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

Re: more

Postby KTM690 » 3 Feb 2011, 9:36pm

SilverBadge wrote:
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.



Read up on "Vision Zero"

It's a really daft idea thats fundamentally based on the goal of achieving zero fatalities on our roads. That's the standard their lobbying/advice is based on and our Govt' is signed up to it :roll:

Bear this in mind when organising your defence.

Also consider this.

Blaming motorists for cycle accidents is futile when you look at the history of road accidents.

There have always been accidents on our roads due to traffic.

There was "traffic" before the invention of motorcars in the form of horses and stagecoaches.

Footpaths were partly created to seperate pedestrians from horse and carriage as many were run down by galloping horses.

So even in the complete abscence of motorvehicles there have always been RTA's - Road Traffic Accidents.

Cyclists have been the focus of persecution for their percieved/real threat to pedestrians based on the historical seperation of users.

It used to be illegal to cycle on bridleways for this reason. As a legacy of this cyclists are required to give way to equestrians.

Tackling "vision Zero" will go a long way in deflecting the imposition of helmet law

Good Luck :D

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

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

Postby KTM690 » 3 Feb 2011, 9:38pm

Malaconotus wrote:
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.


Sleep well :lol:

northstar
Posts: 51
Joined: 21 May 2009, 6:55pm

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

Postby northstar » 4 Feb 2011, 1:09am

I pity this poor individual.

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

Re: more

Postby SilverBadge » 4 Feb 2011, 1:12am

KTM690 wrote:Read up on "Vision Zero"

It's a really daft idea thats fundamentally based on the goal of achieving zero fatalities on our roads. That's the standard their lobbying/advice is based on and our Govt' is signed up to it :roll:

Bear this in mind when organising your defence.
Never seen anything beyond the 30% reduction by 2020 or whatever (got any links?) but in the absence of fully autonomous vehicles it would require motorists / pedestrians to wear helmets too, which will discourage any imposition.

Blaming motorists for cycle accidents is futile when you look at the history of road accidents.
There have always been accidents on our roads due to traffic.
There was "traffic" before the invention of motorcars in the form of horses and stagecoaches.
Footpaths were partly created to seperate pedestrians from horse and carriage as many were run down by galloping horses.
So even in the complete abscence of motorvehicles there have always been RTA's - Road Traffic Accidents.


But in the absence of badly driven motorvehicles there would be 70% fewer cyclist casualties. If motor vehicles were driven only as badly as bicycles are ridden, cyclist casualties would still be halved from current levels.

Cyclists have been the focus of persecution for their percieved/real threat to pedestrians based on the historical seperation of users.
Best to do something abot the lens then.

SilverBadge wrote:
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.


You still haven't managed to rank (a) to (d) yet, and your list of permitted specific activities for which humans will be legally permitted to remove a helmet (to EN1078 spec) from their heads currently totals zero. Is that your final answer?

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9558
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

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

Postby Cunobelin » 4 Feb 2011, 6:54am

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


Surely as an HCP you are going to give the evidence based reasons why you are avoiding the question of the Thudguard?

Given that it fulfils all the criteria in your post, do you support their use or not given the far higher incidence of head injury admissions in this group?

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

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

Postby MartinC » 4 Feb 2011, 9:53am

KTM690 wrote:So when this legislation is introduced - and there's strong indication it will be.


I think we've all missed this. What are these strong indications? As I understand it the 2 main parties in NI aren't in favour of this legislation so the current indications don't seem to be as you say.

I assume you're not just making this up so please can you let us know what this "strong indication" is.

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

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

Postby Nutsey » 4 Feb 2011, 10:31am

Dude, he's a motorcyclist winding up some cyclists about a topic he knows to be sensitive and topical.

he's good though. got fake facts and everything :mrgreen:

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

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

Postby MartinC » 4 Feb 2011, 10:56am

Nutsey wrote:Dude, he's a motorcyclist winding up some cyclists about a topic he knows to be sensitive and topical.

he's good though. got fake facts and everything :mrgreen:


Sssssshhhhhh.

crazydavid
Posts: 45
Joined: 17 Nov 2009, 5:55am

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

Postby crazydavid » 4 Feb 2011, 3:22pm

I went to A&E a few weeks ago because I fell off riding the bike whilst through the woods in the dark. I gashed my arm quite badly. First thing the doctor asked me was "were you wearing a helmet". I replied "yes, but it was on my head and not my arm". He wasn't impressed.

If you don't wear a helmet, you can't wear a helmet cam :lol: Just a thought, does anyone make a helmet with a camera built in?

kwackers
Posts: 13841
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

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

Postby kwackers » 4 Feb 2011, 3:26pm

crazydavid wrote:Just a thought, does anyone make a helmet with a camera built in?

Haven't seen one, but lets be honest. How hard would it be to push a camera into a bit of polystyrene? :wink:

crazydavid
Posts: 45
Joined: 17 Nov 2009, 5:55am

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

Postby crazydavid » 4 Feb 2011, 3:33pm

If it was properly designed into the helmet, there might be less risk of it breaking your skull if you were unfortunate to have a big impact. If you just stick a camera on the outside, you are compromising the strength of the helmet if you hit something (or more likely, if something hits you).

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

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

Postby KTM690 » 4 Feb 2011, 5:51pm

crazydavid wrote:I went to A&E a few weeks ago because I fell off riding the bike whilst through the woods in the dark. I gashed my arm quite badly. First thing the doctor asked me was "were you wearing a helmet". I replied "yes, but it was on my head and not my arm". He wasn't impressed.

If you don't wear a helmet, you can't wear a helmet cam :lol: Just a thought, does anyone make a helmet with a camera built in?


Yes......Robocop had one

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

Re: more

Postby KTM690 » 4 Feb 2011, 6:11pm

SilverBadge wrote:
KTM690 wrote:Read up on "Vision Zero"

It's a really daft idea thats fundamentally based on the goal of achieving zero fatalities on our roads. That's the standard their lobbying/advice is based on and our Govt' is signed up to it :roll:

Bear this in mind when organising your defence.
Never seen anything beyond the 30% reduction by 2020 or whatever (got any links?) but in the absence of fully autonomous vehicles it would require motorists / pedestrians to wear helmets too, which will discourage any imposition.

Blaming motorists for cycle accidents is futile when you look at the history of road accidents.
There have always been accidents on our roads due to traffic.
There was "traffic" before the invention of motorcars in the form of horses and stagecoaches.
Footpaths were partly created to seperate pedestrians from horse and carriage as many were run down by galloping horses.
So even in the complete abscence of motorvehicles there have always been RTA's - Road Traffic Accidents.


But in the absence of badly driven motorvehicles there would be 70% fewer cyclist casualties. If motor vehicles were driven only as badly as bicycles are ridden, cyclist casualties would still be halved from current levels.

Cyclists have been the focus of persecution for their percieved/real threat to pedestrians based on the historical seperation of users.
Best to do something abot the lens then.

SilverBadge wrote:
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.


You still haven't managed to rank (a) to (d) yet, and your list of permitted specific activities for which humans will be legally permitted to remove a helmet (to EN1078 spec) from their heads currently totals zero. Is that your final answer?



Depends who the fatalities were and, if these options are directed purely at road users, how much duty per mile they pay.

I'd be interested to know how much these figures are for duty per mile as I suspect cyclists might not rank the lowest. Consider all the VAT you pay on the bicycles plus cycling gear and consumables. Plus most cyclists hardly do any mileage - pottering round the park etc. If your taking road to include the pavement pedestrians are probably at the bottom - just as well they're accomodated away from the higher taxpaying traffic.

a cyclist wearing a helmet does have a larger sillouette making them easier to spot and motor around - hi viz helps too. I'm sure you've selective "evidence" to prove otherwise. Having cyclists wear helmets and high viz does make there presence on the road less of an inconvenience for motorists though. Being able to spot a cyclist from further away means I have ample time to pick the right line around them meaning I can overtake faster.

Anyway I really can't see what all the drama is about - hardly any cyclists out this rush hour anyway. No where near enough to justify any changes in law or the network. Amazing what winter and a fresh breeze does for cycling numbers.

As there's no significant volume of winter cyclists maybe you should lobby for a seasonal compromise that only requires helmet use in summer when the majority of cyclists are active - pottering around the park.

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

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

Postby MartinC » 4 Feb 2011, 6:27pm

MartinC wrote:
KTM690 wrote:So when this legislation is introduced - and there's strong indication it will be.


I think we've all missed this. What are these strong indications? As I understand it the 2 main parties in NI aren't in favour of this legislation so the current indications don't seem to be as you say.

I assume you're not just making this up so please can you let us know what this "strong indication" is.


KTM690, you seem to have missed answering this.

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

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

Postby KTM690 » 4 Feb 2011, 6:35pm

MartinC wrote:
MartinC wrote:
KTM690 wrote:So when this legislation is introduced - and there's strong indication it will be.


I think we've all missed this. What are these strong indications? As I understand it the 2 main parties in NI aren't in favour of this legislation so the current indications don't seem to be as you say.

I assume you're not just making this up so please can you let us know what this "strong indication" is.


KTM690, you seem to have missed answering this.


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

I read elswhere on the forum that ? 84% of the public in favor.

The other strong indication, from my own observation, is that the majority of cyclists I see wear helmets already. Can't remember the last time I saw a child without one.

Seems cyclists are voting with their own heads so to speak.

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

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