I left that one all night to think about it but I still don't see how helmet compulsion can be acceptable.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
No helmet = contributory negligence
(131 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
"but I still don't see how helmet compulsion can be acceptable."
Presume that's in response to my -
"Helmet compulsion might be acceptable as a tiny element in a masive programme of harm/danger reduction aimed at ALL road users. But..."
IF roads were 'safe' due to some infrastructure changes and massive change of attitudes by motor vehicle users, there would be less of case for helmets, unless it was to reduce the chance of injuries in random falling off cases.
In this new world of reduced risk, presumably pedestrians would accept compulsory helmets too(?)
Posted 13 years ago # -
Even if worn for random falling cases it would mean the government mandating something which could increase serious injury. There is even a causal link.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"IF roads were 'safe' due to some infrastructure changes and massive change of attitudes by motor vehicle users, there would be less of case for helmets, unless it was to reduce the chance of injuries in random falling off cases. "
But this is where it would make most sense. The vast majority of bike incidents are single vehicle (i.e. "random falling off"), including the vast majority (90%, I read somewhere) of hospitalisations.
Vehicle 'interactions' account for a large proportion of deaths, of course, as you might expect. But against the impact of a vehicle bike helmets as we know them do very little good. The most recent study by the government's Transport Research Laboratory suggested they would be effective in 10-15% of fatal head injuries. When you consider that half of all deceased cyclists have fatal non-head injuries anyway, that means a real-terms decrease of 5-7.5%, which isn't much to shout about.
On the other hand, helmets probably are quite effective at preventing the usual cuts and bruises from 'single occupancy' crashes, so if the roads became "safe" vehicle wise, then might be the most sensible case for introducing helmets.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"No one's arguing that it wouldn't or that mandating helmets for cyclists would be the best way to reduce road injuries. No one's even arguing for mandatory helmets."
Hmm. Obviously we live in a different country. There are endless examples of the march towards compulsion here (we're discussing one now - if we get to the stage where no compensation is given to a cyclist in ordinary clothes after they're hit by a car, then that is de-facto compulsion although using a different sanction to the police notice you'd get with a traditional law).
"No one's arguing that helmets would prevent all or most or even many injuries. I've already described Snell rated helmets as a shoddy compromise that give an unjustified sense of security."
Au contraire - chances are your local bike shop, like mine, will tell you that helmets prevent 85% of all head injuries. Look at any of the judgements following the deaths of cyclists hit by cars. Whether or not they wore a helmet, and despite evidence that it would have done do good either way, there is always an admonition that all cyclists should always wear one from the bench.
"There is no campaign to impose helmets on everyone else so a campaign against them is quixotic.
http://www.wrongheaded.org.uk for instance, seems to be opposing a specific campaign of imposition?
Posted 13 years ago # -
No one here Dave. On this forum. Perhaps I should have been more specific. Maybe you think you're addressing an audience wider than this little corner of the internet. My point is that you're arguing against points that no one in this discussion has made.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I just had a look at that link Dave. I suppose you know where they're getting all their references from? They're quoting (misquoting?) word perfect from bicyclehelmets.org and linking back to it. You really can't complain about the 85% being repeated when the opposition camp are repeating their own versions of the same lies.
Posted 13 years ago # -
proof!
helmets are stopping people riding ;)
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mans-bike-WA7-/130574600334?pt=UK_Bikes_GL&hash=item1e66da488e
Posted 13 years ago # -
"No one here Dave. On this forum. Perhaps I should have been more specific."
I wasn't aware that it was necessary for someone on the forum to personally champion a position before the rest of us could express a view on it :D
"You really can't complain about the 85% being repeated when the opposition camp are repeating their own versions of the same lies."I don't know - I find your criticism of the BHRF to be just a little less convincing than their criticism of "helmet establishment" - although I suppose that's no surprise in a little corner of the internet.
Perhaps we can argue about whether it's lying to extract only the statistics on child bike use from a paper to make claims about child bike use another time... for now, I think this has just about run its course.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Perhaps we can argue about whether it's lying to extract only the statistics on child bike use from a paper to make claims about child bike use another time... for now, I think this has just about run its course.
Yes, let's. I enjoyed that.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"How badly fitted car seats threaten child safety"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/sep/18/children-using-car-seats-at-risk
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
