58 replies to this topic

[Greatgenes]

I think it should be a personel choice, wearing a helmet does not affect the hazzard to traffic. the only person it should affect is YOU the cyclist.

what do you guys think? should you get fined for not wearing a helmet while riding your bike ?

[pabs123]

it's the same as wearing a seatbelt... its no hazard to traffic... but that's not a personal choice either. they're trying to prevent dangerous accidents from happening, and by enforcing both safety devices at the cost of a fine, they really help that cause...

[Greatgenes]

hmm i understand that point of view also. but if somebody is wanting to proceed without a seatbelt or proper head protection by all means i think we should let them...i think people should make the decision for themselves

Edited by Greatgenes, 17 July 2010 - 01:16 PM.

[AliceFi]

i never wear a helmet, but i only use my bike to go to the station which is 5min away - i usually don't have the time to put one on
however, my sister got hit 3x in 6 months when driving to school, but her univ is in a very lively city - i'd recommend her to wear one but she never does

i think ppl should decide for themselves to wear one or not- i think fines are a bit too much - but someone like my sister might just need to consider wearing one
the problem i think, is that those helmets are extra luggage, and that it's the main reason why ppl wont wear one

[bends1]

No, it shouldn't be a personal choice.

There are plenty of laws that are in effect solely as a protection of public safety, think drugs/ tobacco tax/ alcohol tax. Wearing a seatbelt or bike helmet is no different. If the government is going to be paying medicare and medicaid etc... it has a right to make laws with regards to personal health.

I'm a competitive cyclist and believe me there have been a few times when I've crashed going 30mph around a turn where I was very happy to have my helmet.

[Greatgenes]

.

There are plenty of laws that are in effect solely as a protection of public safety, think drugs/ tobacco tax/ alcohol tax. Wearing a seatbelt or bike helmet is no different. If the government is going to be paying medicare and medicaid etc... it has a right to make laws with regards to personal health.

sorry i should have put this in the debate forums

i suppose i just dont see it as *public safety* i see it as personel safety. and i dont think personel safety and personel health are the same at all. not to mention not everybody has medical. so what about those pple should this rule apply to them ? drugs and such fit into the personel health category yes but.riding your bike is a sport and most sports come with chance, weather or not you want to rock climb free or have somebody spot you, is your choice.
there is all differnt kinds of biking to bmx to mountain biking and every one of them is fineable without use of a proper helmet. i hope they dont fine me for not having an alram installed in my house next....

i dont know the specifics of the written law or government, this is just me blabbing my mind

Edited by Greatgenes, 17 July 2010 - 01:58 PM.

[pabs123]

but.riding your bike is a sport and most sports come with chance, weather or not you want to rock climb free or have somebody spot you, is your choice.
there is all differnt kinds of biking to bmx to mountain biking and every one of them is fineable without use of a proper helmet. i hope they dont fine me for not having an alram installed in my house next....

i dont know the specifics of the written law or government, this is just me blabbing my mind

many sports have rules regarding safety equipment, so that's no excuse... sure it's personal safety to you, but for the government it's public safety since YOU are not special to them... they want (ar pretend to want) what's best for society as a whole, and making one simple little law to help you not die from a fall which could otherwise be harmless isn't too much to ask for... so do you believe helmets at construction sites should be personal choice as well? why not make all helmets personal choice if we follow your ideals?

[Greatgenes]

okay since there are a few pple that say it shouldent be a personel choice i read up on it a lil. the following is all copy and pasted.i agree most with the part about while wearing a helmet you are more likely to hit your head if you do crash and they increase your crash chance due to minor vision obstruction.



How much are helmet laws justified?


This commentary assesses the evidence for each of the criteria that should be satisfied before a helmet law is introduced.


There must be clear evidence that cycling is especially dangerous, compared with other common activities
People who cycle regularly live longer and experience healthier lives than people who do not cycle . Cycling cannot therefore be more dangerous than other common activities. Data from France shows that cyclists are less likely to be killed than other road users In the UK and other countries, cycling is safer than walking . When the health benefits of cycling are taken into account, cycling is safer than any other mode.


There must be evidence that cycling is unusually productive of head injuries
The risk of head injury to children when cycling is only slightly greater than the average for all activities. The risk when walking is significantly higher than the average . In France, cyclists are less likely to suffer head injury than other road users . As cyclists live longer, on average, than non-cyclists, their risk of head injury cannot be exceptional.


The injuries that might be mitigated by a helmet must be of genuine concern
The great majority of head injuries are minor and have no lasting effect. As such, they are of no more concern than minor injuries of any kind.


There must be a high level of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets are effective in reducing the rate of injury to cyclists
Although small-scale case-control studies claim to demonstrate that helmets are effective in reducing head injuries, large population studies, based on more diverse data sources, show no such benefit. Furthermore most pro-helmet studies have been criticised for fundamental methodological errors. There is thus no net scientific consensus that cycle helmets are effective.


The benefits to society and others of mandatory helmets must be convincingly demonstrated
In societal terms, helmet laws means less cycling which leads to poorer public health. The costs to society of illnesses such as heart disease, which result in part from a more sedentary lifestyle, greatly outweigh the costs of the relatively few head injuries that cyclists sustain. The loss of choice in transport modes for people that do not wish to wear helmets is another disbenefit.


There must be widespread agreement that the potential benefits of compulsory cycle helmets outweigh the infringement of personal liberty and other disbenefits
When surveys have been undertaken, there has often been found to be a majority of the public in favour of helmet laws. However, this is against a background of information about helmets that is almost entirely one-sided and often exaggerated and emotional in its support for helmet wearing. Also, people are more often in favour of helmets for other people than for themselves. Public opinion must be better informed to be a valid instrument for decision making on such a controversial issue.


There must be good evidence to suggest that compulsory helmet wearing will not make the public health and safety benefits of increased levels of cycling harder to obtain
The overwhelming evidence is that enforced helmet laws lead to very much less cycling, particularly for utility journeys and amongst young people. This leads to a loss of health benefits for those who no longer cycle and to society as a whole.

Moreover, just as cycling becomes safer the more people who do it , so less cycling leads to reduced safety for those who continue to cycle. Helmet laws are equally bad for those who choose to wear a helmet without a law, since they can achieve no additional benefit but along with everyone else will be at greater risk in traffic due to erosion of the safety in numbers effect.


Where the same solution has been tried elsewhere, there must be unambiguous proof that it has worked
The survey of existing laws shows no case where there is good evidence that the rate of head injury has fallen relative to cycle use. In all cases where laws have been enforced, cycle use has declined, usually by more than the increase in helmet wearing.


There must be no evidence of harmful side-effects from helmet use, such as a greater likelihood of being involved in a crash or an increase in the severity of some types of injury
Many claims are made by helmet wearers that their helmet has 'saved their life'. The number of such instances seems well in excess of the number of head injuries suffered by bare-headed cyclists. More research is needed to clarify whether helmeted cyclists are more likely to crash, but there is already some evidence that helmeted riders are more likely to hit their heads if they do fall.

Edited by Greatgenes, 17 July 2010 - 03:20 PM.

[pabs123]

first off, head injury's on bikes are not always minor, its dependant on how and where the injury is sustained... secondly:


Where the same solution has been tried elsewhere, there must be unambiguous proof that it has worked
The survey of existing laws shows no case where there is good evidence that the rate of head injury has fallen relative to cycle use. In all cases where laws have been enforced, cycle use has declined, usually by more than the increase in helmet wearing.


if cycle use has declined then obviously accident rate has fallen and thus injury rate has fallen, NOT relative to cycle use however... flawed argument... most of these are very vague and/or biased

[Greatgenes]

so do you believe helmets at construction sites should be personal choice as well? why not make all helmets personal choice if we follow your ideals?

haha hard hats in a high or low risk construction zone is completely different on so many levels, perhaps you have never worked in construction. i see where pple are coming from when they say * your dumb if you dont wear a helmet* but everytime i hear it i stop and think why? i see more risks coming my way when i have a helmet on vs not wearing one and having the 1 risk of hitting my head if i crash.

personally i do not wear a helmet when i ride. i only ride for pleasure and i find helmets hot and uncomfortable, the chin strap drives me nuts and i hate the small area of obstructed vision.
i feel safer when im not wearing it.....i most deffinitly wear my seatbelt tho as i see being in a vehicle going 120mph down the highway slightly different.

oh yeah i forget to add, i do worry about my neck and back if i was to get into a collision, but sadly a helmet wont help me if anything i i feel it would increase my injury due to the increased volume of my head..lol but im no doctor i cant prove that

Edited by Greatgenes, 17 July 2010 - 03:41 PM.

[pabs123]

i mean in the end no once can force you to do anything and a lot of times i don't even wear my helmet... all i'm saying is that i agree with the law and i see why it's in place... i don't believe that it should be left 100% to the people that ride, and i'm sure the law stops a lot of people from going out for a ride unprotected. if it's ever saved one life, wasn't it worth it?

[Sweeney]

if anything i i feel it would increase my injury due to the increased volume of my head..lol but im no doctor i cant prove that

rofl

I'm very glad you're not a doctor.

[Greatgenes]

haha yeah, but who knows there is nowhere that says im wrong tee hee, if it could save 1 life would it be worth it? of course!! but if it would cause even 1 death, should it be legal ?

http://www.almightyd...at-saving-lives

[pabs123]

Helmets also cause uncoordinated people to do things on a bicycle that they would otherwise be too smart to attempt.

uncoordinated people shouldn't ride bikes first off, it's not the helmet's fault if the dumby tries to adjust his helmet and fails to control the bike causing him to run over a cat and hit an ice cream truck...


plus the rest of these stats are completely vague and show absolutely no correlation between helmet usage and accident/injury rate, for example :



1. Between 1991 and 2001 helmet usage increased to 69% among American children and 43% for adults. During that same period there was a decline in overall ridership but an increase in accidents, including a 51% increase in head injuries.




out of the 51% increase in head injury's, how many were directly related to the usage of helmets? how do we know that these people were in the 69%/43% that started using helmets as opposed to the 21%/57% that continued to ride helmet-less?

[luvsmyncis]

haha yeah, but who knows there is nowhere that says im wrong tee hee,  if it could save 1 life would it be worth it? of course!! but if it would cause even 1 death, should it be legal ?

So we should outlaw roller coasters, cars, lightening, and swimming? Those cause death all the time. Be reasonable and put a helmet on.

[Nonygirl]

Pfft, helmet laws and seat belt laws, pffftttt.

If a person wants to risk snuffing it, I say let them.

If they die, more oxygen for me!

[pabs123]

Pfft, helmet laws and seat belt laws, pffftttt.

If a person wants to risk snuffing it, I say let them.

If they die, more oxygen for me!

hmm interesting approach.. they should make a law that makes seatbelts and helmets ILLEGAL for everyone but me oxygen here i come!

[WakaWaka]

Pfft, helmet laws and seat belt laws, pffftttt.

If a person wants to risk snuffing it, I say let them.

If they die, more oxygen for me!

I agree with this.
however, if they survive and get crippled in the process they better not fucking get even 1 cent from the tax payers money because of their stupidity.

[Lychee]

Given that one of my friends would have had his brains smashed out a couple of times recently had he not been wearing a helmet, I think it should be mandatory. Aside from protecting the wearer, people don't wish to see brains whilst they're driving around town or whatever unless they're zombies.

[emerkeng]

it should be mandatory just as seatbelts are mandatory it saves people even if they believe they don't need the protection

[Greatgenes]

yeah i dunno, it seems alot of people think helmets are life savers beacuse thats what they have been taught throughout there lives, but you gotta ask if the idea of bicycle helmets being a hazzard was more talked about, would more pple lean that direction?. i understand they have saved hundreds f people from head injuries but what about the thousands that have died to neck and back injuries, i have a hard time believeing that helmets had no contribution, only beacuse i used to wear one. id rather a fast death anyways i think with smunched brains appose to a broken back or neck

[Lychee]

The New England Journal of Medicine disagrees with you:

"Doctors in Seattle studied nearly 1,000 people injured while riding bicycles. They found that the most severe head injuries occurred in young people, and that wearing a helmet makes a huge difference. Helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent and of brain injury by 88 percent.

So, get yourself a helmet before you start bicycling. A good quality helmet weighs less than half a pound. It should have a hard outer shell, at least a half inch of tough foam padding.

You can pick up a good-quality helmet for $20 to $80. Bike helmets look a bit funny and may seem inconvenient. On the other hand, they could save your life. In a serious fall, helmets can prevent severe head injuries and are very important to your health."

Note the weight specified: "less than half a pound". I seriously doubt that would be enough additional weight to make injuries elsewhere more likely. Since these guys are doctors, I think they have more weight in the argument than people arguing against helmets - which, according to Google, includes The Sun.

The Sun, for you outside of Britain, is about the trashiest paper in the country.

[Fallon]

Others may consider wearing a helmet a personal choice. What happens when one has that near fatal fall and is left in a vegetative state? The care and safe keeping of your vessel (body) then becomes the responsibility of another. If there is no one left to care for you long term (assuming you are young when the mishap takes place) then you become the responsibility of the state and government. It doesn't take much for this to become quite a problem if not considered carefully. Personally, I am very active and wear a helmet constantly. After all in the long run. I don't want anyone else wiping my butt for me because I can't move my arms. I have a ton of "biker buddies" and ride everything on two wheels and you would not believe the horror stories I could relate to you. So yeah, just wear the helmet and take responsibility for for yourself.

[pabs123]

id rather a fast death anyways i think with smunched brains appose to a broken back or neck

oh well if you're just trying to die fast by all means wear no helmet, but your hopes of quick death are no reason for the law to be changed for everyone else

[jcrdude]

I support natural selection. If you don't want to wear a helmet and it causes your own death, it's your fault.

Force the kids to wear them until 18. After that, it's their own choice.