Bicycle Helmets

[Dan]

*The 4th option should say: "are not effective enough to justify wearing." You don't think the benefit of a helmet outweighs the hassle of using one.

I do a fair bit of cycling, and there is a lot of debate about helmets and helmet advocacy. The impression I get from the general population is that not wearing a helmet while cycling is frowned upon. I have been yelled at many times if I ride without a helmet. If I do wear one, it is usually not for my own safety, but to save myself the trouble of getting yelled at and arguing with random strangers. As representatives of the general population, what is your take?

My personal opinion is that the safety of helmets is overblown as the last word in bicycle safety, and the derision of those who do not wear them as crazy, or soon-to-be-dead is unfounded.

Here is my admittedly biased selection of articles:
http://www.momentumplanet.com/features/are-helmet-laws-justified
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/09/fear-of-cycling-03-helmet-promotion.html
http://road.cc/content/news/14253-b...-concludes-no-significant-benefit-wearing-one
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/06/15/helmet-on-your-head-or-egg-on-your-face/

 

[jverne]

I find them lacking. You're totally exposed in the lower face region and are often very bulky compared to the protection they provide.

 

[Raziaar]

I'm of the belief that bicycle helmets save lives.

I accidentally voted the first option that everyone should be made to wear them, but I just woke up and wasn't thinking straight. I really meant to vote that it's a personal choice.

I believe children should be mandated by law to wear them, and adults should have a choice. It's not like you save the life of somebody else if you wear one... you save YOUR life, potentially. I think it's just unwise to go out riding without wearing a modern bicycle helmet.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/481959/skull_study_proves_bike_helmets_work/

I find them lacking. You're totally exposed in the lower face region and are often very bulky compared to the protection they provide.

Well, their intended purpose is to protect your skull and reduce the force of impact so you brain isn't traumatized. Protecting your pretty face will require something more.

 

[Mr Stabby]

I've never landed on the top of my head when I've fallen off my bike.

 

[MJ12]

I ride my bike a lot, so I have some mixed feelings. I think it's much better to have one than not to.
I usually wear a BMX style helmet because they are more comfortable (Though they may be less protective?)

I think the discomfort and the goofy look is well worth it in the long run. I'd much prefer to look a little silly, and be a little uncomfortable; because it's well worth it over hitting a bump, a rock, a pothole, or a curb and damaging my brain.
I can't imagine shitting and pissing in a bag for the rest of my life being worth it. There is no guarantee it will save you from head trauma (and it certainly won't save you from anything else) but it decreases the chances of it, so that's fine enough.
Also, I'll mention my city is awful and has tons and tons of potholes.

I find them lacking. You're totally exposed in the lower face region and are often very bulky compared to the protection they provide.

The idea isn't to provide protection anywhere else except your most vital area, which is your brain.

 

[jverne]

The design of those helmets is just poor. Lot's of Styrofoam that doesn't really prevent much blunt damage since it can be very hard. The plastic covering is too thin and the sides and front is unprotected.

What i would do is make the plastic a bit thicker, the Styrofoam layer greatly reduced and add the stiff memory foam. Make the overall profile smaller but increase side protection and add lower jaw protection.
In most helmets the small brain section is exaggerated as well as the top. The protection wont save you from a major blunt impact .

 

[Dan]

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/481959/skull_study_proves_bike_helmets_work/[/url]

"We were able to objectively measure that helmets do provide a benefit, absolutely, beyond question," said study lead author Dr. Chris A. Sloffer, a neurosurgical resident at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, in Peoria.

They dropped skulls filled with water onto an anvil with or without helmets and then the article (maybe not the study) goes on to say that this proves that cyclists should wear helmets... Does nobody else see the lack of reasoning?

First of all, the study has nothing to do with cycling, only helmets. So if that study proves that helmets should be worn (which it doesn't), the same result would apply to every activity. And pedestrians are the largest group coming into the hospital with head injury.

Second of all, they are dropping skulls onto steel. What do you think would happen?

 

[Krynn72]

When I was young one of my mom's friends had an accident while riding her bike. She hit some sort of pothole and it catapaulted her straight into a telephone pole. It seriously mangled her head to the point where, as a child, I was frightened to look at her. She needed re-constructive surgery, a plate put in her skull, and suffered a major concussion. From then on, I had always worn my helmet. Maybe they don't protect much of your head, maybe you will never come into a situation in which it will protect you, but I would never, ever want to go through what she did and would take every precaution to reduce the chances that I do.

 

[Dan]

I think my biggest beef with helmet advocacy is that it takes the forefront of the picture on bicycle safety. The argument basically comes down to the idea that riding a bicycle without a helmet is unsafe, while riding a bicycle with a helmet is safe. I think that helmet use is actually one of the smallest contributing factors to bicycle safety. Dangerous cycling with or without a helmet is unsafe, while safe cycling with or without a helmet is safe.

I would rank the contributing factors to bicycle safety as the following:
Other vehicles (inattentive drivers)
visibility (lights, reflectors, being seen)
situational awareness (knowing where other cars are and what their intentions are)
bicycle handling (riding in a straight line, having full control)
riding environment (bike paths, bike lanes, paved shoulder)
proper maintenance (brakes, drivetrain, wheels in working order)
safety gear (helmets, faceguard, elbow pads, shin pads, wrist guards)

A helmet is the last line of defence, and the smallest contributor to the outcome of any bicycle ride, but it seems like the majority of safety focus is put on bicycle helmets rather than any other factor affecting safety.

 

[MJ12]

I've never landed on the top of my head when I've fallen off my bike.

Hit a rock, or lose control, or get hit by a car and you can bet you'll have almost no control what part of your body hits the ground, especially when you bounce. So many people damage their heads when falling from a second or third bounce; it's not like you hit the ground once and lay flat like a pre-ragdoll NPC.

The design of those helmets is just poor. Lot's of Styrofoam that doesn't really prevent much blunt damage since it can be very hard. The plastic covering is too thin and the sides and front is unprotected.

What i would do is make the plastic a bit thicker, the Styrofoam layer greatly reduced and add the stiff memory foam. Make the overall profile smaller but increase side protection and add lower jaw protection.
In most helmets the small brain section is exaggerated as well as the top. The protection wont save you from a major blunt impact .

It's just like a modern car dude, they are meant to break. Think about very old cars and how they are deemed dangerous; a big reason is because they were built almost "tank like", they thought "If we make this thing impenetrable, it will be safe", but they were wrong. Now we understand that in order to make cars safer, we have to make them crumple and colapse when hit in order to absorb the impact.
The same goes for a bicycle helmet, they are made of foam so they break down when absorbing the impact; that's why you don't see people wearing metal army helmets on bikes usually

 

[<RJMC>]

thats like saying copz should not wear bulletproof vest cuz it make them look fat

no helmet kid:" lol you looks so gay whit that helmet!"*sprints and crash,stands at ground crying looking and touch its bloody head*

 

[jverne]

It's just like a modern car dude, they are meant to break. Think about very old cars and how they are deemed dangerous; a big reason is because they were built almost "tank like", they thought "If we make this thing impenetrable, it will be safe", but they were wrong. Now we understand that in order to make cars safer, we have to make them crumple and colapse when hit in order to absorb the impact.
The same goes for a bicycle helmet, they are made of foam so they break down when absorbing the impact; that's why you don't see people wearing metal army helmets on bikes usually

In most bicycle accidents you won't hit with that much force. And a thicker shell and foam would not really prevent breakage.
Modern cars are made so they squish...bicycle helmets and other are really poor at squishing.
Making a steel one would of course be worse because you'd make it rigid and transfer all of the energy to your brain.
More thick rubber foam and less Styrofoam, more extended protection. Most accidents involve bruising, scraping and surface injury, these helmets provide poor protection in this regard.

 

[MJ12]

In most bicycle accidents you won't hit with that much force.
Most accidents involve bruising, scraping and surface injury, these helmets provide poor protection in this regard.

I really don't think you are grasping the sole purpose of a bicycle helmet.

 

[Krynn72]

Jverne is a bicycle helmet scientist who has done many experiments and knows what he is talking about. You guys should listen to him instead of people the people who make helmets.

 

[Dan]

thats like saying copz should not wear bulletproof vest cuz it make them look fat

How about because it makes them look like paramilitary soldiers?

 

[Dan]

Has anybody considered the fact that brain trauma is typically caused by rotation within the skull rather than direct impact or skull fracture? Also consider the fact that a helmet adds more space around your head. That means a bigger target to hit and about 40 percent more distance to the torquing arm that rotates your skull if you were to hit a glancing blow (like sliding along pavement and having your skull twisted at high velocity).

None of the helmet companies do crash test dummy tests that I am aware of to actually see what the real forces at work are. The standard test is a drop onto a hard surface.

 

[lame-o]

I remember when I was 12 I was ****ing around with my bike's front breaks while going down a hill. I had no idea they were that strong on a mountain bike since I had only ever ridden on banana bikes and shit. Anyways, I flew over my handlebars head first and would have cranium-planted onto pavement, but instead my helmet broke in half and I scraped my knees and elbows.

 

[Maestro]

I think helmets are necessary when road bicycling, especially on larger roads, and in areas where the ground is highly uneven, such as mountain biking. If you're on a bike trail or sidewalk or small road, well I just don't see that there's much danger. They should be mandatory for kids, but adults should have the choice to wear or not to wear.

Has anybody considered the fact that brain trauma is typically caused by rotation within the skull rather than direct impact or skull fracture? Also consider the fact that a helmet adds more space around your head. That means a bigger target to hit and about 40 percent more distance to the torquing arm that rotates your skull if you were to hit a glancing blow (like sliding along pavement and having your skull twisted at high velocity).

None of the helmet companies do crash test dummy tests that I am aware of to actually see what the real forces at work are. The standard test is a drop onto a hard surface.

Are you a mechanical engineer? You strike me as one.

 

[Acepilotf14]

In most bicycle accidents you won't hit with that much force. And a thicker shell and foam would not really prevent breakage.
Modern cars are made so they squish...bicycle helmets and other are really poor at squishing.
Making a steel one would of course be worse because you'd make it rigid and transfer all of the energy to your brain.
More thick rubber foam and less Styrofoam, more extended protection. Most accidents involve bruising, scraping and surface injury, these helmets provide poor protection in this regard.

The point of a helmet is so that, when you go FLYING ACROSS THE GROUND, you don't get your skull all scraped up which is the worst possible thing that can happen. Helmets aren't supposed to be magical injury preventers; they're made so that you'll slide once you hit the ground, which will absorb the impact and lessen the injury.

Of course I find them bulky as hell and I am a careful bicyclist(not to mention my bike got stolen) so I don't give a shit about them.

 

[Raziaar]

I think my biggest beef with helmet advocacy is that it takes the forefront of the picture on bicycle safety. The argument basically comes down to the idea that riding a bicycle without a helmet is unsafe, while riding a bicycle with a helmet is safe.

See, I'm of the belief that riding a bicycle with a helmet makes you safeR... not safe. Safer. As you said, there are many elements.

 

[jverne]

I really don't think you are grasping the sole purpose of a bicycle helmet.

I want both aspects to be included, not just the rare occasions where you might get a fatal blow.

 

[Raziaar]

I want both aspects to be included, not just the rare occasions where you might get a fatal blow.

Then wear a motorcycle helmet.

Any time you fall from even a short height and hit your head, you have potential chance for concussion and more extensive brain damage. It doesn't take much. If you slipped from a kneeling position and hit your head hard enough or in the right way it could still cause serious injury.

The thing with a bicycle helmet is... 99% of the time you won't need it... but that 1% of the time you'll wish you had it.

 

[repiV]

Without a doubt, they save lives. But of course it should be a personal choice - just like motorcycle helmets and seatbelts, and indeed any other issues of personal safety should be.

A bicycle helmet saved my life in fact. I was riding along and the front brake jammed full on when I went over a slight bump in the road (I had adjusted them and screwed it up), and I was catapulted over the handlebars and hit the road head first. The helmet had a massive dent in it and was cracked in 16 places - the doctor said I would have certainly been killed or seriously brain damaged without it. As it was I had a headache for a few hours.

The design of those helmets is just poor. Lot's of Styrofoam that doesn't really prevent much blunt damage since it can be very hard. The plastic covering is too thin and the sides and front is unprotected.

What i would do is make the plastic a bit thicker, the Styrofoam layer greatly reduced and add the stiff memory foam. Make the overall profile smaller but increase side protection and add lower jaw protection.
In most helmets the small brain section is exaggerated as well as the top. The protection wont save you from a major blunt impact .

The foam is what stops you from getting brain damage when you hit your head. The plastic is only there to protect the foam. Motorcycle helmets are made from exactly the same stuff, the shell is there to protect the integrity of the helmet and the foam is to decelerate the head more gently on impact. Even motorcycle helmets are only designed to withstand 15mph impacts - such as you would get if you come off and hit the ground. If you headbutt a solid object at 30mph, you're going to die regardless of what helmet you're wearing.

The only reason motorcycle helmets (from an accident protection POV - the main use is for protection from the elements...) are designed so differently is because they have to be able to hold up to sliding and bouncing down the road at 200mph. The actual impact protection isn't much better than a bicycle helmet.

I think my biggest beef with helmet advocacy is that it takes the forefront of the picture on bicycle safety. The argument basically comes down to the idea that riding a bicycle without a helmet is unsafe, while riding a bicycle with a helmet is safe. I think that helmet use is actually one of the smallest contributing factors to bicycle safety. Dangerous cycling with or without a helmet is unsafe, while safe cycling with or without a helmet is safe.

I would rank the contributing factors to bicycle safety as the following:
Other vehicles (inattentive drivers)
visibility (lights, reflectors, being seen)
situational awareness (knowing where other cars are and what their intentions are)
bicycle handling (riding in a straight line, having full control)
riding environment (bike paths, bike lanes, paved shoulder)
proper maintenance (brakes, drivetrain, wheels in working order)
safety gear (helmets, faceguard, elbow pads, shin pads, wrist guards)

A helmet is the last line of defence, and the smallest contributor to the outcome of any bicycle ride, but it seems like the majority of safety focus is put on bicycle helmets rather than any other factor affecting safety.

Completely agreed. You're also right about the issues of rotational forces - currently, helmets can do nothing about that - and to some extent, exacerbate it.

 

[Raziaar]

Without a doubt, they save lives. But of course it should be a personal choice - just like motorcycle helmets and seatbelts, and indeed any other issues of personal safety should be.

I vehemently disagree about the safety belt thing. I'm a firm believer that seat belt usage remains the law. Hope I'm not the only one.

 

[repiV]

I vehemently disagree about the safety belt thing. I'm a firm believer that seat belt usage remains the law. Hope I'm not the only one.

I'm a firm believer that issues of my personal safety are my personal choice, and not a matter for the state.

 

[Raziaar]

I'm a firm believer that issues of my personal safety are my personal choice, and not a matter for the state.

They're the ones who have to clean you up after you get launched from the vehicle with your brains splattered on the roadway. I'm the one who has to feel guilty my entire life because I got into a relatively minor accident with someone and they weren't wearing their seatbelt... causing one or more people to die or get severely wounded.

 

[repiV]

They're the ones who have to clean you up after you get launched from the vehicle with your brains splattered on the roadway.

I pay my taxes for those services. If you don't want to have to deal with things like that, don't work for one of the emergency services. Simple really.

I'm the one who has to feel guilty my entire life because I got into a relatively minor accident with someone and they weren't wearing their seatbelt... causing one or more people to die or get severely wounded.

So? If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, then we wouldn't be able to do anything that might maybe somehow possibly indirectly affect someone else.

 

[delusional]

Why wear a helmet when you can crash your bike doing a dirt jump and have your bike flip over and land on top of your head, cutting a gash down to the skull. If I was wearing a helmet I wouldn't have a cool battle scar.

Oh and I voted that helmets are good, but that young children should wear helmets and leave it to personal choice when you are older.

 

[Raziaar]

You're driving on government roads, you're bound by government rules while you're driving on their roads. Traffic signs must be obeyed by law, and are there for your safety. Do you object to those too?

Governments require seatbelts be installed to vehicles by law, and as an extension of that they simply require you as a user to you use them.

Personally... I don't understand why the hell you object to seat belt laws.

 

[repiV]

You're driving on government roads, you're bound by government rules while you're driving on their roads. Traffic signs must be obeyed by law, and are there for your safety. Do you object to those too?

They're not government roads. They're public roads - which I pay for the privilege of using in the form of extortionate taxes which quite literally cover the costs of the road network ten times over. The government are public servants, not our overlords.

Governments require seatbelts be installed to vehicles by law, and as an extension of that they simply require you as a user to you use them.

It's none of their business how people choose to make use of their own personal property, unless they are using it in such a way that threatens anyone else's freedom to live their own lives.

Personally... I don't understand why the hell you object to seat belt laws.

I object to anyone telling me what to do, when it doesn't concern them. I'm not a child.

 

[jverne]

Without a doubt, they save lives. But of course it should be a personal choice - just like motorcycle helmets and seatbelts, and indeed any other issues of personal safety should be.

A bicycle helmet saved my life in fact. I was riding along and the front brake jammed full on when I went over a slight bump in the road (I had adjusted them and screwed it up), and I was catapulted over the handlebars and hit the road head first. The helmet had a massive dent in it and was cracked in 16 places - the doctor said I would have certainly been killed or seriously brain damaged without it. As it was I had a headache for a few hours.



The foam is what stops you from getting brain damage when you hit your head. The plastic is only there to protect the foam. Motorcycle helmets are made from exactly the same stuff, the shell is there to protect the integrity of the helmet and the foam is to decelerate the head more gently on impact. Even motorcycle helmets are only designed to withstand 15mph impacts - such as you would get if you come off and hit the ground. If you headbutt a solid object at 30mph, you're going to die regardless of what helmet you're wearing.

The only reason motorcycle helmets (from an accident protection POV - the main use is for protection from the elements...) are designed so differently is because they have to be able to hold up to sliding and bouncing down the road at 200mph. The actual impact protection isn't much better than a bicycle helmet.

Exactly what i'm trying to say, but you didn't seem to understand me correctly.

The helmets i have, have very little elastic foam, the bulk of it is Styrofoam. This thing is very hard, it does not compact easily especially if the surface area is large. Dense rubber foam would be better to decelerate your moving head than Styrofoam.

Like you said...head on at 30mph and you're pretty much dead.
On bicycles the speed is lower, fatal hits are not that common but moderate hits and surface hits are.
Give me protection for the 99% the for 1% i'm taking my chances.

 

[Raziaar]

They're not government roads. They're public roads - which I pay for the privilege of using in the form of extortionate taxes which quite literally cover the costs of the road network ten times over. The government are public servants, not our overlords.

What do you think makes them public roads? Yeah... the fact that they're government owned and maintained. Government doesn't mean it isn't public.

Your taxes go to the government, your city receives funding from the government, and your city maintains the roads.

Yes, the government are public servants, no they aren't our overlords... but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to enact safety laws.

It's none of their business how people choose to make use of their own personal property, unless they are using it in such a way that threatens anyone else's freedom to live their own lives.

Hate it all you want, but they absolutely have the right to control what people do with their own personal property up to certain extents. Zoning laws are an example. Property permits are another. If you don't like it, change the law.

I object to anyone telling me what to do, when it doesn't concern them. I'm not a child.

Welcome to society ruled by law as it has existed for thousands of years. At least in the modern age if enough people don't like it, they can peacefully change the laws. If you find ourself outnumbered and unable to change it how you want... oh well, that's too bad. But until then, you still do live bound by those laws. You may think they're retarded, as I do with marijuana drug laws for example... but I fully accept that if I break that law and get caught, I will have to own up to the consequences.

So if you don't like wearing your seatbelt as you roar down your city streets or country roads... don't wear one. Just don't get pulled over. Easy as pie.

 

[repiV]

Exactly what i'm trying to say, but you didn't seem to understand me correctly.

The helmets i have, have very little elastic foam, the bulk of it is Styrofoam. This thing is very hard, it does not compact easily especially if the surface area is large. Dense rubber foam would be better to decelerate your moving head than Styrofoam.

Oh I see, I didn't realise that. In that case those helmets are little better than decoration!

Like you said...head on at 30mph and you're pretty much dead.
On bicycles the speed is lower, fatal hits are not that common but moderate hits and surface hits are.
Give me protection for the 99% the for 1% i'm taking my chances.

It's the same with motorbikes TBH. The helmet is there to protect you from minor blows to the head which could easily be fatal without it (and indeed, from having your skull shredded away by friction when sliding down the road). It won't do a damn thing for you if you hit a solid object at any sort of speed. It would need to be the size of a beach ball to even make that possible.

 

[Vegeta897]

Depends on the kind of biking... Just going around the streets I don't wear a helmet, but when on trails and stuff I'll definitely wear it.

 

[repiV]

What do you think makes them public roads? Yeah... the fact that they're government owned and maintained. Government doesn't mean it isn't public.

Your taxes go to the government, your city receives funding from the government, and your city maintains the roads.

The fact that you call them "government roads" in itself tells me everything I need to know about your opinion on the proper role of government in our lives.

Yes, the government are public servants, not they aren't our overlords... but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to enact safety laws.

So how would you feel if the police turned up at your house and gave you a fine for doing woodwork without wearing safety goggles?

Personal safety is not a concern for the state, it's as simple as that. Road laws exist to protect other people - that's why you can't be arrested for drunk driving on a racetrack, or playing ice hockey without a helmet. This principle has simply been abused over time.

Hate it all you want, but they absolutely have the right to control what people do with their own personal property up to certain extents. Zoning laws are an example. Property permits are another. If you don't like it, change the law.

I don't know what either of those things are.

Welcome to society ruled by law as it has existed for thousands of years. At least in the modern age if enough people don't like it, they can peacefully change the laws. If you find ourself outnumbered and unable to change it how you want... oh well, that's too bad. But until then, you still do live bound by those laws. You may think they're retarded, as I do with marijuana drug laws for example... but I fully accept that if I break that law and get caught, I will have to own up to the consequences.

Democracy isn't about the majority enforcing their will on the minority, it's about preserving the rights of the individual. If what I'm doing doesn't hurt you then you can mind your own damn business, and I will afford you the same courtesy.

Personally, I think overuse of the internet is one of the biggest threats to public health and wellbeing in modern times. Far more so than anything which involves your car. But, I'm not about to say your internet usage should be regulated.

So if you don't like wearing your seatbelt as you roar down your city streets or country roads... don't wear one. Just don't get pulled over. Easy as pie.

Congratulations on completely missing the point.

 

[PvtRyan]

In my recollection I've never ever seen anyone here who is not on a racing bicycle wear a helmet. And we're like the bicycle capital of the world.

 

[Dan]

I think that most people would agree that if they were to be dropped head first onto the pavement, they would prefer to wear a bicycle helmet versus nothing. It will provide some protection. That part is common sense.

The thing is that people can only see the magnitude of a head injury. The have no concept of how much "some protection" is and how small the probability of that accident is and how to compare that to the small day to day hassles of wearing a helmet. There is a reason that people don't wear a helmet walking down the street, and it isn't because the risk of a head injury is any less than while riding a bicycle.

 

[Raziaar]

The fact that you call them "government roads" in itself tells me everything I need to know about your opinion on the proper role of government in our lives.

Would what you tell yourself about my opinions happen to be that I think government has a proper role in some things, and not in other things?

So how would you feel if the police turned up at your house and gave you a fine for doing woodwork without wearing safety goggles?

That would be absolutely retarded and in my opinion a place where government has no role. And there are currently laws enacted by the very same government to prevent things like this.

Personal safety is not a concern for the state, it's as simple as that. Road laws exist to protect other people - that's why you can't be arrested for drunk driving on a racetrack, or playing ice hockey without a helmet. This principle has simply been abused over time.

We simply happen to disagree on the law of seatbelt safety... that's all there is to it.

I don't know what either of those things are.

Yeah... I don't know how things work in the UK, but here we have laws that restrict people how they're allowed to use their private property... their homes. If they own their homes, that doesn't give them the right to do anything they want. They can't open up a business in their home or on their property if they're not properly zoned for it.

As well, they cannot make certain constructions to their property or additions to their homes without having proper construction/building permits.

Democracy isn't about the majority enforcing their will on the minority, it's about preserving the rights of the individual. If what I'm doing doesn't hurt you then you can mind your own damn business, and I will afford you the same courtesy.

It doesn't hurt me... it hurts my car when you fly out of your vehicle through the windshield and ruin my paint job and body work.

Jerk!

Personally, I think overuse of the internet is one of the biggest threats to public health and wellbeing in modern times. Far more so than anything which involves your car. But, I'm not about to say your internet usage should be regulated.

I'm so reckless on the internet I'm not only a danger to myself, I'm a danger to everybody around me.

Congratulations on completely missing the point.

How is that missing the point? If you don't like it, don't do it. I completely understand that doesn't change the situation, but it's one of your only alternatives until you talk with your member of parliament or however it works over there in the UK, to get things changed.





On a side note... I wonder how many people who are "thrown clear" in a two car collision have collided through the windshield of the other car and caused injury. I mean... that's one of the biggest reasons why seatbelt safety isn't entirely "personal" and it can affect other people when and if you are thrown clear. You become a projectile. A projectile that can fly 150 feet.

 

[the cow says moo]

You're all disregarding the safety of your hair; if I was to have an accident, I'd like to keep my hairdo intact, which is why I think we should mandate all cyclists wear hairmets.

 

[VirusType2]

I've never landed on the top of my head when I've fallen off my bike.

I'll never forget it: when I was about 8 years old, some kids were hanging out front of my house, and I was standing on the sidewalk hanging out with them.

There was a young teenager there on a BMX bike. He pulled a wheelie and the fork fell out of the bike! So with no front wheel or fork on the bike, when he came down from the wheelie, he slammed down into the curb of the sidewalk, landing flush on the side of his head. It knocked him the **** out, cold.

A helmet would have protected his brain quite a bit. I have no idea what happened to him, I didn't know him and I never saw him again.