cycle helmet

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

niall24 wrote: »

We are NOt Paraniod parents all our children play in the mud when the garden floods and have fun, they are NOT wrapped in cotton wool or stopped from doing anything even if they end up getting dirty.
They also play out in the RAIN:eek:
When they used to fall over they where told to get up nothing broken. the son who had the accident has taken and passed the cycling
proficiency test.
As for the hi-viz and helmet like the police said it is not trendy.
Oh and our three year little girl wear's dress's and helps me when i fix a car or a bike and she love's getting dirty>!!!!!!
It is also a proven fact that the helmet saves lives and serious injury most times.

Oh my, you let them play out in the rain? And let them fall in mud? Wow!

I bet you don't let them wonder off on their own, with no warning where they're going, or what they're up to, for 8 hours—which was pretty much what I did as a kid. I'd walk for miles with my mate, wouldn't tell my parents what I was up to. All part of the fun. I investigated derelict mills, crawled across tips looking for magnets, climbed ropes down 50 foot escarpments, threw bricks at my mates, etc. I came home with broken fingers, split lips, split heads, ripped clothing. Bo11ocked constantly. I wouldn't change it for the world.

I also took a cycling proficiency test when I was a kid. Never wore a helmet though, and neither did any of my mates. We all recognised that if we fell off, it was our own bloody fault. We recognised risk for what it is.

Banning your child from something as positive and healthy as cycling just because he won't wear a silly vest and a helmet is positively daft. I wonder if you'll stop him from getting a car at 17–18. I know which is more risky.

biscuitdunker

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

I've been a cyclist for about 20 years. I probably average about 50 miles a week, during the summer up to 100 miles - and that's leisure only. I've been in collision with a few cars while cycling. Always their fault, always their lack of observation. In each instance the helmet wasn't touched.

Its a piece of polystyrene, designed for low-speed impacts. Banging your head on the road, perhaps. It won't protect anything when in direct collision with a car. In fact, there are studies which demonstrate that motorists tend to view cyclists wearing helmets as less vulnerable than those without, and consequently take less care around them.

This is one of the reasons why helmet wearing isn't compulsory. The health gains wearing them are completely outweighed by the health losses suffered by people who would be put off cycling.

Concentration, observation, anticipation, positioning - these are all things that are massively more important than a cycle helmet and a bright vest. Sadly, the OP's child is now being denied the ability to learn these lessons.

If you want to take such a huge risk, that's up to you. Unfortunately the law allows you to continue to act recklessly and we'll all have to pay your NHS bill if you ever have a serious head injury. My brother in law has to sort out the brains of people who take your view about cycle helmets. He's a cyclist too and he wears a helmet, probably because he's seen first hand what happens when people don't wear them.

sophieschoice

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

there are studies which demonstrate that motorists tend to view cyclists wearing helmets as less vulnerable than those without, and consequently take less care around them.

What about the motorists driving home tired at the end of the day and who aren't concentrating? The ones who've just had a row with their OH and are still in a mood? The drunk drivers? The idiots (usually boy racers) who think it's funny to either rev up, toot their horn or shout at you as they pass? Not forgetting the idiots on their mobile phones who don't even see cyclists.
We all know that in an argument with a lorry us cyclists will come off worse but falling off and cracking your head on the pavement whilst wearing a helmet could prevent serious injury.
I'm totally with Niall on this.
And I cycle daily through all the Seasons, in all weathers night and day.

BillScarab

Cycle helmets are incredibly ineffective. They are only desgined to protect against minor bumps and will provide no protection in a serious accident.

In no country where they have been made compulsary has there been a reduction in the percentage of cyclists suffering head injuries.

Have a read of this article if you want, from someone who makes his living testing helemts and researching them.

The pleace where they are of use are things like riding BMX or downhill Moutnain Biking where people tend to eare much stronger, heavier helmets.

One other point the following quote is taken from the site referenced above.

"When helmets fail, they do so catastrophically, rather than gradually, by breaking. The breaking of a helmet is not by itself evidence that it has provided useful protection to the wearer. It is common for cycle helmets to fail prematurely, before the polystyrene liner has been fully crushed. In this case, the protection experienced may have been minimal."

The Op's helmet would appear to have failed catastrophically so it probably did little or no good.

Personally I don't wear a helmet on the road as the chance of it doing any good are minimal. I do wear one if I'm riding off road where I'm more likely to fall off and have a minor bump that a helmet may help protect against.

EDIT: The graphs on this page make interesting reading

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

biscuitdunker wrote: »

If you want to take such a huge risk, that's up to you. Unfortunately the law allows you to continue to act recklessly and we'll all have to pay your NHS bill if you ever have a serious head injury. My brother in law has to sort out the brains of people who take your view about cycle helmets. He's a cyclist too and he wears a helmet, probably because he's seen first hand what happens when people don't wear them.

It isn't reckless behaviour, just as people who use motorcycles rather than cars aren't acting recklessly, or people who drive 20 year old cars rather than brand new cars aren't acting recklessly.

I wonder, does your friend wear body armour too? I bet not. Does he wear a full-face helmet? Extremely doubtful. Does he own a £200 front light, as I do? I'd be amazed if he did.

"Huge risk" - I'd take your view more seriously if you didn't pepper it with nonsense such as this.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

sophieschoice wrote: »

What about the motorists driving home tired at the end of the day and who aren't concentrating? The ones who've just had a row with their OH and are still in a mood? The drunk drivers? The idiots (usually boy racers) who think it's funny to either rev up, toot their horn or shout at you as they pass? Not forgetting the idiots on their mobile phones who don't even see cyclists.
We all know that in an argument with a lorry us cyclists will come off worse but falling off and cracking your head on the pavement whilst wearing a helmet could prevent serious injury.
I'm totally with Niall on this.
And I cycle daily through all the Seasons, in all weathers night and day.

You're not talking to some part-time cyclist here. I've been riding bikes since I was a child, and from the age of 16 began to take it seriously. The last bike I bought came with a price tag of nearly £2,000. I'm not someone who knows !!!! all about cycling.

Cycle helmets offer very little protection, and if you had any faith in your position you wouldn't be wearing a typical cycle helmet, you'd be wearing a full-face cycling helmet with full body armour - because that would offer far more protection than your shiny polystyrene fruit bowl.

sophieschoice

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

You're not talking to some part-time cyclist here. I've been riding bikes since I was a child, and from the age of 16 began to take it seriously. The last bike I bought came with a price tag of nearly £2,000. I'm not someone who knows !!!! all about cycling.

How long you've been cycling and how much your bike cost hasn't got anything to do with it!
We've already established that, in a major accident, cycle helmets won't protect you from major injury or fatality.
But in a minor collision, be it hitting a stone or being brushed too close by a motorist causing a wobble, there is less likelihood of a head injury whilst wearing a helmet.
I see cyclists most days and every weekend out on their racing bikes wearing lycra and, without exception, I've never seen one without a helmet.
All I'm interested in is minimising the risks so helmet, hi viz, lights, and whatever else it takes to make me more visible, go on every time I go out on my bike.
The only thing I haven't been able to find are goggles which fit over my specs and if/when I do I'll be wearing those as well.

biscuitdunker

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

It isn't reckless behaviour, just as people who use motorcycles rather than cars aren't acting recklessly, or people who drive 20 year old cars rather than brand new cars aren't acting recklessly.

It would be as reckless as riding a motorbike with no helmet, or a car with no seatbelt, IMO. But like I said, you have a choice not to protect your head from injury, go ahead and continue as you're doing, but don't expect responsible parents to listen to you.

I wonder, does your friend wear body armour too? I bet not. Does he wear a full-face helmet? Extremely doubtful. Does he own a £200 front light, as I do? I'd be amazed if he did.

As a brain surgeon, he is more concerned with protecting his brain than anything else, knowing much more about the fragility of the human brain than most people. So no, he doesn't wear body armour, or a full face helmet. If he has a major collision, he could well die, but if he has an accident which might ordinarily result in a bash to the head and perhaps a few broken bones, he has at least taken steps to protect his brain from injury.

"Huge risk" - I'd take your view more seriously if you didn't pepper it with nonsense such as this.

I don't care if you take my view seriously. I am only baffled by your attempts at convincing parents not to make their children wear helmets when they cycle.

GT60

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Oh my, you let them play out in the rain? And let them fall in mud? Wow!

I bet you don't let them wonder off on their own, with no warning where they're going, or what they're up to, for 8 hours—which was pretty much what I did as a kid. I'd walk for miles with my mate, wouldn't tell my parents what I was up to. All part of the fun. I investigated derelict mills, crawled across tips looking for magnets, climbed ropes down 50 foot escarpments, threw bricks at my mates, etc. I came home with broken fingers, split lips, split heads, ripped clothing. Bo11ocked constantly. I wouldn't change it for the world.

I also took a cycling proficiency test when I was a kid. Never wore a helmet though, and neither did any of my mates. We all recognised that if we fell off, it was our own bloody fault. We recognised risk for what it is.

Banning your child from something as positive and healthy as cycling just because he won't wear a silly vest and a helmet is positively daft. I wonder if you'll stop him from getting a car at 17–18. I know which is more risky.

Times have changed since the 1900's there is a lot more cars and idiots on the road and yes i used to do all the things you did and if you read my post you will see that my four kids ALSO do what you and i did when we where kids.
So dont give me the i wrap my kids in in cotton wool crap!
Niall

Chippy_Minton_2

biscuitdunker wrote: »

It would be as reckless as riding a motorbike with no helmet, or a car with no seatbelt, IMO.

In you opiniion maybe, but not in the eyes of the law.

If in the eyes of the law it is considered to be reckless, how come neither offences carry points on your licence. The fines are £30 and £60 hardly a penalty for recklessness.