John Humpheys

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
sirmy
Posts: 605
Joined: 11 Mar 2009, 10:53am

John Humpheys

Postby sirmy » 4 Aug 2012, 8:02pm


Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

Re: John Humpheys

Postby Regulator » 5 Aug 2012, 9:28am

I think that's a fairly balanced article by John Jumphreys. The Road CC report of it was a classic example of selective quoting.

User avatar
anothereye
Posts: 750
Joined: 8 Mar 2009, 4:56pm
Location: Haringey, North London

Re: John Humpheys

Postby anothereye » 5 Aug 2012, 11:35am

"There seems to be no logic behind forcing one group of road users to wear helmets and not the other."
If so then pedestrians and motorists should also wear helmets.
_______________________________________________________________
http://www.roadusers.net/
reducing danger for all road users

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

Re: John Humpheys

Postby meic » 5 Aug 2012, 11:49am

It’s true that motorcyclists are likely to be travelling much faster when they have an accident and so risk greater injury to their brains if they are not wearing a helmet.


As a motorcyclist I would say that he answered his own question here. Clearly we* do wear helmets because we are going fast. Not much point otherwise.

*Motorcyclists
Yma o Hyd

JohnW
Posts: 6450
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: John Humpheys

Postby JohnW » 5 Aug 2012, 9:04pm

anothereye wrote:..............pedestrians and motorists should also wear helmets.


................motorists should wear straight jackets, hancuffs, anklecuffs and ball & chains. Then pedestrians wouldn't need helmets - and neither would we...............

As for HGV drivers................

theenglishman
Posts: 106
Joined: 10 Jun 2012, 5:01pm

Re: John Humpheys

Postby theenglishman » 5 Aug 2012, 9:48pm

If a cyclist is pootling along at 5mph and a lorry wing mirror, doing 40 mph, hits the back of the cyclists head what's the impact velocity?

If a cyclist flies through the air and head buts the kerb after hitting a car that's pulled out in front of them when they're doing 10 mph what's the chance of a brain injury? I can answer this one as it happened to me when I was 14 and I spend a very scary week in the male surgical ward with concussion.

So for me I'm on the side of compulsory helmets.

As an aside I was out today on a 50 mile ride. EVERY road and mountain biker I saw had a helmet on. And every kid I saw on bikes and scooters around the local lake had one on - but weirdly no one had a life jacket on. So my money is on the button that should the government implement this the majority won't object.The very small minority that will object will use the same tired arguments that were used when compulsory motorbike helmet and then seatbelt wearing was put in place.

Face it folks - if the government thinks this'll win them votes is a done deal.

kwackers
Posts: 15459
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: John Humpheys

Postby kwackers » 5 Aug 2012, 10:12pm

theenglishman wrote:So for me I'm on the side of compulsory helmets.
<snip>
As an aside I was out today on a 50 mile ride. EVERY road and mountain biker I saw had a helmet on.

If that's the case why do you support compulsion for something that's apparently already happening anyway? Do you simply like extra laws, policing and wasted tax money for no reason?

Incidentally you witter continually about "tired old arguments" yet offer nothing that adds to the discussion so why not offer some actual proof or at least something that at least has a semblance of reasoning?

I find it fairly interesting that none of the pro-compulsion people has any evidence that helmets work, nor do they offer anything in answer to the points raised about the negative aspects of helmet wearing.

In fact the only pro-compulsion argument that we hear bandied around is the usual nonsense:-
"I/my mate/someone I heard/read about banged their head once and they're only alive/not cabbaged because they were wearing a helmet that was badly damaged/crushed/cracked in the accident. So not only do I support helmet wearing but I think that other people's lack of intelligence/foresight is such that I believe we need to force them to wear them" (Delete as appropriate)


Perhaps I've missed it, but has any pro-helmet/compulsion person actually posted *anything* that stands up to even the briefest of analysis?

JohnW
Posts: 6450
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: John Humpheys

Postby JohnW » 5 Aug 2012, 11:01pm

theenglishman wrote:.............The very small minority that will object will use the same tired arguments................Face it folks - if the government thinks this'll win them votes is a done deal.



You're right there english - but the minoroity that will object will be cyclists - most of those who are the keenest promoters of COMPULSORY helmet wearing are non-cyclists who don't know enough to make their judgements valid. (Yourself excepted of course, and with full respect to your opinion and stance).

As for my personal position, I wear one - can't say fairer than that, can I? - but as for compulsion? - I'm with kwackers.

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

Re: John Humpheys

Postby meic » 5 Aug 2012, 11:18pm

If a cyclist is pootling along at 5mph and a lorry wing mirror, doing 40 mph, hits the back of the cyclists head what's the impact velocity?


Less than if it hits a pedestrian, now I am quite tall but not even I am tall enough to get hit by a lorry's wing mirror. The wheels on the other hand are within range.

Now if I was to get hit by a lorry's wing mirror at 40mph, I would clearly NEED a m/c helmet not a silly piece of plastic. Yet the chances of such an accident are low enough not to live my life as if it is going to happen.
Yma o Hyd

irc
Posts: 4831
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: John Humpheys

Postby irc » 5 Aug 2012, 11:47pm

theenglishman wrote:The very small minority that will object will use the same tired arguments that were used when compulsory motorbike helmet and then seatbelt wearing was put in place..


You mean the seat belt law that had no net affect on road fatalities? It was introduced in 1983. Immediately afterwards the downwards trend of the preceding years stopped. Can you show me where the lives saved by belts show up in this graph?

seatbelt.png
seatbelt.png (25.71 KiB) Viewed 755 times


http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/11/05/ ... -the-data/

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: John Humpheys

Postby Tonyf33 » 6 Aug 2012, 7:30am

irc wrote:
You mean the seat belt law that had no net affect on road fatalities? It was introduced in 1983. Immediately afterwards the downwards trend of the preceding years stopped.

Curse you and your damned statistics :lol: 8)

I think there can be a clear conclusion drawn from the many threads on all cycling fora. That is that cyclists who wear helmets are more likely to be involved in accidents, given the amount of times we hear them bleating about how it saved their lives etc I cannot possibly see how this isn't a true actual real life anecdotal fact :wink:

kwackers
Posts: 15459
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: John Humpheys

Postby kwackers » 6 Aug 2012, 9:27am

Tonyf33 wrote:That is that cyclists who wear helmets are more likely to be involved in accidents, given the amount of times we hear them bleating about how it saved their lives etc I cannot possibly see how this isn't a true actual real life anecdotal fact :wink:

I think that's unfair, I've had accidents whilst not wearing a helmet - I just didn't have a damaged helmet I could use to infer how much brain damage I'd have had...

Question:
Two identical people in the process of having identical accidents under identical conditions, with on exception. One has a head that's heavier and twice has big as the other.

Which one is more likely to hit their head?

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: John Humpheys

Postby Tonyf33 » 6 Aug 2012, 7:04pm

Your point closer to what I meant but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if cyclists with plaggy hats had more offs.
I've had a few big spills, two involving cars, one involving a trench in the road. Neither time did I hit my head though the trench one I would have done if I'd have been wearing a hat. I watched some footage of Cavendish causing a crash a few years back and of the 4 riders that came down 3 would not have banged their heads had it being for their helmets

Graham O
Posts: 641
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 7:54am

Re: John Humpheys

Postby Graham O » 6 Aug 2012, 8:25pm

I'm puzzled by these references to the size and weight of a helmet increasing the likelyhood of hitting tarmac with your helmet but not bareheaded. I understand the size (it's bigger so more likely to hit the ground) and weight arguements (heavier than a barehead and one's muscles are not in control of the extra weight), but to claim they increase the risk of hitting the ground implies that at the moment of flying bareheaded through the air, one has enough control to lift ones head to prevent it hitting the ground. I've come off twice due to cars and I went almost immediately from upright to staring at the sky. There was certainly no way I could control the crash.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10798
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: John Humpheys

Postby Cunobelin » 6 Aug 2012, 8:39pm

If a pedestrian is pootling along at 5mph and a lorry wing mirror, doing 40 mph, hits the back of the pedestrian's head what's the impact velocity?

If a jogger flies through the air and head buts the kerb after hitting a car that's pulled out in front of them when they're doing 10 mph what's the chance of a brain injury?

So for me I'm on the side of compulsory pedestrian helmets.