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

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

Postby Nutsey » 4 Feb 2011, 7:03pm

KTM690 wrote:Public opinion is very persuasive in MP's decisions. They are, after all, solely concerned with the accquisition of power and retention of it.



Hi KTM690

I have started a group called "Nutsey & Friends" for this very reason. We plan to persuade MPs and other influential people to back non-helmet wearing cyclists. Its gathering momentum already.

The first meeting is scheduled for next Friday in Stockport at Anne Coffee's surgery.

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

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

Postby KTM690 » 4 Feb 2011, 7:11pm

Nutsey wrote:
KTM690 wrote:Public opinion is very persuasive in MP's decisions. They are, after all, solely concerned with the accquisition of power and retention of it.



Hi KTM690

I have started a group called "Nutsey & Friends" for this very reason. We plan to persuade MPs and other influential people to back non-helmet wearing cyclists. Its gathering momentum already.

The first meeting is scheduled for next Friday in Stockport at Anne Coffee's surgery.


Try finding evidence from parralel pursuits.

Maybe headguards for boxers or helmets for equestrians?

i was very anti headguard for boxing as it increases leverage on the brain when you recieve a punch.

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 » 4 Feb 2011, 7:16pm

KTM690 wrote:
Nutsey wrote:
KTM690 wrote:Public opinion is very persuasive in MP's decisions. They are, after all, solely concerned with the accquisition of power and retention of it.



Hi KTM690

I have started a group called "Nutsey & Friends" for this very reason. We plan to persuade MPs and other influential people to back non-helmet wearing cyclists. Its gathering momentum already.

The first meeting is scheduled for next Friday in Stockport at Anne Coffee's surgery.


Try finding evidence from parralel pursuits.

Maybe headguards for boxers or helmets for equestrians?

i was very anti headguard for boxing as it increases leverage on the brain when you recieve a punch.


Are you after some sort of award for self-contradictory statements?
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9557
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

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

Postby Cunobelin » 4 Feb 2011, 7:23pm

KTM690 wrote:
Even the chap who undertook the van driver on BBC was wearing one - and high viz too!


A different interpretation from the Judge there - perhaps he saw a different video from the one you are watching?

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

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

Postby Steady rider » 4 Feb 2011, 7:29pm

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingforum/ ... uards.html

accident data shows more face impacts than head (part covered by an helmet) so the next step is a nose guard for some.

with a helmet and nose guard they may get a part in a movie

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

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

Postby KTM690 » 4 Feb 2011, 7:31pm

Cunobelin wrote:
KTM690 wrote:
Even the chap who undertook the van driver on BBC was wearing one - and high viz too!


A different interpretation from the Judge there - perhaps he saw a different video from the one you are watching?



Must've been if he didn't notice the chap wears a cycle hat and high viz cycle clothing

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

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

Postby Steady rider » 4 Feb 2011, 8:17pm

I suppose a boxer may be hit on the head say 10 times in 10 minutes of boxing. One per minute.

A cyclist may ride for 50 years, say 5 hours per week and never hit their head,
50 x 5 x 52 x 60 = 780,000 minutes and no hits.

One difference would be the level of risk.
Enjoyment and convenience are reasons to cycle and for some people having to strap on a helmet could be a negative issue.

Horse riding accident data, their proportion of head injury may be different to cyclist, hits rate per hour/ ? Level of risk is probaby not that high but I would guess higher than cycling.
A horse can bolt or the rider lose balance, so comparing with cycling may have little if any value. Helmet effects on balance and riding stability may not be similar but helmets may add to feeling hot at times for both. Horse riders are probably about 25% higher from the ground. Horses may also kick the rider etc.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9557
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

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

Postby Cunobelin » 4 Feb 2011, 8:39pm

Steady rider wrote:I suppose a boxer may be hit on the head say 10 times in 10 minutes of boxing. One per minute.

A cyclist may ride for 50 years, say 5 hours per week and never hit their head,
50 x 5 x 52 x 60 = 780,000 minutes and no hits.

One difference would be the level of risk.
Enjoyment and convenience are reasons to cycle and for some people having to strap on a helmet could be a negative issue.

Horse riding accident data, their proportion of head injury may be different to cyclist, hits rate per hour/ ? Level of risk is probaby not that high but I would guess higher than cycling.
A horse can bolt or the rider lose balance, so comparing with cycling may have little if any value. Helmet effects on balance and riding stability may not be similar but helmets may add to feeling hot at times for both. Horse riders are probably about 25% higher from the ground. Horses may also kick the rider etc.


I was involved in research in the 1980's that showed even after a few "fights" boxers had perfusion defects (areas devoid of blood supply)

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

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

Postby SilverBadge » 5 Feb 2011, 12:03pm

KTM690 wrote:Public opinion is very persuasive in MP's decisions. They are, after all, solely concerned with the accquisition of power and retention of it.
In which case making sure that public opinion is based on facts rather than bullshit is rather important.

Here's a video showing a cyclist with a headcam benefitting from choosing to wear a helmet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UaE_LWDDWk
And what proportion of road casualties involve some thrillseeker trying to backflip a trike? If you look closely there is no head impact on the first and last runs, not even sure there is in run 2 even though the motorbike crash hat puts contact a couple of inches closer and its mass won't help matters either.

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

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

Postby KTM690 » 5 Feb 2011, 12:29pm

SilverBadge wrote:
KTM690 wrote:Public opinion is very persuasive in MP's decisions. They are, after all, solely concerned with the accquisition of power and retention of it.
In which case making sure that public opinion is based on facts rather than bullshit is rather important.

Here's a video showing a cyclist with a headcam benefitting from choosing to wear a helmet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UaE_LWDDWk
And what proportion of road casualties involve some thrillseeker trying to backflip a trike? If you look closely there is no head impact on the first and last runs, not even sure there is in run 2 even though the motorbike crash hat puts contact a couple of inches closer and its mass won't help matters either.


On the subject of public opinion you may want to look at the cycling media.

Lots of glossy cycling mags glamourising cycling all showing pics of riders with helmets on.

Not really helping the no helmet arguments.

Is it not best to sort out your own tribe before moving on to the general public?

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

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

Postby SilverBadge » 5 Feb 2011, 12:40pm

KTM690 wrote:On the subject of public opinion you may want to look at the cycling media. Lots of glossy cycling mags glamourising cycling all showing pics of riders with helmets on. Not really helping the no helmet arguments. Is it not best to sort out your own tribe before moving on to the general public?
Showing some riders wearing helmets, and others not. None calling for helmet compulsion. Which is basically representing the status quo - it is optional and should remain so. You seem to be mistakenly believeing there is a campaign to ban helmets.

Any more thoughts on which should come first - helmets for car occupants or helmets for cyclists? Have a go at showing you are capable of rational thought.

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

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

Postby KTM690 » 5 Feb 2011, 12:57pm

SilverBadge wrote:
KTM690 wrote:On the subject of public opinion you may want to look at the cycling media. Lots of glossy cycling mags glamourising cycling all showing pics of riders with helmets on. Not really helping the no helmet arguments. Is it not best to sort out your own tribe before moving on to the general public?
Showing some riders wearing helmets, and others not. None calling for helmet compulsion. Which is basically representing the status quo - it is optional and should remain so. You seem to be mistakenly believeing there is a campaign to ban helmets.

Any more thoughts on which should come first - helmets for car occupants or helmets for cyclists? Have a go at showing you are capable of rational thought.


Helmets for cyclists first.

Benefits outweigh possible drawbacks.

Your arguments based on selecting/interpretating the research that supports your cause hasn't persuaded me otherwise.

I'm also persuaded by the "expert cyclists" - those that do commute regularly or cycle to a high standard - the majority of them wear helmets.

The main drive to defeat this law is based on the desire to increase cycling at all costs.

kwackers
Posts: 13811
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

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

Postby kwackers » 5 Feb 2011, 1:19pm

KTM690 wrote:
I'm also persuaded by the "expert cyclists" - those that do commute regularly or cycle to a high standard - the majority of them wear helmets.

That'd be me then. 28 miles a day AND I wear a helmet. So here's my "persuasion"... :wink:

The reason I do it is two fold.
Firstly it's somewhere to fit a camera.
Secondly if I'm unlucky enough to be involved in an accident I don't want me (or my kids) to be fighting an insurance company that'll use any tactic to wiggle out of paying.

I'm under no illusions about the benefits of a polystyrene hat. In a collision with another vehicle they're all but useless. Indeed the real problem with them is how much use (or liability) they are depends on the type of accident you have.

So for example:

If I was to fall off my bicycle and hit my head on the edge of a kerb - I'd want to be wearing one.

If on the other hand I'm whizzing down a road and 'lose' the bike I'd rather not, in that instance falling from under 5 feet will see my head hit (if it did) quite lightly - same as falling over whilst stood up, but the 20mph plus forward velocity will try to impart spin to my head. Without the helmet all that would happen is the skin would tear, with the helmet the helmet will 'bite' into the tarmac and start to rotate taking my well strapped head with it. This results in rotational brain injury - probably one of the more common types and wholly unavoidable and indeed more likely with helmets - particularly when taking into account the extra radius and mass.

In summary. What sort of accident are you going to have? I'd suggest the type is based on how and where you ride, therefore to some extent you can bias the chance of one particular type of accident over another. Given that only I know this, then shouldn't I be the one to decide whether a helmet is a good choice or not?

I should point out I don't wear a helmet for local use, neither would I bother if it became illegal not to. I'm old enough not to care, fast enough not to get caught and believe that since the roads are under policed anyway it'll make no difference. (If we can't catch speeding, phone using, infrastructure ignoring drivers, why should we suddenly be able to catch a load of bicycles?)

User avatar
Graham
Moderator
Posts: 5956
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:48pm

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

Postby Graham » 5 Feb 2011, 1:57pm

kwackers wrote:I should point out I don't wear a helmet for local use, neither would I bother if it became illegal not to. I'm old enough not to care, fast enough not to get caught and believe that since the roads are under policed anyway it'll make no difference. (If we can't catch speeding, phone using, infrastructure ignoring drivers, why should we suddenly be able to catch a load of bicycles?)

The most serious threat of "policing" will be from those (few) psychopathic motorists who will have another reason** ( in their sadly warped brains ) to put your life-at-risk, to cause you serious injury or even kill you to "teach you a lesson" ( which in this case would be for breaking the compulsory helmet law ).

** I draw a close analogy to being herded onto cyclepath that I have choosen not to use.
Cyclists know that they are not compulsory. Unfortunately this does not stop some psychopathic motorists from trying to enforce their use.

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

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

Postby KTM690 » 5 Feb 2011, 2:02pm

kwackers wrote:
KTM690 wrote:
I'm also persuaded by the "expert cyclists" - those that do commute regularly or cycle to a high standard - the majority of them wear helmets.

That'd be me then. 28 miles a day AND I wear a helmet. So here's my "persuasion"... :wink:

The reason I do it is two fold.
Firstly it's somewhere to fit a camera.
Secondly if I'm unlucky enough to be involved in an accident I don't want me (or my kids) to be fighting an insurance company that'll use any tactic to wiggle out of paying.

I'm under no illusions about the benefits of a polystyrene hat. In a collision with another vehicle they're all but useless. Indeed the real problem with them is how much use (or liability) they are depends on the type of accident you have.

So for example:

If I was to fall off my bicycle and hit my head on the edge of a kerb - I'd want to be wearing one.

If on the other hand I'm whizzing down a road and 'lose' the bike I'd rather not, in that instance falling from under 5 feet will see my head hit (if it did) quite lightly - same as falling over whilst stood up, but the 20mph plus forward velocity will try to impart spin to my head. Without the helmet all that would happen is the skin would tear, with the helmet the helmet will 'bite' into the tarmac and start to rotate taking my well strapped head with it. This results in rotational brain injury - probably one of the more common types and wholly unavoidable and indeed more likely with helmets - particularly when taking into account the extra radius and mass.

In summary. What sort of accident are you going to have? I'd suggest the type is based on how and where you ride, therefore to some extent you can bias the chance of one particular type of accident over another. Given that only I know this, then shouldn't I be the one to decide whether a helmet is a good choice or not?

I should point out I don't wear a helmet for local use, neither would I bother if it became illegal not to. I'm old enough not to care, fast enough not to get caught and believe that since the roads are under policed anyway it'll make no difference. (If we can't catch speeding, phone using, infrastructure ignoring drivers, why should we suddenly be able to catch a load of bicycles?)


New developments in helmet design include a "skin" of material on the outer shell that is designed to shear off to reduce rotation on impact.

Agree with your point about this being unpoliceable.

Re policing drivers bending the rules there isn't the political will to do this as a lot of the rules are daft.