Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?
Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?
I think we're safe from EU legislation mandating helmets. The prospect of the Dutch being required to wear helmets could start a revolution. Luckily much of Europe still has enough of an everyday cycling culture to ensure a lot of voting power for cyclists and very low levels of helmet wearing. Most of the worrying precedents are from our fellow Anglophone countries: Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada, Jersey (2014), Northern Ireland (proposal defeated). Ironically most of these countries (Jersey excluded) have much higher cycle casualty rates than much of Europe despite their high rates of helmet wearing but obviously they know best
-
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm
Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?
Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?
Table 5 Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accid Anal Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf provides risk details, 2.2 HI admissions per million hours.
If a person cycles say 300 km per yr at 15 km /hr, 20 hours per year - for 50 yrs - 1000 hrs. say 1000 people do the same, 1 million hours, 2.2 admissions may occur on average, one per 454 people who have cycled for 50 yrs each. so for the average assumed typical person would have a 0.2% chance of admission for a head injury in a life time of cycling.
The risk level is fairly low and to wear them means buying, fitting, carrying, and incurring a higher accident rate, 14% per km according to;
Erke A, Elvik R, Making Vision Zero real: Preventing Pedestrian Accidents And Making Them Less Severe, Oslo June 2007. page 28
https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikas ... 8-nett.pdf
A person may fall off their bike, say on average every 6 years, in 50years, 8 falls say, with a helmet this may be 9 falls.
The risk to benefit ratio is negative, may be one reply. For a typical cyclist, helmet use is more likely to lead to an accident than prevent them from incurring a hospital admission for head injury, lifetimes risk 1.0 extra fall, lifetimes advantage possibly 0.2%, ratio 500 to 1 in favour of not wearing one. Over to the stats experts to show another view?
http://yorkshiretimes.co.uk/article/A-C ... -Harmful-3
Table 5 Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accid Anal Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf provides risk details, 2.2 HI admissions per million hours.
If a person cycles say 300 km per yr at 15 km /hr, 20 hours per year - for 50 yrs - 1000 hrs. say 1000 people do the same, 1 million hours, 2.2 admissions may occur on average, one per 454 people who have cycled for 50 yrs each. so for the average assumed typical person would have a 0.2% chance of admission for a head injury in a life time of cycling.
The risk level is fairly low and to wear them means buying, fitting, carrying, and incurring a higher accident rate, 14% per km according to;
Erke A, Elvik R, Making Vision Zero real: Preventing Pedestrian Accidents And Making Them Less Severe, Oslo June 2007. page 28
https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikas ... 8-nett.pdf
A person may fall off their bike, say on average every 6 years, in 50years, 8 falls say, with a helmet this may be 9 falls.
The risk to benefit ratio is negative, may be one reply. For a typical cyclist, helmet use is more likely to lead to an accident than prevent them from incurring a hospital admission for head injury, lifetimes risk 1.0 extra fall, lifetimes advantage possibly 0.2%, ratio 500 to 1 in favour of not wearing one. Over to the stats experts to show another view?
http://yorkshiretimes.co.uk/article/A-C ... -Harmful-3
Last edited by Steady rider on 23 Sep 2014, 7:34am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?
Lance Dopestrong wrote:That said, there is one risk that it might, and that's the unelected EU lawmakers. [...] These lawmakers are unelected and unaccountable. They're the Agent Smith of legislation.
Please, learn about Europe before you criticise it. There are three major groups involved in its lawmaking: 1. MEPs, directly elected; 2. the council of ministers, elected by their national governments according to their own electoral systems; 3. the commission, elected by the council, supposedly with regard to the last MEP election results. All of these parts are elected, although the commission is elected by the council who are elected by the national governments who are elected by the people, which has several steps of indirection.
So you see it's particularly rich when national governments rant about laws "forced" on us by the EU because they elect two of the three major lawmaking parts! With nations like the Netherlands and Denmark involved, it would be pretty bizarre if they try to make a helmet law.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
- Lance Dopestrong
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 1:52pm
- Location: Duddington, in the belly button of England
Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?
The Commisions are unelected by the public, there is no public accountability for either their appointment or their actions.
The public can not vote to appoint them, and can not remove them by voting for someone else. They are unelected, and by any sensible definition of the term are undemocratic.
Have a good read of Annex VI of the EU Parliament rules and procedures.
And then there's one more very big, extremely powerful body, unelected by the public, with an appointed membership that also have the power to create legislation, who are answerable to no one whatsoever, elected or otherwise. No clues, have a think. If you're going to knock people for not knowing about Europe you should also learn about it yourself.
The public can not vote to appoint them, and can not remove them by voting for someone else. They are unelected, and by any sensible definition of the term are undemocratic.
Have a good read of Annex VI of the EU Parliament rules and procedures.
And then there's one more very big, extremely powerful body, unelected by the public, with an appointed membership that also have the power to create legislation, who are answerable to no one whatsoever, elected or otherwise. No clues, have a think. If you're going to knock people for not knowing about Europe you should also learn about it yourself.
MIAS L5.1 instructor - advanded road and off road skills, FAST aid and casualty care, defensive tactics, SAR skills, nav, group riding, maintenance, ride and group leader qual'd.
Cytec 2 - exponent of hammer applied brute force.
Cytec 2 - exponent of hammer applied brute force.
Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?
Replace "commission" with "council" and what's written is still true, as we don't have recall in many countries and we only elect the MPs who elect the PM who appoints them. All we can do is wait. Does that make Cameron's government undemocratic, too?
I think you're probably ranting about the court, another favourite target of Europhobes, but that's more a function of our case law system compared to the code law system of most other European countries. The European court mainly takes cases referred to it by our courts. The European judges don't legislate directly but our odd system turns it into almost as good as legislation once they get the ruling back.
That's even less likely to create a helmet law, isn't it?
I think you're probably ranting about the court, another favourite target of Europhobes, but that's more a function of our case law system compared to the code law system of most other European countries. The European court mainly takes cases referred to it by our courts. The European judges don't legislate directly but our odd system turns it into almost as good as legislation once they get the ruling back.
That's even less likely to create a helmet law, isn't it?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?
mjr wrote:That's even less likely to create a helmet law, isn't it?
You're going and letting facts get in the way of a good rant, aren't you. No fun
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?
Nice to see Chris Boardman on the BBC this morning on a pre-recorded feature on the difficulties faced by cyclists and nice to see him not wearing a helmet on a five-mile urban commute because he doesn't feel it necessary.
Cycling UK Life Member
PBP Ancien (2007)
PBP Ancien (2007)
Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?
Spinners wrote:Nice to see Chris Boardman on the BBC this morning on a pre-recorded feature on the difficulties faced by cyclists and nice to see him not wearing a helmet on a five-mile urban commute because he doesn't feel it necessary.
From 6:21 onwards.
And annoyingly the presenters meekly state about how Louise Minchin WAS wearing a helmet but Chris wasn't..presuming to avoid the usual idiots from contacting the BBC
She stated she was a regular/keen cyclist but those gloves, jacket and helmet all looked harry spankers
Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?
Tonyf33 wrote:Spinners wrote:Nice to see Chris Boardman on the BBC this morning on a pre-recorded feature on the difficulties faced by cyclists and nice to see him not wearing a helmet on a five-mile urban commute because he doesn't feel it necessary.
From 6:21 onwards.
And annoyingly the presenters meekly state about how Louise Minchin WAS wearing a helmet but Chris wasn't..presuming to avoid the usual idiots from contacting the BBC
She stated she was a regular/keen cyclist but those gloves, jacket and helmet all looked harry spankers
You should look at the Breakfast Facebook page. Pretty much only thing that is being shouted about is the no helmet, no hi-viz. Nothing about the substance. Sad truth is that for this he probably should have dolled himself up as the message is being drowned probably by the idiots who'll squeeze you when overtaking.
"Marriage is a wonderful invention; but then again so is the bicycle puncture repair kit." - Billy Connolly
-
- Posts: 268
- Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 5:38pm
Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?
fatboy wrote:You should look at the Breakfast Facebook page. Pretty much only thing that is being shouted about is the no helmet, no hi-viz. Nothing about the substance. Sad truth is that for this he probably should have dolled himself up as the message is being drowned probably by the idiots who'll squeeze you when overtaking.
Isn't it astonishing that the message is being missed by people who would rather criticise his (entirely legal) choices than listen to the argument about riding?
(I do wonder if the 'helmet' topic will be addressed later in the week?)
-
- Posts: 268
- Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 5:38pm
Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?
Thermostat9 wrote:I do wonder if the 'helmet' topic will be addressed later in the week?
They have addressed it already!
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=974497519231053
Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?
Thermostat9 wrote:Thermostat9 wrote:I do wonder if the 'helmet' topic will be addressed later in the week?
They have addressed it already!
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=974497519231053
Hasn't helped much judging by the verbiage on Facebook! The helmet lobby are definitely winning aren't they?
I am usually an helmet wearer but not exclusively. I see no clear evidence that helmets make any difference however they are good for protecting from irrational "safety advice"! I think that I get passed closer when not wearing a helmet (as if to say " you aren't being "safe" so I won't!) but am not certain.
"Marriage is a wonderful invention; but then again so is the bicycle puncture repair kit." - Billy Connolly
-
- Posts: 268
- Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 5:38pm
Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?
fatboy wrote:Hasn't helped much judging by the verbiage on Facebook! The helmet lobby are definitely winning aren't they?
The stupids are out in force as usual.
fatboy wrote:I am usually an helmet wearer but not exclusively. I see no clear evidence that helmets make any difference however they are good for protecting from irrational "safety advice"! I think that I get passed closer when not wearing a helmet (as if to say " you aren't being "safe" so I won't!) but am not certain.
I don't know because, at the age of 53, I have never owned or worn a bicycle helmet. Ever.
-
- Posts: 1666
- Joined: 17 Jan 2011, 1:07pm
Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?
I know this is a random straw poll but here are two photos from risk-averse Japan, they seem to see walking as far more hazardous than cycling and don helmets accordingly:
https://www.travelblog.org/Photos/1221986
http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... n-has.html
https://www.travelblog.org/Photos/1221986
http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... n-has.html
-
- Posts: 919
- Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 12:16pm
- Location: Deepest Somerset
Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?
Anyone know where I can find this interview? Can see his comments on riding, but, programme not on Iplayer for 'rights reasons'! Would like to see it as I'm amazed at the amount of abuse on Facebook
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity