Why are cyclists particularly at risk?

Sorry folks, but this is about helmets.

I've just been on holiday to New Zealand. They have a helmet law which, as
far as I could see, is pretty universally obeyed from infants to oldies.

There are also quite a lot of skate parks which are also used by BMXers. I
don't think I ever saw anyone wear a helmet (or any other form of body/head
protection) in such parks. Then we hear about Natasha Richardson who, as I
understand it, died from a head injury sustained while skiing and not
wearing a helmet.

My question is this: why are cyclists uniquely singled out as needing to
wear helmets to the point of requiring law?

Graham Harrison wrote:
Sorry folks, but this is about helmets.

I've just been on holiday to New Zealand. They have a helmet law
which, as far as I could see, is pretty universally obeyed from infants
to oldies.

There are also quite a lot of skate parks which are also used by
BMXers. I don't think I ever saw anyone wear a helmet (or any other
form of body/head protection) in such parks. Then we hear about
Natasha Richardson who, as I understand it, died from a head injury
sustained while skiing and not wearing a helmet.

My question is this: why are cyclists uniquely singled out as needing to
wear helmets to the point of requiring law?

Because cyclists are scum, pond slime, dried jizzum on a hostel
blanket, they need to wear helmets for their own good.

Whats the penalty for not wearing one? And, while I'm here, does the
law stipulate how it should be worn, and what standards apply to the
helmet?

Graham Harrison wrote:
Sorry folks, but this is about helmets.

I've just been on holiday to New Zealand. They have a helmet law
which, as far as I could see, is pretty universally obeyed from infants
to oldies.

There are also quite a lot of skate parks which are also used by
BMXers. I don't think I ever saw anyone wear a helmet (or any other
form of body/head protection) in such parks. Then we hear about
Natasha Richardson who, as I understand it, died from a head injury
sustained while skiing and not wearing a helmet.

My question is this: why are cyclists uniquely singled out as needing to
wear helmets to the point of requiring law?

Becuase every dogooder has at some time ridden a bike , and therefore
"knows" about cycling. Imagine the difference if someone who had never
used a skateboard or skis started pontificating about helmets, the first
thing they would be asked is " what's your expertise in this area?"

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:51:57 -0000, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

Sorry folks, but this is about helmets.

I've just been on holiday to New Zealand. They have a helmet law which, as
far as I could see, is pretty universally obeyed from infants to oldies.

There are also quite a lot of skate parks which are also used by BMXers. I
don't think I ever saw anyone wear a helmet (or any other form of body/head
protection) in such parks. Then we hear about Natasha Richardson who, as I
understand it, died from a head injury sustained while skiing and not
wearing a helmet.

My question is this: why are cyclists uniquely singled out as needing to
wear helmets to the point of requiring law?


Because they do not possess the common sense which would tell them
that it is much safer to wear a helmet than not wear one.

The Governments are trying to help them.

--




The Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (BHRF) is an independent body with the message:
Helmets are not beneficial to cyclists - unless the evidence forces them to a dramatically different conclusion.

"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
Sorry folks, but this is about helmets.

I've just been on holiday to New Zealand. They have a helmet law which,
as far as I could see, is pretty universally obeyed from infants to
oldies.

There are also quite a lot of skate parks which are also used by BMXers.
I don't think I ever saw anyone wear a helmet (or any other form of
body/head protection) in such parks. Then we hear about Natasha
Richardson who, as I understand it, died from a head injury sustained
while skiing and not wearing a helmet.

My question is this: why are cyclists uniquely singled out as needing to
wear helmets to the point of requiring law?

Because the people who introduced this law have no appreciation of risk, no
appreciation of the risks and benefits of cycling, and are congenitally
stubborn so that they cannot admit that they made a mistake.

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:45:39 +0000, Marc
wrote:

Graham Harrison wrote:
Sorry folks, but this is about helmets.

I've just been on holiday to New Zealand. They have a helmet law
which, as far as I could see, is pretty universally obeyed from infants
to oldies.

There are also quite a lot of skate parks which are also used by
BMXers. I don't think I ever saw anyone wear a helmet (or any other
form of body/head protection) in such parks. Then we hear about
Natasha Richardson who, as I understand it, died from a head injury
sustained while skiing and not wearing a helmet.

My question is this: why are cyclists uniquely singled out as needing to
wear helmets to the point of requiring law?

Becuase every dogooder has at some time ridden a bike , and therefore
"knows" about cycling. Imagine the difference if someone who had never
used a skateboard or skis started pontificating about helmets, the first
thing they would be asked is " what's your expertise in this area?"


No - I think it is because common-sense prevails and anyone with any
common sense knows that on balance a cycle helmet is more likely to
reduce the risk of injuries to the head in case of an accident rather
than to increase the risk of injuries.



--

There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury.

The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances and it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence should wear one.

Mr Justice Griffith Williams

Judith Smith wrote:
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:45:39 +0000, Marc
wrote:

Graham Harrison wrote:
Sorry folks, but this is about helmets.

I've just been on holiday to New Zealand. They have a helmet law
which, as far as I could see, is pretty universally obeyed from infants
to oldies.

There are also quite a lot of skate parks which are also used by
BMXers. I don't think I ever saw anyone wear a helmet (or any other
form of body/head protection) in such parks. Then we hear about
Natasha Richardson who, as I understand it, died from a head injury
sustained while skiing and not wearing a helmet.

My question is this: why are cyclists uniquely singled out as needing to
wear helmets to the point of requiring law?
Becuase every dogooder has at some time ridden a bike , and therefore
"knows" about cycling. Imagine the difference if someone who had never
used a skateboard or skis started pontificating about helmets, the first
thing they would be asked is " what's your expertise in this area?"


No - I think it is because common-sense prevails and anyone with any
common sense knows that on balance a cycle helmet is more likely to
reduce the risk of injuries to the head in case of an accident rather
than to increase the risk of injuries.


So if helmet use increases to 100% but cycle use decreases by 30%, what
decrease in cycle injuries would 'common sense' expect?

And what did actually happen ?

In article ,
(burtthebike) wrote:

"Graham Harrison" wrote in
message ...

My question is this: why are cyclists uniquely singled out as
needing to wear helmets to the point of requiring law?

Because the people who introduced this law have no appreciation of
risk, no appreciation of the risks and benefits of cycling, and are
congenitally stubborn so that they cannot admit that they made a
mistake.

All true, no doubt, but here in the UK we do ourselves no favours by
blithely cycling though red lights, cycling on the pavement, and so forth.
These very public acts by an arrogant and ignorant minority naturally
draw unfavourable attention. Trying to excuse their lawbreaking behaviour
by reference to lawbreaking motorists is a classic own goal given that
those who decide whether to make cycle helmets compulsory are the
motoring majority.

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:50:38 -0700, "burtthebike"
wrote:


"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...
Sorry folks, but this is about helmets.

I've just been on holiday to New Zealand. They have a helmet law which,
as far as I could see, is pretty universally obeyed from infants to
oldies.

There are also quite a lot of skate parks which are also used by BMXers.
I don't think I ever saw anyone wear a helmet (or any other form of
body/head protection) in such parks. Then we hear about Natasha
Richardson who, as I understand it, died from a head injury sustained
while skiing and not wearing a helmet.

My question is this: why are cyclists uniquely singled out as needing to
wear helmets to the point of requiring law?

Because the people who introduced this law have no appreciation of risk, no
appreciation of the risks and benefits of cycling, and are congenitally
stubborn so that they cannot admit that they made a mistake.


Ah yes - you did some "research" on the matter and concluded:

"I've examined all the evidence of cycle helmets I can
find, and I have been unable to find any benefit."

"They cycle helmets are demonstrably a bad thing."



Will your work be peer reviewed?
--

In the UK in 2007
There were 30,959 pedestrians injured in traffice accidents
There were 16,415 cyclists injured in traffic accidents

I wonder what the relative numbers of pedestrians and cyclists
in the UK is?

It looks like cycling is much more dangerous than being a pedestrian.

Because they do not possess the common sense which would tell them
that it is much safer to wear a helmet than not wear one.

The Governments are trying to help them.

--








But then, surely, neither do users of skate parks, skiers or even (to a
lesser extent) horse riders. Would it not make more sense to promulgate a
law that covered a range of risky pastimes/sports rather than simply one
pastime/sport?