> > First, I wonder how many thousand times it has to be repeated that being against compulsory
> > helmet use is *not* the same thing as saying they shouldn't be worn. On the evidence often
> > posted in this group, at least several thousand, it would seem :-( Second, people have been
> > riding around woods and velodromes on bikes for *decades* without helmets, and neither was
> > known as a bad area of skull- smashing carnage.
>
>
> 1. While you might not be suggesting that helmets are worn, by stating that helmets offer little
> protection, etc. you are discouraging their use. Surely helmet use should be encouraged (even
> if its not made compulsary)? If you are not saying that helmets shouldn't be worn and are
> saying that helmet use shouldn't be compulsary (i.e. should be worn); what are you saying???
Assuming he's saying what the majority of the anti-compulsion people on this ng are saying, cycling
is really very safe. Relative to other means of getting about it's still VERY safe - walking is a
lot more dangerous. We quite rightly wonder why people are proposing mandatory helmet laws to
protect us from scrapes, bruises, concussion etc when cycling to the shops is a heck of a lot safer
than walking to the shops.
I've also touched on the inability of the cycle helmet to save people from death. It's just not
designed for dealing with the types of forces generated in impacts likely to cause death or really
serious injury. This is never mentioned by those campaigning to force people to wear them - they
promote it as a means to save lives, something it absolutely cannot be relied upon to do. Given the
safety of cycling and the relative crapness of helmets to save people from death or mental
impairment etc there is no /should/ for wearing a helmet in normal AtoB bicycle riding.
Basically, the anti-compulsion people believe one shouldn't lie about the effectiveness of helmets
to make more people wear them. Nor should people mislead about the safety of riding a bike. Instead
people should be told what cycle helmets can do, be told how safe/dangerous cycling is and then
they will decide for themselves. What we've got at the moment is BHIT promoting popping down to the
shops as some kind of extreme sport, lying to parliament (and everyone else) and implying that
helmets /will/ save your life /when/ you crash. In reality they /will/ save you from minor injury
to the top of your head, probably will save you from concussion etc, /may/ save you from something
more seious, and /almost certainly won't/ save us from death or mental disability or whatever it
called. But this is exactly what the compulsion lobby (and they do deserve the term lobby) claim
and promote. It's a lie.
So in summary, he's probably saying that cycling isn't so dangerous as to need protective
equipment, but if you want to wear one it'll do a great job at protecting your bonce to a certain
level in a fall.
> 2. While woods, BMX tracks, velodromes, etc. are not the scene of skull- smashing carnage (I
> didn't suggest that someone else did) they are scenes where occasional serious injury occurs
> (including deaths) in *real* cyclists and non cyclists. As such why wouldn't we encourage
> helmet use if it makes these environments safer? Why shouldn't it be compulsary?
Easy one this - no reason why we shouldn't promote helmets as being something that's a good idea.
Reason why we shouldn't make 'em compulsory is that it's not dangerous enough to make it a
reasonable thing to do, and helmets are not protective enough to make them a reasonable solution.
> I don't know what magazines you have been reading, but the nature of cycling has changes very much
> in the last few *decades*. BMXer's acheive huge heights off jumps, tracks/riders are faster,
> riding in woods now means *downhill* or *dirt* riding, there have even been deaths in TT's this
> year, average speeds have increased, more cars on roads (in towns and country), etc.
But in spite of all that deaths are at their lowest levels well, ever? I think the solution to the
more risky forms of cycling can be dealt with by people realising that the activity is risky and
taking steps to reduce it. Still worth remembering that bicycle helmets aren't really protective
enough to be the ideal solution - AFAIK downhillers often wear helmets that are a lot more
protective.
Pro-compulsion people generally think that cycling is more dangerous and helmets more protective
than they really are. Once they find out a bit more they generally shift to the 'wear it if you like
- I do' view. It is interesting to note that most of the rabid anti-compulsion people on this ng
seem to wear cycling helmets at least some of the time. I think there're only one or two people that
are of the Absolutely Do Not and Never Would point of view. Fortunately they have more integrity
than BHIT so don't peddle in lies and misinformation to promote their personal point of view.
Hope that's clarified the general anti-compulsion point of view. Hopefully we can get another huge
helmet thread started and then I won't have to get on with writing my essay. Actually, I'm not sure
which is worse...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (
http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.601 / Virus Database: 382 - Release Date: 29/02/2004
