child, it is not for others to interfere.

Even if one of those choices is proven to be detrimental not just individually but has an overall detrimental affect on society including the likes of you and me?
This is why I am so anti helmet and think that those wearing and more so those pushing for hi-vis garments and helmets have a direct negative effect on a societal level, such that laws are broken without any action by the police or justice system, such that laws that apply to one group are bent to protect criminals. This is the reality of hi-vis and helmets and the normalising of it, including that by CUK, British cycling, Bikeability, lcal and national government, police and other groups such as headway.

The bottom line is that personal choices for matters that have direct and indirect negative consequences, that are excluding, persecuting, discriminating, removing freedoms and ultimately costing thousands of lives should be taken out of the hands of the general population.

Having laws that ban helmets and hi-vis and push the focus of not getting killed/injured back onto those that are doing the harm, as it is in pretty much every aspect of life when criminals/people don't obey the law/rules, would be massively beneficial to everyone.


“Ban helmets and hi-vis”, just for clarification, do you want them banned? Are you also saying remove freedom of choice from the general population?

If so on what justification?

Yes, ban helmets and hi-vis, if governments can criminalise/force people to have a state of dress when riding a bike why does it have to be only one way, frankly the option to wear helmets and hi-vis disgusts me as it's so dangerous and has massive negative outcomes as I pointed out.
The negative fall out of wearing either or both is proven globally, at both population and individual levels, I have already told you the justification for enforcing such, it would have the complete reverse effect on the human race, contra to what the two garments do currently.

Or are you saying that removal of choice by making a law with threat of penalty and labelled a criminal only justified if it has a negative benefit on society, such as it is with helmets and hi-vis and is pushed as an agenda?

There are times when giving free choice has such a massively negative effect that that free choice needs to be taken out of the populations hand as much as is possible for their own protection, in this case it's costing thousands of lives both due to crashes and additional pollution, it's costing innate freedoms/human rights, it's costing people equity to travel in safety, it's costing people equity within the law, I've said all this already.

Please take the time to read what I said and follow up on the data/facts regarding the massively negative impact that hi-vis and helmets have had,

Vorpal wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:
And shouldn't this be in the helmet section?

Isn't it?

Sorry i forgot it had been moved.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9933
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Cunobelin » 15 Feb 2020, 2:44pm

BlueRider wrote:But i don't understand the obsession with looking at non cycling activites for justification or not of helmet use. Judge it on its own merits.


So very very simple....

Let’s take a question like....

You are falling from your bicycle .. Would you rather be wearing a helmet ( Yes/No)

You could ask ... if you are between 40 and 59 years old travelling from Macedonia to China, would you use a Coronavirus vaccine?

You have not proved that those outside your contrived little cohort would not benefit


Let’s make it simpler

If I fall over does a head injury hurt less, is it less traumatic or painful than the same accident on a bicycle?

Why do I have a “responsibility” to mitigate injury as a cyclist, but not as a pedestrian?

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2712
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby The utility cyclist » 15 Feb 2020, 2:48pm

reohn2 wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:
reohn2 wrote:MickF
Is that graph's percentages of all people in the UK or people doing each activity?
If it's all people in the UK it's skewed

Is it, what % is it then?
The data directly from hospitals/medical centres tells us that 1.4million (up from 1.3million) people report a head injury every year, 160,000+ actually stay in hospitals as a consequence and seriousness of such, we also know that many head injuries, generally minor, go unreported.

How many of those reported head injuries and hospital stays due to a cycle related incident? 1% would be 14,000 of the reported cases, 'serious' head injuries if using the total number of circa 3100 SI (from STATS19) of cyclists and the guesswork of various orgs would put that number between 800-1200 per year.
So how many minor and serious head injuries are reported to medical professionals across the country, how many of those are the result of criminals and how many are self inflicted?.......


I'm still no wiser.

You stated that the graph showing head injuries was not representative of the UK and presented nothing to back up your assertion, I ultimately asked you for the figure given you made that claim.
I used the total reported numbers of HI and those of total SI injuries of cyclists with the broad guess by various orgs re how many of those SI are to the head as a guide/indicator for you, as using the graph 1% there would be 14,000 head injuries from cyclists per year in the UK, yet we know reported serious head injuries as per STATS19 is worst case guess circa 1200/year.

So again, if the figure of 1% is incorrect as you say, what is the figure, how many cycling related head injuries and what % is that of the total using the 1.4million that hospitals are saying there are from general population?

reohn2
Posts: 37370
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby reohn2 » 15 Feb 2020, 3:03pm

The utility cyclist wrote:You stated that the graph showing head injuries was not representative of the UK and presented nothing to back up your assertion, I ultimately asked you for the figure given you made that claim.
I used the total reported numbers of HI and those of total SI injuries of cyclists with the broad guess by various orgs re how many of those SI are to the head as a guide/indicator for you, as using the graph 1% there would be 14,000 head injuries from cyclists per year in the UK, yet we know reported serious head injuries as per STATS19 is worst case guess circa 1200/year.

So again, if the figure of 1% is incorrect as you say, what is the figure, how many cycling related head injuries and what % is that of the total using the 1.4million that hospitals are saying there are from general population?

I asked a simple question,whether the stats in the graph Mick posted were total population or the population of the individual users.
That's all.
I don't wish to get into the intricacy of statistics just a simple answer would've sufficed.

I leave it at that,mainly because such discussions get bogged down,only to say people should have freedom of choice what they wear.
I understand your fear of compulsion of helmets and hi viz.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2712
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby The utility cyclist » 15 Feb 2020, 3:27pm

reohn2 wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:You stated that the graph showing head injuries was not representative of the UK and presented nothing to back up your assertion, I ultimately asked you for the figure given you made that claim.
I used the total reported numbers of HI and those of total SI injuries of cyclists with the broad guess by various orgs re how many of those SI are to the head as a guide/indicator for you, as using the graph 1% there would be 14,000 head injuries from cyclists per year in the UK, yet we know reported serious head injuries as per STATS19 is worst case guess circa 1200/year.

So again, if the figure of 1% is incorrect as you say, what is the figure, how many cycling related head injuries and what % is that of the total using the 1.4million that hospitals are saying there are from general population?

I asked a simple question,whether the stats in the graph Mick posted were total population or the population of the individual users.
That's all.
I don't wish to get into the intricacy of statistics just a simple answer would've sufficed.

I leave it at that,mainly because such discussions get bogged down,only to say people should have freedom of choice what they wear.
I understand your fear of compulsion of helmets and hi viz.


No, you didn't ask a question, you made a statement
reohn2 wrote:If it's all people in the UK it's skewed

So I ask you for a third time, if the data is skewed for all the people in the UK, what is the number or percentage, you said it's wrong, so let's have the numbers to back up what you've said?

reohn2
Posts: 37370
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby reohn2 » 15 Feb 2020, 4:17pm

The utility cyclist wrote:No, you didn't ask a question, you made a statement
reohn2 wrote:If it's all people in the UK it's skewed

So I ask you for a third time, if the data is skewed for all the people in the UK, what is the number or percentage, you said it's wrong, so let's have the numbers to back up what you've said?


It was part of the question,I don't have any stats and I'm not going googling for any.
The point I was tryng make was that if the stats were for all of the population of the UK the results are skewed.
Walking in Mick's table is mentioned as having the same % as cycling,almost everyone in the UK walks some of the time,whereas not everyone cycles.
That makes the % stats for walking when placed in the same table as cycling is skewed.
That's what I was driving(sorry)at.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

Smudgerii
Posts: 64
Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 8:41pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Smudgerii » 15 Feb 2020, 4:32pm

The utility cyclist wrote:
Smudgerii wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:Even if one of those choices is proven to be detrimental not just individually but has an overall detrimental affect on society including the likes of you and me?
This is why I am so anti helmet and think that those wearing and more so those pushing for hi-vis garments and helmets have a direct negative effect on a societal level, such that laws are broken without any action by the police or justice system, such that laws that apply to one group are bent to protect criminals. This is the reality of hi-vis and helmets and the normalising of it, including that by CUK, British cycling, Bikeability, lcal and national government, police and other groups such as headway.

The bottom line is that personal choices for matters that have direct and indirect negative consequences, that are excluding, persecuting, discriminating, removing freedoms and ultimately costing thousands of lives should be taken out of the hands of the general population.

Having laws that ban helmets and hi-vis and push the focus of not getting killed/injured back onto those that are doing the harm, as it is in pretty much every aspect of life when criminals/people don't obey the law/rules, would be massively beneficial to everyone.


“Ban helmets and hi-vis”, just for clarification, do you want them banned? Are you also saying remove freedom of choice from the general population?

If so on what justification?

Yes, ban helmets and hi-vis, if governments can criminalise/force people to have a state of dress when riding a bike why does it have to be only one way, frankly the option to wear helmets and hi-vis disgusts me as it's so dangerous and has massive negative outcomes as I pointed out.
The negative fall out of wearing either or both is proven globally, at both population and individual levels, I have already told you the justification for enforcing such, it would have the complete reverse effect on the human race, contra to what the two garments do currently.

Or are you saying that removal of choice by making a law with threat of penalty and labelled a criminal only justified if it has a negative benefit on society, such as it is with helmets and hi-vis and is pushed as an agenda?

There are times when giving free choice has such a massively negative effect that that free choice needs to be taken out of the populations hand as much as is possible for their own protection, in this case it's costing thousands of lives both due to crashes and additional pollution, it's costing innate freedoms/human rights, it's costing people equity to travel in safety, it's costing people equity within the law, I've said all this already.

Please take the time to read what I said and follow up on the data/facts regarding the massively negative impact that hi-vis and helmets have had,

Vorpal wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:
And shouldn't this be in the helmet section?

Isn't it?

Sorry i forgot it had been moved.


I’ve read and re-read, it was a little difficult at times as you like a rant... in one moment it appears you want to remove freedom of choice, then you contradict by claiming “costing innate freedoms/human rights”. Add this to your assertion that they should be outlawed and your arguments disappear up their own ar$e, and you wonder why I’m asking for clarification?

Read my comments, you will see that I do not want them made compulsory, nor do I want any Dick-tator screaming for them to be outlawed. Our freedoms are being eroded on a daily basis, ranting for further outlawing is pure idiocy and plays right into their hands.

Take from this what you will.

mattheus
Posts: 1386
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby mattheus » 15 Feb 2020, 7:32pm

Banning hi-viz (or helmets, or stab-vests, or anything else that is a little over-the-top, but doesn't directly harm anyone else) is
NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN in the UK. (fog lights are illegal in good vis, but no-one ever gets pulled for that! :P )

So Utility'Cs campaign is irrelevant. I suspect he's just grandstanding - there is a lot of sense in his views.

It is not IMO worth dwelling on, if anyone wants to actually have an open debate about road safety and rights.

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 9968
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby horizon » 15 Feb 2020, 9:25pm

mattheus wrote:Banning hi-viz (or helmets, or stab-vests, or anything else that is a little over-the-top, but doesn't directly harm anyone else) is
NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN in the UK. (fog lights are illegal in good vis, but no-one ever gets pulled for that! :P )

So Utility'Cs campaign is irrelevant. I suspect he's just grandstanding - there is a lot of sense in his views.

It is not IMO worth dwelling on, if anyone wants to actually have an open debate about road safety and rights.


I thought it was great. Just imagine if helmets were banned: would people cycle? Would they be fearful? How would they cycle - differently, more slowly? Would head injuries increase - or not? How would motorists behave? Would it change public policy, speed limits etc? Are helmets a useful excuse not to do anything?

You are right, they won't be banned, but it was a great suggestion and it deserved, IMV, a different response.
The experience of travel is something that you have to pay for but can never buy. Ho Ri Zon Chinese philosopher