Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Complaints corner  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 14.08.2012, 12:03
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

Quote:
Do you? It seemed correct, in that he was pointing out that the quoted text was written as intended, highlighting your own grammatical error.
Quote:
View Post
I think it means 'sic erat scriptum' ('thus was it written'). You could make the case that by strict publishing convention I should have placed it after the 'total' rather than the whole quote. But still, at least I haven't confused a noun with an adverb yet. (Thus indeed was it written).
Well done, you've got it. My colloquialism was indeed incorrect, but 'sic' should have followed 'total'. Congratz for being the bigger man, admitting you were wrong, and looking up the correct definition and usage.

Unfortunately you are a fundamentalist. You will not listen to reason nor provide any coherent statistics.

Racing drivers wear helmets as they have little or no other head protection. They also go far faster than the regular car driver and have accidents far more frequently, so yes, it makes sense to wear a helmet in an F1 / Rally car.

Wearing a helmet in a road car (which has airbags, headrests etc) would serve very little purpose. You putting a finger in the air and talking about orders of magnitude is a very poor argument, as you well know.

There is no change in my position, if you go cycling without a helmet, and get a head injury that would have been prevented or lessened by having something to cushion the impact on your head, it is your fault, you chose not to wear it.

That doesn't absolve the cyclist/biker/driver that may have run into you if they were at fault, but the fact that you are now quadraspazzed on a life-glug, rather than suffering from a headache is your fault.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank for this useful post:
The following 2 users groan at for this post:
  #122  
Old 14.08.2012, 12:57
Newbie 1st class
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
Richard Burton has no particular reputation at present
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

Quote:
Wearing a helmet in a road car (which has airbags, headrests etc) would serve very little purpose. You putting a finger in the air and talking about orders of magnitude is a very poor argument, as you well know.

There is no change in my position, if you go cycling without a helmet, and get a head injury that would have been prevented or lessened by having something to cushion the impact on your head, it is your fault, you chose not to wear it.
I'm afraid I don't follow your logic.

Wearing a helmet on a bicycle serves very little purpose, and all reliable data shows that at best they have no effect on the risks of cycling, so if you oppose helmets for drivers, you cannot be in favour of them for cyclists, unless you're anti-cyclist?

The second point is equally lacking. If you go driving and sustain a head injury which could have been prevented by a helmet, it must likewise be your fault. Same goes for pedestrians.

Your logic appears reasonable, except that you only want to apply it to cyclists, not other people who would also benefit from helmets.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 14.08.2012, 13:02
Chemmie's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Zurich
Posts: 4,144
Groaned at 33 Times in 29 Posts
Thanked 4,951 Times in 2,233 Posts
Chemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

Quote:
View Post
I'm afraid I don't follow your logic.

Wearing a helmet on a bicycle serves very little purpose, and all reliable data shows that at best they have no effect on the risks of cycling, so if you oppose helmets for drivers, you cannot be in favour of them for cyclists, unless you're anti-cyclist?

The second point is equally lacking. If you go driving and sustain a head injury which could have been prevented by a helmet, it must likewise be your fault. Same goes for pedestrians.

Your logic appears reasonable, except that you only want to apply it to cyclists, not other people who would also benefit from helmets.

The bold was obviously a ridiculous statement, I hope that was just to emphasize a point.

You are correct about helmet's not affecting the risks or cycling, one must be very disillusioned to believe that wearing a helmet changes the risks of riding a bike. They do drastically reduce the risk of severe head injury or death in the case one's head is stuck when cycling, there's no debating that.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Chemmie for this useful post:
  #124  
Old 14.08.2012, 13:09
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

There are many cases where a helmet really can help surely. My neighbour is a very keen cyclist, and last year he fell badly as a car came to close to him. He smashed his helmet on the edge of the granit pavement- and apart from a few bruises he was fine. His head would have smashed instead of the helmet. Know so many similar cases.

Helmets should be compulsory for children, imho. And as said above, if an adult chooses not to wear one, and it should be their choice, perhaps- it should be taken into consideration if severe injury is sustained- as for not wearing a seat belt.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #125  
Old 14.08.2012, 13:16
NotAllThere's Avatar
Modulo 2
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Baselland
Posts: 14,500
Groaned at 280 Times in 239 Posts
Thanked 21,736 Times in 8,817 Posts
NotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

Cyclists are more likely to fall than car drivers or pedestrians (except very drunk ones). Cyclists are therefore more likely to sustain a head injury through falling.

Your comparison with car drivers and pedestrians is nonsensical.

You may enjoy this thread on a UK forum: http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...-cyclists.html
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank NotAllThere for this useful post:
  #126  
Old 14.08.2012, 13:37
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

Quote:
View Post
Cyclists are more likely to fall than car drivers or pedestrians (except very drunk ones).
Really? Where do you get those figures from?

Sounds like another 'common sense' thing to me. I know I've not fallen off a bike for many many years (and yes, I do cycle regularly).

Actually, I'm pretty sure I can remember the last time I did, it was in 1998 when leaving the office in Bedford for my 20 mile ride home to MK. Loadsa blood (shin/pedal interface) but no real damage. I've tripped over on the street or walking in mountains on several occasions since then.

Sample size of one, I know...
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 14.08.2012, 13:40
NotAllThere's Avatar
Modulo 2
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Baselland
Posts: 14,500
Groaned at 280 Times in 239 Posts
Thanked 21,736 Times in 8,817 Posts
NotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond reputeNotAllThere has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

Quote:
Really? Where do you get those figures from?...
From the same place as any other figures on the internet of course. (Research is left to the reader ).

It's a matter of vulnerability. Cyclists are more vulnerable than car drivers or pedestrians. The former are protected by airbags and a metal cage. The latter don't share space with cars and other vehicles.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank NotAllThere for this useful post:
  #128  
Old 14.08.2012, 13:50
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

Quote:
There are many cases where a helmet really can help surely. My neighbour is a very keen cyclist, and last year he fell badly as a car came to close to him. He smashed his helmet on the edge of the granit pavement- and apart from a few bruises he was fine. His head would have smashed instead of the helmet. Know so many similar cases.
Sadly your use of 'surely' indicates that even while you assert the point you can't be certain. And your neighbour cannot be certain that his head 'would have been smashed'.

I did quote the example earlier of my brother who suffered broken (compressed) cervical vertebrae through wearing a helmet - if he hadn't had one on he'd have banged his head, for sure (he went head over) but in all likelihood would have been less badly injured. I would never use that real example to suggest that people should not wear helmets, but just to show that anecdotal evidence can work the other way too.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 14.08.2012, 14:04
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

Quote:
Sadly your use of 'surely' indicates that even while you assert the point you can't be certain. And your neighbour cannot be certain that his head 'would have been smashed'.

I did quote the example earlier of my brother who suffered broken (compressed) cervical vertebrae through wearing a helmet - if he hadn't had one on he'd have banged his head, for sure (he went head over) but in all likelihood would have been less badly injured. I would never use that real example to suggest that people should not wear helmets, but just to show that anecdotal evidence can work the other way too.
Are you suggesting there aren't cases where a helmet can help?
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 14.08.2012, 14:14
Chemmie's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Zurich
Posts: 4,144
Groaned at 33 Times in 29 Posts
Thanked 4,951 Times in 2,233 Posts
Chemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond reputeChemmie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

If one is genuinely concerned with neck injuries from cycling, there are many neck/helmet combinations to fit this concern, but not wearing a helmet for injury risk sake sounds like a bit of a cop-out.

Personally I would take a severe neck injury over a severe head injury in comparison.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 14.08.2012, 16:36
speakeron's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: 2.72548 K
Posts: 1,638
Groaned at 40 Times in 31 Posts
Thanked 1,622 Times in 804 Posts
speakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

Quote:
Unfortunately you are a fundamentalist. You will not listen to reason nor provide any coherent statistics.
I'm not a fundamentalist at all really; only in an insistence on using rational thought processes to solve problems rather than knee-jerk cultural responses.

I've already outlined why I've been pushing this devils-advocate argument and I'll leave the thread with a quote and the source it came from:

"The head, neck and chest are the principal body regions injured among the fatalities. In just under half of the deaths in the CCIS database, the head/neck was the most severely injured body region and the chest was the most severely injured body region in a further 50% of the deaths."

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/3494/1/3494.pdf

Do you still think a crash helmet would be of no use in a car?
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank speakeron for this useful post:
  #132  
Old 14.08.2012, 16:41
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

Quote:
View Post

Do you still think a crash helmet would be of no use in a car?
In combination with the presence of blind-spots in the average family motor there's bugger-all chance of peripheral vision in a crash helmet, which will probably cause more accidents.

Mirror, signal manoeuver don't apply in a racing car in quite the same way as in a Renault Espace in the middle of Zurich.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 14.08.2012, 16:44
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

Quote:
Are you suggesting there aren't cases where a helmet can help?
Can you read?

I assume so, so why would you ask me about something I've not written?
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 14.08.2012, 16:49
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

Quote:
View Post
If one is genuinely concerned with neck injuries from cycling, there are many neck/helmet combinations to fit this concern, but not wearing a helmet for injury risk sake sounds like a bit of a cop-out.

Personally I would take a severe neck injury over a severe head injury in comparison.
Of course, there's no way of knowing the relative severity, but a static fall from ~1.5m isn't likely to lead to severe head injuries. But as I said, no way would I use this to try and say that people shouldn't use helmets, just pointing out that it's never a black and white thing, and there will always remain a level of supposition about what might have happened if someone was or wasn't wearing a helmet.

I'm absolutely completely all for freedom of choice in the matter, and I actually wrote somewhere up there^^ of the fact that I wore a (ski) helmet when cycling for the first time just a couple of weeks back, given that I was off-road on some extreme tracks (well, not really tracks at all half the time) and the likelihood of falling onto rocks was quite high. It's a much more protective thing than 99% of bike helmets though, so I was confident that the risk/benefit ratio was definitely in favour of wearing it.

Took it off when we got back on the road though.


Quote:
In combination with the presence of blind-spots in the average family motor there's bugger-all chance of peripheral vision in a crash helmet, which will probably cause more accidents.
Interesting point, and also valid for helmets on bikes, although I guess many of them have been designed to limit this problem. Then again, it's another compromise in their design which may mean they're less protective than they may be.

I'm quite surprised actually, given all this debate about whether they should be worn or not, or whether it should be mandatory, that no-one else really seems bothered by the types of helmet generally used. Sadly the vast majority of them only offer the 'Standard' level of protection, which is fundamentally why I don't normally bother to wear one.

Last edited by Guest; 14.08.2012 at 17:14. Reason: speeling
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 14.08.2012, 17:01
speakeron's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: 2.72548 K
Posts: 1,638
Groaned at 40 Times in 31 Posts
Thanked 1,622 Times in 804 Posts
speakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

Quote:
In combination with the presence of blind-spots in the average family motor there's bugger-all chance of peripheral vision in a crash helmet, which will probably cause more accidents.

Mirror, signal manoeuver don't apply in a racing car in quite the same way as in a Renault Espace in the middle of Zurich.
I said I was going to leave the thread but I can't resist it! Yes, I agree about the vision problems in wearing a crash helmet (this is one of the reasons I don't like wearing a velo helmet: it makes glancing behind to assess traffic much more onerous).

But what about the passengers in a car (particularly children - the subject of this thread)? Should they wear helmets?
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 14.08.2012, 17:26
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

Quote:
There are many cases where a helmet really can help surely.
Quote:
Sadly your use of 'surely' indicates that even while you assert the point you can't be certain.
So what you said there was she can't be certain there are cases where a helmet can help, despite her (and others) providing examples where it did help. This leads me to believe you doubt there are cases where a helmet can help, otherwise why bring that up?

Quote:
Can you read?

I assume so, so why would you ask me about something I've not written?
It's all right there in black and white.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 14.08.2012, 17:26
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

Quote:
View Post
I said I was going to leave the thread but I can't resist it! Yes, I agree about the vision problems in wearing a crash helmet (this is one of the reasons I don't like wearing a velo helmet: it makes glancing behind to assess traffic much more onerous).
Have you got it on the right way?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #138  
Old 14.08.2012, 17:30
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

Quote:
View Post
I said I was going to leave the thread but I can't resist it! Yes, I agree about the vision problems in wearing a crash helmet (this is one of the reasons I don't like wearing a velo helmet: it makes glancing behind to assess traffic much more onerous).
How so?

I ride a Vespa, which has a far bigger, heavier and more obtrusive helm than a cycle helmet, and it has never been a burden looking left and right at junctions etc, and I don't find my vision compromised. I will give you that a Vespa has mirrors, but you still need to look behind you / on your inside for cyclists etc.

I just don't buy it.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 14.08.2012, 18:12
speakeron's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: 2.72548 K
Posts: 1,638
Groaned at 40 Times in 31 Posts
Thanked 1,622 Times in 804 Posts
speakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond reputespeakeron has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

Quote:
How so?

I ride a Vespa, which has a far bigger, heavier and more obtrusive helm than a cycle helmet, and it has never been a burden looking left and right at junctions etc, and I don't find my vision compromised. I will give you that a Vespa has mirrors, but you still need to look behind you / on your inside for cyclists etc.

I just don't buy it.
It's no big thing. When I said 'much more onerous' that should have been 'slightly annoying'. And yes, I do have it on the right way...

Some reasons I don't like to wear a velo helmet (and I've worn helmets for extensive periods in the past - these are my personal reasons and I recommend that everybody distrusts them):

- It's sweaty and uncomfortable in hot weather

- There is some restriction of view and head movement

- Every time I fall off or get knocked off my bike (once every few years), it's almost always an elbow or knee that gets the pain. (Last crash was a tarmac kiss that required blues and twos to the nearest A&E and a few weeks to fully recover - a helmet would have either made no difference or made it worse)

- I feel less safe (and actually quite vulnerable) if I ride without a helmet. This makes me more cautious; particularly when looking ahead for potholes and other hazards, looking out for road vehicles, and in keeping my speed low when going down hills

- It gives the impression to people that cycling is somehow risky and may prevent from them taking it up. (The more cyclists that are on the road, the better)

- It's blaming the victim

- Although there are studies that indicate prevention of brain damage in some cycling accidents, there's no good evidence that applying helmet use across a population has any benefits. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html for lots of studies on both sides

- The Dutch
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank speakeron for this useful post:
  #140  
Old 14.08.2012, 19:14
Newbie 1st class
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
Richard Burton has no particular reputation at present
Re: Cycling helmets for children are still not compulsory!!

Quote:
"Highly likely" is all well and good but it's still a bit woolly. I have a friend who has knackered his knee this year after an accident. He was a keen runner. He hasn't just thought "sod it, I'm heading for the couch and the chips", he's taken up swimming and, after he completes his physio, will be able to go cycling a bit.

The point is, I think it's hard to pin an upsurge in obesity to ANY single event, least of all introducing a helmet law, and I think it is incredibly naive to believe it would.
I'm afraid in the field of human behaviour "highly likely" is as good as it gets. Humans aren't mathematical machines, and if you want certainties, you're looking in the wrong place. Your anecdote about your friend is interesting but irrelevant, as are all anecdotes. The data shows that if you make something inconvenient, fewer people will do it. If you make people wear cycle helmets, you've made cycling inconvenient, and fewer people do it. Because cycling is not seen as exercise, just a means of transport, most people who give up due to the helmet law will not engage in other forms of exercise.

You're absolutely right, it is hard to associate cause and effect, but it would appear inevitable that if you dissuade a significant number of people from doing something which is likely to make them live longer and be fitter, healthier and slimmer, you're going to get more fat people who die earlier. Which isn't the same as proving it, I agree, it's just very, very likely.

You may consider it naive to believe that a helmet law has increased obesity, but I would say that it is a perfectly reasonable view, supported by the observable facts.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
cycling helmets, road safety, safety measures




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apartment deposit still not paid!? snowboardspice Housing in general 1 21.12.2010 07:55
Are electric bicycle head/tail lights compulsory in Switzerland jsu Transportation/driving 8 29.04.2010 16:03
Basel - Cycling companion not too far, not too fast! neater Sports / Fitness / Beauty / Wellness 16 17.04.2010 20:10
Work permit still not arrived??? kiwiguy08 Permits/visas/government 6 22.02.2009 17:50


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:36.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0