Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

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.
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby meic » 3 Feb 2011, 12:20am

To be pedantic here.

KTM "The Duke" 690 said "something I do see as needing helmet use"

and I think he has a point, a good motorcycle helmet would be of use.

Drossal then pointed out the defects of "silly hats" which was also a very good point

but I dont think it has any bearing on the helmets that would help if you fell off at 40mph.

If I fell off at 40mph I would certainly like to be wearing a helmet rather than a silly hat.
Yma o Hyd

KTM690
Posts: 152
Joined: 1 Feb 2011, 8:16pm

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby KTM690 » 3 Feb 2011, 12:23am

meic wrote:To be pedantic here.

KTM "The Duke" 690 said "something I do see as needing helmet use"

and I think he has a point, a good motorcycle helmet would be of use.

Drossal then pointed out the defects of "silly hats" which was also a very good point

but I dont think it has any bearing on the helmets that would help if you fell off at 40mph.

If I fell off at 40mph I would certainly like to be wearing a helmet rather than a silly hat.



You'd make a much better entrance into A+E in a silly hat :lol:

SilverBadge
Posts: 577
Joined: 12 May 2009, 11:28pm

Re: more

Postby SilverBadge » 3 Feb 2011, 2:25am

KTM690 wrote:I think compulsory wearing of helmets is a good idea.

Rank these in order of priority
a) Saving 10% of 120 fatalities annually
b) Saving 10% of 600 fatalities annually
c) Saving 20% of 1200 fatalities annually
d) Saving 10% of 300 fatalities annually.
If someone picked (a) in priority to the other three, would you regard them as an idiot? I would.

My perspective is from working in A+E for over 15 years and dealing with many cyclists that have sustained head injuries.
What did you do to the other 99+% of non-cyclists that sustained head injuries - ignore them?

I don't see why I should pay more tax to care for those injured that could've reduced their injury with a helmet.

Excellent - so we're not restricting this to cyclists. Please list the specific activities for which humans will be legally permitted to remove a helmet (to EN1078 spec) from their heads.

snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby snibgo » 3 Feb 2011, 3:07am

SilverBadge wrote:What did you do to the other 99+% of non-cyclists that sustained head injuries - ignore them?

99% is about right.

According to Headway (http://www.headway.org.uk/facts.aspx):

135,000 people per year are admitted for traumatic brain injury (in UK)
130,000 people per year have a stroke (England and Wales)
2,564 pedal cyclists were KSI in 2007. Of course, not all of these were brain injuries.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby thirdcrank » 3 Feb 2011, 10:28am

snibgo wrote:.... Of course, not all of these were brain injuries.


And of those that were, only an unknown %age would have survived if they had been wearing a helmet and indeed, some of the deceased will have been wearing helmets.

MartinC
Posts: 1837
Joined: 10 May 2007, 6:31pm
Location: Bredon

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby MartinC » 3 Feb 2011, 12:52pm

If anyone thinks cycling and motorcycling are similar activities or that motorcycle helmets and cycling helmets are a relevant comparison in any respect then they have a very poor grasp of the subject and their opinion is demonstrably of little value.

Steady rider
Posts: 2172
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby Steady rider » 3 Feb 2011, 2:33pm

The Case against bicycle helmets and legislation, VeloCity cycling conference, Munich 2007. A detailed report presented at the world’s leading cycling conference providing details showing how helmet use and legislation has reduced both health and safety in general terms. http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuai ... helmet.pdf

Health and safety assessment of state bicycle helmets laws in the USA http://www.ctcyorkshirehumber.org.uk/US ... t_laws.pdf

Nutsey
Posts: 1270
Joined: 19 Apr 2010, 3:31pm

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby Nutsey » 3 Feb 2011, 3:27pm

3 pages. This guy is good.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9551
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: more

Postby Cunobelin » 3 Feb 2011, 7:09pm

KTM690 wrote:I think compulsory wearing of helmets is a good idea.

My perspective is from working in A+E for over 15 years and dealing with many cyclists that have sustained head injuries.

If my head were to strike the pavement at 20mph I'd prefer it to have a helmet on!

All of society pay's for head injury.

Some of the compensation will come from motorists insurance.

I don't see why motorists should pay greater premiums due to cyclists not wearing helmets.

I don't see why I should pay more tax to care for those injured that could've reduced their injury with a helmet.

"Wind in the hair" was the argument against compulsory motorcycle helmets. They've been shown to be a good idea.


What good sense!



Image

Your reasoning shows exactly why we should be fully supporting and encouraging the use of the Thudguard

As a health care practitioner you will of course be familiar with "EBP" and the need to support your statements with evidence, as you will know from working in A/E that the number of children of toddler age with head injuries exceeds the number of cyclists by a factor of five or six. A far greater reduction in head injury would be achieved with such a protective device, as your experience will show.

After all as you say, why should society pay for these avoidable head injuries, and as you have so succinctly stated it is far better to have your head protected when you have a fall, and this would support your argument that we shouldn't pay more tax to care for those injured that could've reduced their injury with a helmet

I assume with your experience (mine is over thirty years) you will be supporting the Thudguard fully for children and I look forward to your ringing endorsement

snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby snibgo » 3 Feb 2011, 7:19pm

But they must be mandatory, of course. I suppose most toddlers bang their heads inside their own homes? So policing should be by health visitors.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9551
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby Cunobelin » 3 Feb 2011, 7:37pm

snibgo wrote:But they must be mandatory, of course. I suppose most toddlers bang their heads inside their own homes? So policing should be by health visitors.


Certainly health visitors, after all failing to protect your children from head injuries is surely neglect?

Apart from that I see no limits - head injuries are diverse in their causes. In bed is certainly essential as some experts consider this to be a real risk, with some 30% of children suffering sleepwalking episodes and falls from beds are in fact more common than head injuries on cycles.

They should also be worn outside as well....... falls also happen here, especially when children are distracted by other sights and experiences.

snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby snibgo » 3 Feb 2011, 8:03pm

... especially when children are distracted by other sights and experiences.

Better, then, to remove these dangerous sights and experiences.

We discussed recently how more people were killed falling from household furniture than bikes: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=45788

I don't know how many of these fatalities were from head injuries, or how many furniture-users sustained serious but survivable head injuries. I suspect the ratios are similar to that for cyclists, in which case the entire Northern Ireland debate could substitute "sitting on furniture" for "cycling", and it would make just as much sense.

This might be a productive research avenue (FOI might provide the answers): How many lives would be saved if (a) cyclists, (b) pedestrians and (c) furniture-users wore cycling helmets?

KTM690
Posts: 152
Joined: 1 Feb 2011, 8:16pm

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby KTM690 » 3 Feb 2011, 9:26pm

So when this legislation is introduced - and there's strong indication it will be. How many of you will stop cycling to work?

How will you get about instead?

BTW current helmet law doesnt apply to trikes/quads. Maybe you could use a pedal powered one instead of a bicycle. Now that would increase congestion much more than bicycles

Malaconotus
Posts: 1842
Joined: 30 Jul 2010, 11:31pm
Location: Chapel Allerton, Leeds

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby Malaconotus » 3 Feb 2011, 9:31pm

KTM690 wrote:So when this legislation is introduced - and there's strong indication it will be. How many of you will stop cycling to work?

How will you get about instead?

BTW current helmet law doesnt apply to trikes/quads. Maybe you could use a pedal powered one instead of a bicycle. Now that would increase congestion much more than bicycles


If anyone else had asked that question I'd give what I think is really quite an interesting answer. But since 'ignore' is winning the troll poll, I'll pretend I haven't read it.

Nutsey
Posts: 1270
Joined: 19 Apr 2010, 3:31pm

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby Nutsey » 3 Feb 2011, 9:33pm

KTM690 wrote:So when this legislation is introduced - and there's strong indication it will be. How many of you will stop cycling to work?

How will you get about instead?

BTW current helmet law doesnt apply to trikes/quads. Maybe you could use a pedal powered one instead of a bicycle. Now that would increase congestion much more than bicycles


tbh I thought it was the law already when I started cycling, and didn't bother with one given the absence of law enforcement. As I said before, I honestly don't think it will happen in England due to Boris Johnson being in an influential position. Add to that Cameron and that Cambridge MP (who I reckon I would actually vote for over the blue candidate) and I don't see it happening.

Even if it does, I doubt I'll see any cops checking for helmet use on the golf club, quiet estate, old railway line, and residential street I ride to work on.

If they do catch me, I'll do the same thing I do on the train when I have no ticket - blag ignorance and get away with it.