Brain injury expert calls for compulsory cycle helmets (From Daily Echo)

Experts recommending using common sense shocker!

In France they reversed the law on cycle helmets. This is because they save lives they also discourage cycling and therefore encourage obesity.

Make sense but then again they eat horses and snails.

Politicians - common sense; contradiction in terms. Minimum of age of 16 as well.

I do hope that Dr Eynon is also campaigning for helmets for drivers.

He should look at his own profession's figures:

"Using Hospital Episode Statistics it shows that, perhaps surprisingly, there are many more head and face injuries to pedestrians or car occupants than there are to cyclists.

What's more, head injuries are the leading source of injury to both pedestrians and car occupants - whereas for cyclists arm and shoulder injuries are the biggest source of injury."

Safety is determined by how road users interact, not by a hat. I'm staggered at his ignorance.

“It costs society about £25,000 for an individual to be transferred to Southampton, operated on, treated in our intensive care unit and then cared for on our wards – and that is before taking into account rehabilitation costs and loss of income.

“A decent cycle helmet will cost less than £40.

I think he is barking up the wrong tree, if his costs are to be believed it would make more sense for him to be petitioning the government to supply them for free. Everyone would be a winner.

Nice to see the picture being used for this article shows a cyclist riding along reading a paper!!!!

That's the height of irresponsibility!

nedscrumpo wrote:
Politicians - common sense; contradiction in terms. Minimum of age of 16 as well.

Eh? Minimum age to ride a bike?

keepontriking wrote:
I do hope that Dr Eynon is also campaigning for helmets for drivers. He should look at his own profession's figures: "Using Hospital Episode Statistics it shows that, perhaps surprisingly, there are many more head and face injuries to pedestrians or car occupants than there are to cyclists. What's more, head injuries are the leading source of injury to both pedestrians and car occupants - whereas for cyclists arm and shoulder injuries are the biggest source of injury." Safety is determined by how road users interact, not by a hat. I'm staggered at his ignorance.

The man is a brain injury expert !!!
The only ignorance being shown is your own.

The more cyclists the better.

The heath benefits if cycling outweigh the hazards. So, in the long term your chances of dying are offset by the benefits to health.

This would benefit the health of the nation as a whole and therefore the strain on the NHS. Not just Dr Eynons little patch.

That being said, I started wearing a helmet after my partner nagged me into it and a few months after riding with one on, came off over the handlebars due to having **** brakes and hit my helmeted head on the road so hard I blacked out for a second.

So without it I could be dead or disabled. I've got kids so helmet only for me for now on.

But I believe cyclists should be assured of their safety on the roads to such an extent that statistically speaking it's irrelevant.

Dasal wrote:

keepontriking wrote:
I do hope that Dr Eynon is also campaigning for helmets for drivers. He should look at his own profession's figures: "Using Hospital Episode Statistics it shows that, perhaps surprisingly, there are many more head and face injuries to pedestrians or car occupants than there are to cyclists. What's more, head injuries are the leading source of injury to both pedestrians and car occupants - whereas for cyclists arm and shoulder injuries are the biggest source of injury." Safety is determined by how road users interact, not by a hat. I'm staggered at his ignorance.

The man is a brain injury expert !!!
The only ignorance being shown is your own.

That makes him as much an expert on the structural efficiency of polystyrene hats as it makes him an expert on 4x4 roll bars.

-stiv- wrote:
The more cyclists the better.

The heath benefits if cycling outweigh the hazards. So, in the long term your chances of dying are offset by the benefits to health.

This would benefit the health of the nation as a whole and therefore the strain on the NHS. Not just Dr Eynons little patch.

That being said, I started wearing a helmet after my partner nagged me into it and a few months after riding with one on, came off over the handlebars due to having **** brakes and hit my helmeted head on the road so hard I blacked out for a second.

So without it I could be dead or disabled. I've got kids so helmet only for me for now on.

But I believe cyclists should be assured of their safety on the roads to such an extent that statistically speaking it's irrelevant.

-stiv- wrote:
But I believe cyclists should be assured of their safety on the roads to such an extent that statistically speaking it's irrelevant.

__________

Regrettably there are factions who wish to blame the victim instead of addressing the cause.

Oh, and before people start bringing out all the same old boring helmet/no helmet arguments just read this:

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Bicycle_hel
met#Health_benefits_
of_cycling

If you're one of those people that is irrationally sceptical of wikipedia then just read the numbered citations linked at the bottom.

Anyone campaigning against the wearing of cycle helmets is a prat!

Shoong wrote:
Experts recommending using common sense shocker!

Its not though is it. Common sense is ACTIVELY DEALING with the idiotic behaviour in the first place.

Common sense is utilising sound European standards to engineer out the risk.

Common sense is looking at the data from European studies that show motorist and motor vehicle passengers suffer higher rates of head and brain injury.

Common sense is understanding that the Police wont have the resources to deal with any change in law.

Common sense is understanding what happened in Australia and New Zealand and how they lost cycling and are now lumbered with a law they cannot repeal, enforce or encourage new cyclists with.

We go through this EVERY time.

downfader wrote:

Shoong wrote:
Experts recommending using common sense shocker!

Its not though is it. Common sense is ACTIVELY DEALING with the idiotic behaviour in the first place.

Common sense is utilising sound European standards to engineer out the risk.

Common sense is looking at the data from European studies that show motorist and motor vehicle passengers suffer higher rates of head and brain injury.

Common sense is understanding that the Police wont have the resources to deal with any change in law.

Common sense is understanding what happened in Australia and New Zealand and how they lost cycling and are now lumbered with a law they cannot repeal, enforce or encourage new cyclists with.

We go through this EVERY time.

How is that relevant? you have a cure for idiotic behaviour and human error then? No law is going cure it unfortunately.

The article refers to cyclists and helmets - it's not about cars.

keepontriking wrote:

-stiv- wrote:
The more cyclists the better.

The heath benefits if cycling outweigh the hazards. So, in the long term your chances of dying are offset by the benefits to health.

This would benefit the health of the nation as a whole and therefore the strain on the NHS. Not just Dr Eynons little patch.

That being said, I started wearing a helmet after my partner nagged me into it and a few months after riding with one on, came off over the handlebars due to having **** brakes and hit my helmeted head on the road so hard I blacked out for a second.

So without it I could be dead or disabled. I've got kids so helmet only for me for now on.

But I believe cyclists should be assured of their safety on the roads to such an extent that statistically speaking it's irrelevant.

-stiv- wrote:
But I believe cyclists should be assured of their safety on the roads to such an extent that statistically speaking it's irrelevant.

__________

Regrettably there are factions who wish to blame the victim instead of addressing the cause.

Cyclists are always the victims? Persecution complex much?

Its helmets all the way for my family......Not sure I want to see my family's heads smashed like dropped eggs for the sake of a few pounds...

Shoong wrote:

downfader wrote:

Shoong wrote:
Experts recommending using common sense shocker!

Its not though is it. Common sense is ACTIVELY DEALING with the idiotic behaviour in the first place.

Common sense is utilising sound European standards to engineer out the risk.

Common sense is looking at the data from European studies that show motorist and motor vehicle passengers suffer higher rates of head and brain injury.

Common sense is understanding that the Police wont have the resources to deal with any change in law.

Common sense is understanding what happened in Australia and New Zealand and how they lost cycling and are now lumbered with a law they cannot repeal, enforce or encourage new cyclists with.

We go through this EVERY time.

How is that relevant? you have a cure for idiotic behaviour and human error then? No law is going cure it unfortunately.

The article refers to cyclists and helmets - it's not about cars.

If its true for others then it has to happen across the board. Thats why its relevant - in fact MORE relevant for pedestrians and car occupants than for cycling.

I repeat again the European stats printed on the ECF's webpage:

Head and brain injuries per modal type -

Pedestrians 2%
Car occupants 48%
Cyclists 1%

..and there are a lot of cyclists in Europe - far more than here where we only represent 2% of traffic compared to the European average of 10-40% depending on Nation.

In Australia cyclists account for 1% of all traffic. New Zealand just under 1%. America 0.5%.

And sadly if we're talking collision we NEED to talk about cars. The vast majority of cyclist KSIs involve them

wickhamman wrote:
Its helmets all the way for my family......Not sure I want to see my family's heads smashed like dropped eggs for the sake of a few pounds...

I think most people will fully respect your choice.

I do hope you make a similar choice for your family when you travel by motor vehicle where the risks of head injury are higher.

wickhamman wrote:
Its helmets all the way for my family......Not sure I want to see my family's heads smashed like dropped eggs for the sake of a few pounds...

Right now be thankful you have a choice.

Are you aware of the differences in the standards and how cycle helmets are tested? Their limitations and origins? Anyone who wears a helmet REALLY must look into these and be fully aware of what they're buying/using.

I would also wish that as many people who called for this law would actually ride a bike! And that those few who do ride would work with the campaigns and CTC/British Cycling to call for safer roads in the first place.

Before implementing any law it is important to investigate the impact the law will have and whether it will have the desired effect.

When it comes to compulsory cycle helmets, evidence is strong that it does not have the desired effect of reducing injury.

This very recent study tried to find out why:

http://www.sciencedi
rect.
com/science/article
/pii/S13698478120005
87

The fact that this study even took place highlights that where compulsory helmet laws have been implemented, they simply haven't worked.

Unfortunately, the pro-compulsory lobby base their argument on emotive reasoning instead of rational reasoning.

Stop trying to make cycling sound dangerous, it really isn't.

It is law in Spain that when riding a bike you wear a helmet and yellow fluoresente jacket if you dont then you can have your bike taken of you until you pay the fine.

espanuel wrote:
It is law in Spain that when riding a bike you wear a helmet and yellow fluoresente jacket if you dont then you can have your bike taken of you until you pay the fine.

Right so how do the pro cycling clubs ride out there? None of those wear flouro.

Technically the law only applies to rural roads, but the Police there found so many exclusions that they failed to even bother enforcing the law.

Its just getting stupid. We have the French trying to change EU laws so that all drivers/passengers have to wear a flouro vest when exiting/entering their vehicle. We have other EU legislations trying to alter motorcycle laws and bring in new ones...

How about actually dealing with the causes of these collisions instead of putting band-aids over the problem. Prevention is far, far better than cure.

espanuel wrote:
It is law in Spain that when riding a bike you wear a helmet and yellow fluoresente jacket if you dont then you can have your bike taken of you until you pay the fine.

Just for info before you put people off cycling in Spain:
From the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation:

"The Spanish helmet law came into effect from 23rd January 2004. It applies to bicycle riders of all ages. However it does not apply: to cyclists riding in towns and cities; during periods of extreme heat; when riding up steep hills; or to professional cyclists."

"Prior to legislation, an in-depth study of non-fatal cycle accidents by the Spanish Directorate of Traffic (Min Int, 1999) concluded that no statistically relevant positive effects of helmet wearing could be detected.

A subsequent study (Claret et al, 2003) concluded that there was a benefit from helmet use, but this has been criticised for containing no medical data, not distinguishing between minor and serious head injuries and not considering other possible reasons for falling casualties.

Post-law data is not yet available."

Dr Eynon's argument suffers from a statistical flaw known as selection bias. Because Dr Eynon works in trauma (and specialises in brain injury at that, it seems) the cases he deals with are cyclists who have had accidents. However, he does not get to see the vast number of cyclists who do not get brain injuries, but whose lives are benefited overall from the exercise.

The actual evidence strongly suggests that:

a) Bicycle helmets do not have a significant net beneficial effect on injuries, amongst injured cyclists (they do reduce head injuries, but even that effect is not as dramatic as is often claimed). See http://www.sciencedi
rect.com/science/art
icle/pii/S0001457511
00008X for a good, systematic meta-study.

b) Helmet compulsion has a significant depressing impact on cycle rates, in countries which have introduced them, across the board (adults and children).

c) There is a significant net benefit to public health in cycling. The injuries are relatively few compared to the tremendous health benefits of exercise. Cyclists, on average, live several years longer than non-cyclists.

d) We know from countries such as the Netherlands, where helmet use is insignificant and cycling rates are very high, that helmet use is absolutely not required for safe, mass cycling - this is an indisputable fact.

e) Though cycling in the UK is not as safe as in the Netherlands, this is because road safety in general is worse in the UK. Being a pedestrian in the UK is also more dangerous. Relatively speaking, cycling and walking are roughly equal in risk for death or serious injury in the UK.

Now, Dr Eynon is not a trained mathematician nor a scientist, however he would have received a basic grounding in elementary statistics and science as part of his medical training. It is therefore somewhat professionally unbecoming of him to rush to a judgement based solely on his own clinical experience, which he must know from his training to be susceptible to bias. He has completely ignored the flip-side of the net-public-health coin, of the exercise benefits of cycling. Further, he appears to have chosen to focus his helmet advocacy on just subset of the clinical cases he sees: he must surely also see many pedestrians and motor vehicles occupants with brain injuries, more than cyclists surely, yet he does not seem to argue they should wear helmets.

Dr Eynon's arguments are ill-founded, incomplete and, worst all, biased in a way that he should be aware of.

In Holland the majority of short journeys are made by bike, not car, and without a helmet. Dutch cycle injury rates are about 1/8 of ours. No-one there calls for helmet compulsion. Fact is, UK streets are designed for boy racers, not people on foot or on bike. That's what we need to fix.

Also in Holland, 12% of cyclist casualties are wearing helmets but only 0.1% wear one. Work that out.

Inactivity is a much much bigger cause of illness and death than cycling head injuries. And inactivity costs the state vastly more than cycling brain injuries. Compulsory helmets would dangerise cycling and discourage casual users.

The recent debate over helmet laws started after a cyclist called Dan was crushed by a left-turning doubledecker bus. He was wearing a helmet.
He was killed by a shockingly dangerous road layout installed for the Olympic VIPs. No helmet would have saved him.

I wear a helmet. It probably makes me overconfident and drivers think I'm protected. Not sure it makes me safer.

Get stuffed,its my brain and I'll do what I want with it,not all of us are so stupid that we get knocked off!

Cyclestrian wrote:
In Holland the majority of short journeys are made by bike, not car, and without a helmet. Dutch cycle injury rates are about 1/8 of ours. No-one there calls for helmet compulsion. Fact is, UK streets are designed for boy racers, not people on foot or on bike. That's what we need to fix.

Also in Holland, 12% of cyclist casualties are wearing helmets but only 0.1% wear one. Work that out.

Inactivity is a much much bigger cause of illness and death than cycling head injuries. And inactivity costs the state vastly more than cycling brain injuries. Compulsory helmets would dangerise cycling and discourage casual users.

The recent debate over helmet laws started after a cyclist called Dan was crushed by a left-turning doubledecker bus. He was wearing a helmet.
He was killed by a shockingly dangerous road layout installed for the Olympic VIPs. No helmet would have saved him.

I wear a helmet. It probably makes me overconfident and drivers think I'm protected. Not sure it makes me safer.

You are referring to 'Dan' who probably leapt on his bicycle without any form of assessment or training and clearly never gave a thought that the bus would be making a left turn as he cycled up the side of the it where he wouldn't have seen the indicators? That is a synopsis of his actions that night which cost him his life and has left an innocent bus driver mentally scarred. Another example of a needless death because when you decide to use a bicycle you are the sort road user who doesn't need any training or testing.

if they make it a law to wear the helmets then they must all be fit for the purpose intended.at the momment all helmets for cycles only have to pass a drop test ie if you fell over sideways when at a stand still it would protect your head.on all cycle helmets it states not for motorised use or high speed impacts.speak to the makers of the helmets make them safe and people will wear them.

Cyclestrian wrote:
In Holland the majority of short journeys are made by bike, not car, and without a helmet. Dutch cycle injury rates are about 1/8 of ours. No-one there calls for helmet compulsion. Fact is, UK streets are designed for boy racers, not people on foot or on bike. That's what we need to fix.

Also in Holland, 12% of cyclist casualties are wearing helmets but only 0.1% wear one. Work that out.

Inactivity is a much much bigger cause of illness and death than cycling head injuries. And inactivity costs the state vastly more than cycling brain injuries. Compulsory helmets would dangerise cycling and discourage casual users.

The recent debate over helmet laws started after a cyclist called Dan was crushed by a left-turning doubledecker bus. He was wearing a helmet.
He was killed by a shockingly dangerous road layout installed for the Olympic VIPs. No helmet would have saved him.

I wear a helmet. It probably makes me overconfident and drivers think I'm protected. Not sure it makes me safer.

I wear a helmet too, but out of choice and probably very much down to family pressure.

I began questioning helmet efficacy (eg how and if they work) after a car pulled out of a side road and hit me. Everyone said "you're helmet saved your life" but I dont remember my head hitting anything.

I do remember the extensive damage to my legs, my back and my shoulder. Even my feet.

Then last year debris/rubbish got into my rear wheel and chain, snapped the chain and I face-planted, I was also trying to navigate a pothole. Broken finger, broken nose, bruised abdominal and groin areas from becoming entangled with the bike.

The causes were a driver that didnt take the time to look and rubbish that shouldnt have been in the road - my concentration being on the traffic. The helmet didnt even come into it imo.

I mean how far do we take this culture? Am I now to wear kevlar and armour gloves, shoulder pads..? I just want to ride the bike, I dont want to look like an extra from Mad Max.

Torchie1 wrote:

Cyclestrian wrote:
In Holland the majority of short journeys are made by bike, not car, and without a helmet. Dutch cycle injury rates are about 1/8 of ours. No-one there calls for helmet compulsion. Fact is, UK streets are designed for boy racers, not people on foot or on bike. That's what we need to fix.

Also in Holland, 12% of cyclist casualties are wearing helmets but only 0.1% wear one. Work that out.

Inactivity is a much much bigger cause of illness and death than cycling head injuries. And inactivity costs the state vastly more than cycling brain injuries. Compulsory helmets would dangerise cycling and discourage casual users.

The recent debate over helmet laws started after a cyclist called Dan was crushed by a left-turning doubledecker bus. He was wearing a helmet.
He was killed by a shockingly dangerous road layout installed for the Olympic VIPs. No helmet would have saved him.

I wear a helmet. It probably makes me overconfident and drivers think I'm protected. Not sure it makes me safer.

You are referring to 'Dan' who probably leapt on his bicycle without any form of assessment or training and clearly never gave a thought that the bus would be making a left turn as he cycled up the side of the it where he wouldn't have seen the indicators? That is a synopsis of his actions that night which cost him his life and has left an innocent bus driver mentally scarred. Another example of a needless death because when you decide to use a bicycle you are the sort road user who doesn't need any training or testing.

Again - you talk about things you know nothing about. The victim was a guy who tweeted daily on twitter. I know people knew him through that website.

He even tweeted and talked that he would never, ever ride up the left hand gap of large vehicles. The bus came from one lane, he was in another. There appears - from what others have divulged online - to have been some kind of effort to make out that something else happened

Put things in perspective. Plenty of drivers die each year despite testing and training. For example - motorcyclists (mentioned above in the article) account for 1% of traffic - yet they account for 21% of all fatalities.

Shoong wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

-stiv- wrote:
The more cyclists the better.

The heath benefits if cycling outweigh the hazards. So, in the long term your chances of dying are offset by the benefits to health.

This would benefit the health of the nation as a whole and therefore the strain on the NHS. Not just Dr Eynons little patch.

That being said, I started wearing a helmet after my partner nagged me into it and a few months after riding with one on, came off over the handlebars due to having **** brakes and hit my helmeted head on the road so hard I blacked out for a second.

So without it I could be dead or disabled. I've got kids so helmet only for me for now on.

But I believe cyclists should be assured of their safety on the roads to such an extent that statistically speaking it's irrelevant.

-stiv- wrote:
But I believe cyclists should be assured of their safety on the roads to such an extent that statistically speaking it's irrelevant.

__________

Regrettably there are factions who wish to blame the victim instead of addressing the cause.

Cyclists are always the victims? Persecution complex much?

No just vulnerable.

I swore when I left the army I would never run again, not even for a bus. Broke that promise when I saw a bus about to turn onto the main road I was on the other day. Overtook a gent on a bike in doing so, so glad I never tripped as I wasn't wearing a helmet. It is going to be very hard to get this helmet idea into everyday perspective.

keepontriking wrote:
Nice to see the picture being used for this article shows a cyclist riding along reading a paper!!!!

That's the height of irresponsibility!

Dead right.
Any cyclist who rides a bike and reads the paper at the same time, need their head examined any way.

As usual the Nazi cycling fraternity are selective in which they support they same as which of the road rules they obey.
If an acknowledged expert on head trauma says helmets are essential for the safety of cyclists who are they in their amateur wisdom to disagree.
For once cyclist listen to the experts and save your lives, I am surprised at Ms Gartside who is an avid spokesman fo the cyclist does not fully support the pro helmet lobby especially as her friend Ms Bluemel was badly injured when she was not wearing her helmet.
Motor cycle helmets and seat belts have proved their worth, get with the flow for once Downfader and chums

geoff51 wrote:
As usual the Nazi cycling fraternity are selective in which they support they same as which of the road rules they obey.
If an acknowledged expert on head trauma says helmets are essential for the safety of cyclists who are they in their amateur wisdom to disagree.
For once cyclist listen to the experts and save your lives, I am surprised at Ms Gartside who is an avid spokesman fo the cyclist does not fully support the pro helmet lobby especially as her friend Ms Bluemel was badly injured when she was not wearing her helmet.
Motor cycle helmets and seat belts have proved their worth, get with the flow for once Downfader and chums

Sorry, but the "expert" is an expert *only* in the clinical treatment of neurological trauma. They do not appear to have any significant expertise in statistics or scientific evaluation.

At least some of the commentators here are at least as well educated in relevant areas as Dr Eynon, indeed more so… (From a google Dr Eynon does not appear to have any particular qualifications in science or statistics beyond the basic instruction he would have received as part of his bachelors in medicine).

Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

Paul Jakma wrote:

geoff51 wrote:
As usual the Nazi cycling fraternity are selective in which they support they same as which of the road rules they obey.
If an acknowledged expert on head trauma says helmets are essential for the safety of cyclists who are they in their amateur wisdom to disagree.
For once cyclist listen to the experts and save your lives, I am surprised at Ms Gartside who is an avid spokesman fo the cyclist does not fully support the pro helmet lobby especially as her friend Ms Bluemel was badly injured when she was not wearing her helmet.
Motor cycle helmets and seat belts have proved their worth, get with the flow for once Downfader and chums

Sorry, but the "expert" is an expert *only* in the clinical treatment of neurological trauma. They do not appear to have any significant expertise in statistics or scientific evaluation.

At least some of the commentators here are at least as well educated in relevant areas as Dr Eynon, indeed more so… (From a google Dr Eynon does not appear to have any particular qualifications in science or statistics beyond the basic instruction he would have received as part of his bachelors in medicine).

Ignore Geoff. He's got a fetish for lycra, haha! He also likes to break Godwin's Law.

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If that were truly the case then I'd give up cycling. I'd even encourage others to do the same.

Dont let your head be ruled by emotions.

Do you drive? Do you drink? Do you wear a helmet for those activities given the increased risk? "If it saves just one life...."

..and you say "stupid", yet the "stupid" have all left references to research which any third party can check.

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

Opinions opinions, downfader! seat belts are compulsory, as is not drinking and driving.
Do you drive? Do you wear a seat belt, do you abide by the speed limit, because there are so many out there that don't, and they are the stupid idiotic people that put other people's life at risk. Do you stop driving because of that risk?

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

Of the 816 in 2011 how many were wearing helmets?

That statistics seems to have been missed out.

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr
en cycle without a helmet?

__KTF__ wrote:
Of the 816 in 2011 how many were wearing helmets?

That statistics seems to have been missed out.

And the figures for car occupants, wearing helmets is missing too.

'Common sense', much spouted about here, would indicate that that the figure would be quite high, given their greater risk of head injury.

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr

en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

downfader wrote:

Paul Jakma wrote:

geoff51 wrote:
As usual the Nazi cycling fraternity are selective in which they support they same as which of the road rules they obey.
If an acknowledged expert on head trauma says helmets are essential for the safety of cyclists who are they in their amateur wisdom to disagree.
For once cyclist listen to the experts and save your lives, I am surprised at Ms Gartside who is an avid spokesman fo the cyclist does not fully support the pro helmet lobby especially as her friend Ms Bluemel was badly injured when she was not wearing her helmet.
Motor cycle helmets and seat belts have proved their worth, get with the flow for once Downfader and chums

Sorry, but the "expert" is an expert *only* in the clinical treatment of neurological trauma. They do not appear to have any significant expertise in statistics or scientific evaluation.

At least some of the commentators here are at least as well educated in relevant areas as Dr Eynon, indeed more so… (From a google Dr Eynon does not appear to have any particular qualifications in science or statistics beyond the basic instruction he would have received as part of his bachelors in medicine).

Ignore Geoff. He's got a fetish for lycra, haha! He also likes to break Godwin's Law.

Stupid comment from someone who cares to ignore professional wisdom!

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr


en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr


en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

If you let your children ride without a helmet you are more stupid and care little for you childs safety, then your comments should be ignored as the ramblings of someone who should not be in charge of children let alone ride a bike

geoff51 wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr



en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

If you let your children ride without a helmet you are more stupid and care little for you childs safety, then your comments should be ignored as the ramblings of someone who should not be in charge of children let alone ride a bike

Well said!!! I thought I was the only one on here that actually thought what Dr Enyon had said was right. Thank you.

geoff51 wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr



en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

If you let your children ride without a helmet you are more stupid and care little for you childs safety, then your comments should be ignored as the ramblings of someone who should not be in charge of children let alone ride a bike

Unfortunately you show a complete lack of understanding of the issues.
Whereas I do.

BTW, Do you wear a helmet when you travel by motor vehicle?

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr



en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Riding without a helmet gives you brain damage? Really? Weird. I never wore one, and suffered no brain damage at all.

"Invisible" cycling helmet, anyone?

http://www.hovding.c
om/en/how

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr




en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Riding without a helmet gives you brain damage? Really? Weird. I never wore one, and suffered no brain damage at all.

You are funny!!!! Such a joker. Re read the article, if you are unlucky enough to be injured whilst riding derrrr!!!!
But hey you have been spared! And most definitely been lucky. There are lots that haven't been so lucky.

keepontriking wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr




en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

If you let your children ride without a helmet you are more stupid and care little for you childs safety, then your comments should be ignored as the ramblings of someone who should not be in charge of children let alone ride a bike

Unfortunately you show a complete lack of understanding of the issues.
Whereas I do.

BTW, Do you wear a helmet when you travel by motor vehicle?

You sir are a danger to your children however you cut it and personally i think they should be removed from your care by social services as you are an unfit parent

keepontriking wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr




en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

If you let your children ride without a helmet you are more stupid and care little for you childs safety, then your comments should be ignored as the ramblings of someone who should not be in charge of children let alone ride a bike

Unfortunately you show a complete lack of understanding of the issues.
Whereas I do.

BTW, Do you wear a helmet when you travel by motor vehicle?

I think you are the one that shows the lack of understanding! Heaven forbid if something happened to your child/children, and I hope you never have to go through that.

Polkadotty wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr




en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

If you let your children ride without a helmet you are more stupid and care little for you childs safety, then your comments should be ignored as the ramblings of someone who should not be in charge of children let alone ride a bike

Well said!!! I thought I was the only one on here that actually thought what Dr Enyon had said was right. Thank you.

Your welcome I worry about the sanity and safety of someone who refuses the use of safety gear when available

Polkadotty wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr





en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Riding without a helmet gives you brain damage? Really? Weird. I never wore one, and suffered no brain damage at all.

You are funny!!!! Such a joker. Re read the article, if you are unlucky enough to be injured whilst riding derrrr!!!!
But hey you have been spared! And most definitely been lucky. There are lots that haven't been so lucky.

I read the article!!eleven! I was referring to your oh-so-insightful comment!!shiftpluson
e11!

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr



en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Have you ever seen some dying in cardiac intensive care? I have.

The point is cycling is needed, as is walking. ANYTHING we do to discourage that, and put cyclists at further risk is going to reduce cycling numbers. This nation is killing itself by sitting on its arse and eating a range of foods that corrode the body.

You havent answered my question. Do you drive? Do you drink? Why do you not wear a helmet for those activities?

The point is riding without a helmet is NOT illegal right now. This would make it illegal. This will criminalise an activity that statistically, whilst it could be safer, isnt all that likely to see you suffer head or brain injuries.This will criminalise children who very well might take the helmet off when its very hot and see their parents receive a fine.

From your standpoint you appear to argue that its fine to criminalise kids but not allow people to govern their own lives and those of their own children.

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr




en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Riding without a helmet gives you brain damage? Really? Weird. I never wore one, and suffered no brain damage at all.

Any proof of that?

geoff51 wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr





en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

If you let your children ride without a helmet you are more stupid and care little for you childs safety, then your comments should be ignored as the ramblings of someone who should not be in charge of children let alone ride a bike

Well said!!! I thought I was the only one on here that actually thought what Dr Enyon had said was right. Thank you.

Your welcome I worry about the sanity and safety of someone who refuses the use of safety gear when available

..and you said before that you worried about the sanity of anyone who rides a bike in the road, thus condoning pavement riding.

Hoist.. petard..

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr





en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Riding without a helmet gives you brain damage? Really? Weird. I never wore one, and suffered no brain damage at all.

Any proof of that?

Its common sense. He's tried it out and OBVIOUSLY hasnt suffered any brain damage.

You sir, have failed to answer my question.

Do you wear a helmet when you travel by motor vehicle?

geoff51 wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr





en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

If you let your children ride without a helmet you are more stupid and care little for you childs safety, then your comments should be ignored as the ramblings of someone who should not be in charge of children let alone ride a bike

Well said!!! I thought I was the only one on here that actually thought what Dr Enyon had said was right. Thank you.

Your welcome I worry about the sanity and safety of someone who refuses the use of safety gear when available

It's called calculated risk. Do you wear flame-retardant clothes when you go to bed? Why not? Your house might catch fire. Do you wear a life jacket when you go for a walk in the park? Why not? What if you fall into the pond? Do you wear a parachute when flying? Why not? What if the wings fall off the plane?

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr





en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Riding without a helmet gives you brain damage? Really? Weird. I never wore one, and suffered no brain damage at all.

Any proof of that?

Yes thanks. My ability to think in a straight line testifies, for a start.

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr





en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

If you let your children ride without a helmet you are more stupid and care little for you childs safety, then your comments should be ignored as the ramblings of someone who should not be in charge of children let alone ride a bike

Unfortunately you show a complete lack of understanding of the issues.
Whereas I do.

BTW, Do you wear a helmet when you travel by motor vehicle?

I think you are the one that shows the lack of understanding! Heaven forbid if something happened to your child/children, and I hope you never have to go through that.

Nope. I've checked, twice, and it's definitely you who doesn't understand. My first clue was your reliance on "think of the children!" to make a feeble point.

downfader wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr






en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Riding without a helmet gives you brain damage? Really? Weird. I never wore one, and suffered no brain damage at all.

Any proof of that?

Its common sense. He's tried it out and OBVIOUSLY hasnt suffered any brain damage.

From the content of his and most anti helmet posters I would argue that most of you are suffering from some sort of brain damage especcially if you foist your dangerous opinion on your vulnerable offspring.

Those who are refusing to say whether they wear a helmet when in a motor vehicle yet argue for compulsory helmets for cyclists would do well to ponder the Australian situation.

Here is what the Centre for Automotive safety in Australia said:

"The Centre has been evaluating the concept of a protective headband for car occupants. In about 44 percent of cases of occupant head injury, a protective headband, such as the one illustrated, would have provided some benefit. One estimate has put the potential benefit of such a device (in terms of reduced societal Harm) as high as $380 million, compared with $123 million for padding the upper interior of the car."

Australia introduced cycle helmet laws.
Car helmets were quickly put on the Agenda.

UK next?

There's a nice little picture here too:
http://bbc.in/O8bacU

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr







en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Riding without a helmet gives you brain damage? Really? Weird. I never wore one, and suffered no brain damage at all.

Any proof of that?

Its common sense. He's tried it out and OBVIOUSLY hasnt suffered any brain damage.

From the content of his and most anti helmet posters I would argue that most of you are suffering from some sort of brain damage especcially if you foist your dangerous opinion on your vulnerable offspring.

From your failure to comprehend what 'brain damage' means we can conclude that the knee-jerk stock responses that pass for your opinions are a disgrace to the very concept of 'opinion'.

I do enjoy a good round of "Anyone who doesn't share my views is by definition brain damaged". Reminds me how awesome I am in comparison to the hard-of-thinking.

Georgem wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr








en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Riding without a helmet gives you brain damage? Really? Weird. I never wore one, and suffered no brain damage at all.

Any proof of that?

Its common sense. He's tried it out and OBVIOUSLY hasnt suffered any brain damage.

From the content of his and most anti helmet posters I would argue that most of you are suffering from some sort of brain damage especcially if you foist your dangerous opinion on your vulnerable offspring.

From your failure to comprehend what 'brain damage' means we can conclude that the knee-jerk stock responses that pass for your opinions are a disgrace to the very concept of 'opinion'.

Believe me I have personally have experience of children with brain damage and despite you protestations I am sure no right person would want their child to suffer that!

Just for the record. No-one is actively seeking to ban helmets. What people like myself are is anti-helmet law. Not anti-helmet.

Get a grip people. Laws can be destructive if done wrong. Look at the damage New Labour's change in licencing law did to pubs and small venues.

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr









en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Riding without a helmet gives you brain damage? Really? Weird. I never wore one, and suffered no brain damage at all.

Any proof of that?

Its common sense. He's tried it out and OBVIOUSLY hasnt suffered any brain damage.

From the content of his and most anti helmet posters I would argue that most of you are suffering from some sort of brain damage especcially if you foist your dangerous opinion on your vulnerable offspring.

From your failure to comprehend what 'brain damage' means we can conclude that the knee-jerk stock responses that pass for your opinions are a disgrace to the very concept of 'opinion'.

Believe me I have personally have experience of children with brain damage and despite you protestations I am sure no right person would want their child to suffer that!

We've all seen and experienced bad things, Geoff.

Getting petty doesnt help matters.

downfader wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr




en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Have you ever seen some dying in cardiac intensive care? I have.

The point is cycling is needed, as is walking. ANYTHING we do to discourage that, and put cyclists at further risk is going to reduce cycling numbers. This nation is killing itself by sitting on its arse and eating a range of foods that corrode the body.

You havent answered my question. Do you drive? Do you drink? Why do you not wear a helmet for those activities?

The point is riding without a helmet is NOT illegal right now. This would make it illegal. This will criminalise an activity that statistically, whilst it could be safer, isnt all that likely to see you suffer head or brain injuries.This will criminalise children who very well might take the helmet off when its very hot and see their parents receive a fine.

From your standpoint you appear to argue that its fine to criminalise kids but not allow people to govern their own lives and those of their own children.

Yes I have actually, and in Neuro. I drive, I ride a bike (with a helmet) the point is as you so rightly pointed out that it is not ILLEGAL to ride without a helmet, did people make such a fuss when the seat belt law was introduced? ..But actually in hindsight the attitudes of individuals should make their own minds up then deal with consequences if and when they happen. I know my family are doing all they can to be safe.

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr









en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Riding without a helmet gives you brain damage? Really? Weird. I never wore one, and suffered no brain damage at all.

Any proof of that?

Its common sense. He's tried it out and OBVIOUSLY hasnt suffered any brain damage.

From the content of his and most anti helmet posters I would argue that most of you are suffering from some sort of brain damage especcially if you foist your dangerous opinion on your vulnerable offspring.

From your failure to comprehend what 'brain damage' means we can conclude that the knee-jerk stock responses that pass for your opinions are a disgrace to the very concept of 'opinion'.

Believe me I have personally have experience of children with brain damage and despite you protestations I am sure no right person would want their child to suffer that!

Just so we're clear: You're telling me you have experience of children with real, actual, medically-diagnosed brain damage, and to prove how compassionate you are, you're using the term 'brain damaged' as an insult against people who simply do not share your opinions. Right. Got it.

What's next? Calling me a spastic?

Brain damage is an actual thing. Don't make light of it by using it as an insult.

downfader wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr










en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Riding without a helmet gives you brain damage? Really? Weird. I never wore one, and suffered no brain damage at all.

Any proof of that?

Its common sense. He's tried it out and OBVIOUSLY hasnt suffered any brain damage.

From the content of his and most anti helmet posters I would argue that most of you are suffering from some sort of brain damage especcially if you foist your dangerous opinion on your vulnerable offspring.

From your failure to comprehend what 'brain damage' means we can conclude that the knee-jerk stock responses that pass for your opinions are a disgrace to the very concept of 'opinion'.

Believe me I have personally have experience of children with brain damage and despite you protestations I am sure no right person would want their child to suffer that!

We've all seen and experienced bad things, Geoff.

Getting petty doesnt help matters.

Geoff that is a very valid point. No one would want to see that, but until it happens they won't realise it.

downfader wrote:
Just for the record. No-one is actively seeking to ban helmets. What people like myself are is anti-helmet law. Not anti-helmet.

Get a grip people. Laws can be destructive if done wrong. Look at the damage New Labour's change in licencing law did to pubs and small venues.

Exactly. The idea that legislation solves every problem is ludicrous.

Polkadotty wrote:

downfader wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr











en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Riding without a helmet gives you brain damage? Really? Weird. I never wore one, and suffered no brain damage at all.

Any proof of that?

Its common sense. He's tried it out and OBVIOUSLY hasnt suffered any brain damage.

From the content of his and most anti helmet posters I would argue that most of you are suffering from some sort of brain damage especcially if you foist your dangerous opinion on your vulnerable offspring.

From your failure to comprehend what 'brain damage' means we can conclude that the knee-jerk stock responses that pass for your opinions are a disgrace to the very concept of 'opinion'.

Believe me I have personally have experience of children with brain damage and despite you protestations I am sure no right person would want their child to suffer that!

We've all seen and experienced bad things, Geoff.

Getting petty doesnt help matters.

Geoff that is a very valid point. No one would want to see that, but until it happens they won't realise it.

It's a terrible point. It's a very simple appeal to authority, a bullying scare tactic, a real cheap shot.

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr






en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

If you let your children ride without a helmet you are more stupid and care little for you childs safety, then your comments should be ignored as the ramblings of someone who should not be in charge of children let alone ride a bike

Unfortunately you show a complete lack of understanding of the issues.
Whereas I do.

BTW, Do you wear a helmet when you travel by motor vehicle?

I think you are the one that shows the lack of understanding! Heaven forbid if something happened to your child/children, and I hope you never have to go through that.

Nope. I've checked, twice, and it's definitely you who doesn't understand. My first clue was your reliance on "think of the children!" to make a feeble point.

Feeble pah ha ha. Nope I've checked too, let your kids ride without a helmet.

Georgem wrote:

downfader wrote:
Just for the record. No-one is actively seeking to ban helmets. What people like myself are is anti-helmet law. Not anti-helmet.

Get a grip people. Laws can be destructive if done wrong. Look at the damage New Labour's change in licencing law did to pubs and small venues.

Exactly. The idea that legislation solves every problem is ludicrous.

Its a ridiculous assumption that if you believe in choice you are somehow anti-helmet.
What would be the next step?
Can you see the police arresting anyone who wore one? Laughable.

Polkadotty wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr







en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

If you let your children ride without a helmet you are more stupid and care little for you childs safety, then your comments should be ignored as the ramblings of someone who should not be in charge of children let alone ride a bike

Unfortunately you show a complete lack of understanding of the issues.
Whereas I do.

BTW, Do you wear a helmet when you travel by motor vehicle?

I think you are the one that shows the lack of understanding! Heaven forbid if something happened to your child/children, and I hope you never have to go through that.

Nope. I've checked, twice, and it's definitely you who doesn't understand. My first clue was your reliance on "think of the children!" to make a feeble point.

Feeble pah ha ha. Nope I've checked too, let your kids ride without a helmet.

What kids?

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

downfader wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr












en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Riding without a helmet gives you brain damage? Really? Weird. I never wore one, and suffered no brain damage at all.

Any proof of that?

Its common sense. He's tried it out and OBVIOUSLY hasnt suffered any brain damage.

From the content of his and most anti helmet posters I would argue that most of you are suffering from some sort of brain damage especcially if you foist your dangerous opinion on your vulnerable offspring.

From your failure to comprehend what 'brain damage' means we can conclude that the knee-jerk stock responses that pass for your opinions are a disgrace to the very concept of 'opinion'.

Believe me I have personally have experience of children with brain damage and despite you protestations I am sure no right person would want their child to suffer that!

We've all seen and experienced bad things, Geoff.

Getting petty doesnt help matters.

Geoff that is a very valid point. No one would want to see that, but until it happens they won't realise it.

It's a terrible point. It's a very simple appeal to authority, a bullying scare tactic, a real cheap shot.

That's your opinion, to which you are entitled

Polkadotty wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

downfader wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr













en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Riding without a helmet gives you brain damage? Really? Weird. I never wore one, and suffered no brain damage at all.

Any proof of that?

Its common sense. He's tried it out and OBVIOUSLY hasnt suffered any brain damage.

From the content of his and most anti helmet posters I would argue that most of you are suffering from some sort of brain damage especcially if you foist your dangerous opinion on your vulnerable offspring.

From your failure to comprehend what 'brain damage' means we can conclude that the knee-jerk stock responses that pass for your opinions are a disgrace to the very concept of 'opinion'.

Believe me I have personally have experience of children with brain damage and despite you protestations I am sure no right person would want their child to suffer that!

We've all seen and experienced bad things, Geoff.

Getting petty doesnt help matters.

Geoff that is a very valid point. No one would want to see that, but until it happens they won't realise it.

It's a terrible point. It's a very simple appeal to authority, a bullying scare tactic, a real cheap shot.

That's your opinion, to which you are entitled

I know. I don't need your blessing, thanks.

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr








en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

If you let your children ride without a helmet you are more stupid and care little for you childs safety, then your comments should be ignored as the ramblings of someone who should not be in charge of children let alone ride a bike

Unfortunately you show a complete lack of understanding of the issues.
Whereas I do.

BTW, Do you wear a helmet when you travel by motor vehicle?

I think you are the one that shows the lack of understanding! Heaven forbid if something happened to your child/children, and I hope you never have to go through that.

Nope. I've checked, twice, and it's definitely you who doesn't understand. My first clue was your reliance on "think of the children!" to make a feeble point.

Feeble pah ha ha. Nope I've checked too, let your kids ride without a helmet.

What kids?

Read back through........... That's what I meant about kids.....

Polkadotty wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr









en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

If you let your children ride without a helmet you are more stupid and care little for you childs safety, then your comments should be ignored as the ramblings of someone who should not be in charge of children let alone ride a bike

Unfortunately you show a complete lack of understanding of the issues.
Whereas I do.

BTW, Do you wear a helmet when you travel by motor vehicle?

I think you are the one that shows the lack of understanding! Heaven forbid if something happened to your child/children, and I hope you never have to go through that.

Nope. I've checked, twice, and it's definitely you who doesn't understand. My first clue was your reliance on "think of the children!" to make a feeble point.

Feeble pah ha ha. Nope I've checked too, let your kids ride without a helmet.

What kids?

Read back through........... That's what I meant about kids.....

Oh right. I'm more of a traditionalist when it comes to comments. My replies tend to address the comments they're actually replying to, not some other comment elsewhere. It makes things easier than if I just randomly reply to arbitrary comments with a reply about something else. Try it.

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

downfader wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr














en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Riding without a helmet gives you brain damage? Really? Weird. I never wore one, and suffered no brain damage at all.

Any proof of that?

Its common sense. He's tried it out and OBVIOUSLY hasnt suffered any brain damage.

From the content of his and most anti helmet posters I would argue that most of you are suffering from some sort of brain damage especcially if you foist your dangerous opinion on your vulnerable offspring.

From your failure to comprehend what 'brain damage' means we can conclude that the knee-jerk stock responses that pass for your opinions are a disgrace to the very concept of 'opinion'.

Believe me I have personally have experience of children with brain damage and despite you protestations I am sure no right person would want their child to suffer that!

We've all seen and experienced bad things, Geoff.

Getting petty doesnt help matters.

Geoff that is a very valid point. No one would want to see that, but until it happens they won't realise it.

It's a terrible point. It's a very simple appeal to authority, a bullying scare tactic, a real cheap shot.

That's your opinion, to which you are entitled

I know. I don't need your blessing, thanks.

You haven't got my blessing. Everyone thinks their opinion is right, get a grip!!!

Polkadotty wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

downfader wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr















en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Riding without a helmet gives you brain damage? Really? Weird. I never wore one, and suffered no brain damage at all.

Any proof of that?

Its common sense. He's tried it out and OBVIOUSLY hasnt suffered any brain damage.

From the content of his and most anti helmet posters I would argue that most of you are suffering from some sort of brain damage especcially if you foist your dangerous opinion on your vulnerable offspring.

From your failure to comprehend what 'brain damage' means we can conclude that the knee-jerk stock responses that pass for your opinions are a disgrace to the very concept of 'opinion'.

Believe me I have personally have experience of children with brain damage and despite you protestations I am sure no right person would want their child to suffer that!

We've all seen and experienced bad things, Geoff.

Getting petty doesnt help matters.

Geoff that is a very valid point. No one would want to see that, but until it happens they won't realise it.

It's a terrible point. It's a very simple appeal to authority, a bullying scare tactic, a real cheap shot.

That's your opinion, to which you are entitled

I know. I don't need your blessing, thanks.

You haven't got my blessing. Everyone thinks their opinion is right, get a grip!!!

Well, train fares can be high, yes.

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr










en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

If you let your children ride without a helmet you are more stupid and care little for you childs safety, then your comments should be ignored as the ramblings of someone who should not be in charge of children let alone ride a bike

Unfortunately you show a complete lack of understanding of the issues.
Whereas I do.

BTW, Do you wear a helmet when you travel by motor vehicle?

I think you are the one that shows the lack of understanding! Heaven forbid if something happened to your child/children, and I hope you never have to go through that.

Nope. I've checked, twice, and it's definitely you who doesn't understand. My first clue was your reliance on "think of the children!" to make a feeble point.

Feeble pah ha ha. Nope I've checked too, let your kids ride without a helmet.

What kids?

Read back through........... That's what I meant about kids.....

Oh right. I'm more of a traditionalist when it comes to comments. My replies tend to address the comments they're actually replying to, not some other comment elsewhere. It makes things easier than if I just randomly reply to arbitrary comments with a reply about something else. Try it.

May be, I was just replying to previous comment. Everyone has a different opinion, that is what makes it interesting.

Polkadotty wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr











en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

If you let your children ride without a helmet you are more stupid and care little for you childs safety, then your comments should be ignored as the ramblings of someone who should not be in charge of children let alone ride a bike

Unfortunately you show a complete lack of understanding of the issues.
Whereas I do.

BTW, Do you wear a helmet when you travel by motor vehicle?

I think you are the one that shows the lack of understanding! Heaven forbid if something happened to your child/children, and I hope you never have to go through that.

Nope. I've checked, twice, and it's definitely you who doesn't understand. My first clue was your reliance on "think of the children!" to make a feeble point.

Feeble pah ha ha. Nope I've checked too, let your kids ride without a helmet.

What kids?

Read back through........... That's what I meant about kids.....

Oh right. I'm more of a traditionalist when it comes to comments. My replies tend to address the comments they're actually replying to, not some other comment elsewhere. It makes things easier than if I just randomly reply to arbitrary comments with a reply about something else. Try it.

May be, I was just replying to previous comment. Everyone has a different opinion, that is what makes it interesting.

Mobile-first design forces you to think about what your app or site is actually for, you don't get tied up in using spare real estate.

downfader wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Cyclestrian wrote:
In Holland the majority of short journeys are made by bike, not car, and without a helmet. Dutch cycle injury rates are about 1/8 of ours. No-one there calls for helmet compulsion. Fact is, UK streets are designed for boy racers, not people on foot or on bike. That's what we need to fix.

Also in Holland, 12% of cyclist casualties are wearing helmets but only 0.1% wear one. Work that out.

Inactivity is a much much bigger cause of illness and death than cycling head injuries. And inactivity costs the state vastly more than cycling brain injuries. Compulsory helmets would dangerise cycling and discourage casual users.

The recent debate over helmet laws started after a cyclist called Dan was crushed by a left-turning doubledecker bus. He was wearing a helmet.
He was killed by a shockingly dangerous road layout installed for the Olympic VIPs. No helmet would have saved him.

I wear a helmet. It probably makes me overconfident and drivers think I'm protected. Not sure it makes me safer.

You are referring to 'Dan' who probably leapt on his bicycle without any form of assessment or training and clearly never gave a thought that the bus would be making a left turn as he cycled up the side of the it where he wouldn't have seen the indicators? That is a synopsis of his actions that night which cost him his life and has left an innocent bus driver mentally scarred. Another example of a needless death because when you decide to use a bicycle you are the sort road user who doesn't need any training or testing.

Again - you talk about things you know nothing about. The victim was a guy who tweeted daily on twitter. I know people knew him through that website.

He even tweeted and talked that he would never, ever ride up the left hand gap of large vehicles. The bus came from one lane, he was in another. There appears - from what others have divulged online - to have been some kind of effort to make out that something else happened

Put things in perspective. Plenty of drivers die each year despite testing and training. For example - motorcyclists (mentioned above in the article) account for 1% of traffic - yet they account for 21% of all fatalities.

I apologize for using the account that one of the witnesses on the bus gave to the Police and then told the news reporters who used it the next day. It's always everyone elses fault when a bicycle comes to grief. No-one on a bicycle seems to accept the need for training or testing, the vast majority scorn insurance, no-one will ever get rich by selling bicycle lights, they chose their own route and expect others to understand their logic and they can all pass judgement on a motorists performance in spite of having no qualifications to do so. I expect they can also walk on water and then turn it in to wine, but they always come off worst in any accident.

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

Unfortunately more pedestrians get hit by cars than cyclists, so from your argument we should be wearing helmets as soon as we leave the house. As I said common sense should prevail.

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote:

Paul Jakma wrote:

geoff51 wrote:
As usual the Nazi cycling fraternity are selective in which they support they same as which of the road rules they obey.
If an acknowledged expert on head trauma says helmets are essential for the safety of cyclists who are they in their amateur wisdom to disagree.
For once cyclist listen to the experts and save your lives, I am surprised at Ms Gartside who is an avid spokesman fo the cyclist does not fully support the pro helmet lobby especially as her friend Ms Bluemel was badly injured when she was not wearing her helmet.
Motor cycle helmets and seat belts have proved their worth, get with the flow for once Downfader and chums

Sorry, but the "expert" is an expert *only* in the clinical treatment of neurological trauma. They do not appear to have any significant expertise in statistics or scientific evaluation.

At least some of the commentators here are at least as well educated in relevant areas as Dr Eynon, indeed more so… (From a google Dr Eynon does not appear to have any particular qualifications in science or statistics beyond the basic instruction he would have received as part of his bachelors in medicine).

Ignore Geoff. He's got a fetish for lycra, haha! He also likes to break Godwin's Law.

Stupid comment from someone who cares to ignore professional wisdom!

A professional in TREATING brain injuries, NOT preventing them and of all the times I've come off my bike, including today, I have only hit my head ONCE and even then a helmet wouldn't have saved me from injury as I had landed on my face but I've hit my head more times while I've been walking or running, even more while at home, did you know that 60% of all serious injuries occur in the home? Should we start wearing fireproof body armor at home just because of this fact? Didn't think so.

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote:

Paul Jakma wrote:

geoff51 wrote:
As usual the Nazi cycling fraternity are selective in which they support they same as which of the road rules they obey.
If an acknowledged expert on head trauma says helmets are essential for the safety of cyclists who are they in their amateur wisdom to disagree.
For once cyclist listen to the experts and save your lives, I am surprised at Ms Gartside who is an avid spokesman fo the cyclist does not fully support the pro helmet lobby especially as her friend Ms Bluemel was badly injured when she was not wearing her helmet.
Motor cycle helmets and seat belts have proved their worth, get with the flow for once Downfader and chums

Sorry, but the "expert" is an expert *only* in the clinical treatment of neurological trauma. They do not appear to have any significant expertise in statistics or scientific evaluation.

At least some of the commentators here are at least as well educated in relevant areas as Dr Eynon, indeed more so… (From a google Dr Eynon does not appear to have any particular qualifications in science or statistics beyond the basic instruction he would have received as part of his bachelors in medicine).

Ignore Geoff. He's got a fetish for lycra, haha! He also likes to break Godwin's Law.

Stupid comment from someone who cares to ignore professional wisdom!

A professional in TREATING brain injuries, NOT preventing them and of all the times I've come off my bike, including today, I have only hit my head ONCE and even then a helmet wouldn't have saved me from injury as I had landed on my face but I've hit my head more times while I've been walking or running, even more while at home, did you know that 60% of all serious injuries occur in the home? Should we start wearing fireproof body armor at home just because of this fact? Didn't think so.

Been married three times. Fireproof body armour at home, sounds like a good idea. Don't need a helmet on a bike though as none of the ex's drive.

Polkadotty wrote:

downfader wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

keepontriking wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Polkadotty wrote:
Amazing some of the stupid comments on here, surely if a cycle helmet gave you the chance between life or death you would wear one. All of you passing negative judgement put yourself in the position of a loved one if it was you that was seriously injured if not fatally. What would you wish for then???? It would be this Dr trying to save your life because you were stupid enough to cycle without a helmet. The Dr wouldn't be the bad guy then would he.

If I, as an old f&rt can run faster than another old f&rt on a bike then some common sense and personal judgement should be allowed into the equation. A blanket law forcing all cyclists to wear helmets would be wrong, however if my grandchildren were to be riding on roads I would expect them to wear helmets. It's called common sense.

I totally agree with you, but it's not necessarily how fast you are riding the bike is it? It only takes a vehicle to hit you. It is common sense at the end of the day, which alot of people lack, all the references in the world and statistics being spouted don't give people common sense!

No helmet manufacturer claims they have any benefit in a collision with a vehicle.

I don't get this, a Consultant, a specialist in his field who has the utmost respect from colleagues alike is being criticised for making a comment that is common sense, that most people on here are disagreeing with. He sees patients sometimes cyclists that have major brain trauma on a daily basis, that he is trying to save their life, if there was a chance that a helmet could prevent this or at least reduce the brain damage that the trauma had caused maybe it is actually worth it. If peoria don't like it then don't cycle. How many would let their own children/grandchildr





en cycle without a helmet?

I let my children cycle without helmets. The alternative is they may not cycle at all and lose out on all the other health benefits.
Plus of course wearing helmets can put you at greater risk of the incident in the first place.

Perhaps you should arrange a trip to neuro intensive care to see the outcome of riding without a helmet, and then you may be more responsible, as you are making decisions for children that perhaps aren't old enough to make their own.

Have you ever seen some dying in cardiac intensive care? I have.

The point is cycling is needed, as is walking. ANYTHING we do to discourage that, and put cyclists at further risk is going to reduce cycling numbers. This nation is killing itself by sitting on its arse and eating a range of foods that corrode the body.

You havent answered my question. Do you drive? Do you drink? Why do you not wear a helmet for those activities?

The point is riding without a helmet is NOT illegal right now. This would make it illegal. This will criminalise an activity that statistically, whilst it could be safer, isnt all that likely to see you suffer head or brain injuries.This will criminalise children who very well might take the helmet off when its very hot and see their parents receive a fine.

From your standpoint you appear to argue that its fine to criminalise kids but not allow people to govern their own lives and those of their own children.

Yes I have actually, and in Neuro. I drive, I ride a bike (with a helmet) the point is as you so rightly pointed out that it is not ILLEGAL to ride without a helmet, did people make such a fuss when the seat belt law was introduced? ..But actually in hindsight the attitudes of individuals should make their own minds up then deal with consequences if and when they happen. I know my family are doing all they can to be safe.

Actually people did make a fuss about the law on seatbelts, especially women who argued "it creases my clothes" or "it hurts my breasts".

Inform Al wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote:

Paul Jakma wrote:

geoff51 wrote:
As usual the Nazi cycling fraternity are selective in which they support they same as which of the road rules they obey.
If an acknowledged expert on head trauma says helmets are essential for the safety of cyclists who are they in their amateur wisdom to disagree.
For once cyclist listen to the experts and save your lives, I am surprised at Ms Gartside who is an avid spokesman fo the cyclist does not fully support the pro helmet lobby especially as her friend Ms Bluemel was badly injured when she was not wearing her helmet.
Motor cycle helmets and seat belts have proved their worth, get with the flow for once Downfader and chums

Sorry, but the "expert" is an expert *only* in the clinical treatment of neurological trauma. They do not appear to have any significant expertise in statistics or scientific evaluation.

At least some of the commentators here are at least as well educated in relevant areas as Dr Eynon, indeed more so… (From a google Dr Eynon does not appear to have any particular qualifications in science or statistics beyond the basic instruction he would have received as part of his bachelors in medicine).

Ignore Geoff. He's got a fetish for lycra, haha! He also likes to break Godwin's Law.

Stupid comment from someone who cares to ignore professional wisdom!

A professional in TREATING brain injuries, NOT preventing them and of all the times I've come off my bike, including today, I have only hit my head ONCE and even then a helmet wouldn't have saved me from injury as I had landed on my face but I've hit my head more times while I've been walking or running, even more while at home, did you know that 60% of all serious injuries occur in the home? Should we start wearing fireproof body armor at home just because of this fact? Didn't think so.

Been married three times. Fireproof body armour at home, sounds like a good idea. Don't need a helmet on a bike though as none of the ex's drive.

Nah, I shouldn't think any of them have the balls to set your house on fire.

TEBOURBA wrote:
Anyone campaigning against the wearing of cycle helmets is a prat!

No ones campaigning against it but there is evidence drivers respect cyclists less if they are wearing a helmet. I wouldn't cycle with or without a helmet because I feel the roads in this country are far too dangerous. In Paris, Berlin and other parts of Europe they have dedicated cycle lanes. Can you see the introducing that here?

userds5050 wrote:

TEBOURBA wrote:
Anyone campaigning against the wearing of cycle helmets is a prat!

No ones campaigning against it but there is evidence drivers respect cyclists less if they are wearing a helmet. I wouldn't cycle with or without a helmet because I feel the roads in this country are far too dangerous. In Paris, Berlin and other parts of Europe they have dedicated cycle lanes. Can you see the introducing that here?

There are cycle lanes in the UK but on nothing like the scale there are on the Continent.They remain largely unused so why should local authorities invest more money when they have far more pressing problems to deal with?

Common sense really, if you want to wear a helmet then go for it and if you do not want to wear a helmet then don't.

We are all fully aware of the risks and are capable of making our own choices. We don't need anyone telling us what to do.

I personally wear a helmet because i have had a few hard hits to the head when i chose not to wear one, and so thought it may help if it happens again; it has happened again whilst i had my helmet on and i believe it has saved me from some more serious but still only minor injuries.

Meh, it's common sense - i ride to work through a national cycle path and only pass roads at traffic lights all the way to work - so i see no need for one. If i was going on the road i might think differently

The group and national campaigners are also calling for the law to presume in favour of cyclists involved in collisions with motorists.

In that case insurance companies should demand that any injury claim submitted by a cyclist will only be considered if the cyclist was wearing a helmet and fluorescent clothing, as per usual cyclist seem to want everything their way the most vulnerable of road users yet they refuse to accept any responsibility for themselves whatsoever yet they want motorists to be judged the guilty party of any accident, so a helmet wont save them but a threat of hit me if you dare will.

Dr Eynon, is a brain injury expert, he knows what he is talking about
No doubt, during the course of his career he has had the unenviable duty of informing relatives that their loved one has been paralysed, brain damaged or died.
He sees the nature and extent of the head injuries sustained by his patients.
Dr Eynon knows better than anyone how the wearing of a helmet can reduce the severity of injuries to the brain.
Those who brag in this column about not wearing a helmet or allowing their children to ride without a helmet probably have no brains to protect

After reading through these comments it becomes quite clear why so many cyclist get hurt on our roads, with the attitudes and the sheer ignorance displayed in some of the comments its a wonder we don't have more injuries, i can only assume that some of the authors of the above comments have already come off their bikes and done themselves a mischief.
Why quote what they do in France / Holland or anywhere else this is the U.K. a totally different environment Holland have lived with the bicycle for years and developed there whole lives around the bicycle, Germany has the autobahn but it doesn't mean its suitable for the U.K.
We have to think differently instead of the nasty motorist Vs the cyclist,. but you can't put the onus onto the motorist cyclist have to display that they respect the roads and other road users and a good start would be by wearing a helmet and high viz clothing, like everything in life respect has to be earned then motorist will start respecting cyclist

ohec:

Cyclists get hurt on the road because drivers kill and maim them. Yes there a a few cyclists who get themselves killed too through their own fault, but they really are in the minority.

PPE is the last resort on removal of risk and rightly so. First priorities need to be removal of the danger.
We all know where that primarily comes from - motor traffic - people driving.

Incidentally not one person here has yet to say whether they use a helmet when travelling by motor vehicle.
That speaks volumes in understanding the motives.

BTW Holland has NOT lived with the cyclist for that long. It was in the 70's that they came to understand that the deaths and injuries being caused by the car, particularly to children was unacceptable and only then did they take action on segregation planning.

The UK lags badly behind in this and we presently have amongst one of the worst safety records in Europe for child casualties.

Torchie1 wrote:

downfader wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Cyclestrian wrote:
In Holland the majority of short journeys are made by bike, not car, and without a helmet. Dutch cycle injury rates are about 1/8 of ours. No-one there calls for helmet compulsion. Fact is, UK streets are designed for boy racers, not people on foot or on bike. That's what we need to fix.

Also in Holland, 12% of cyclist casualties are wearing helmets but only 0.1% wear one. Work that out.

Inactivity is a much much bigger cause of illness and death than cycling head injuries. And inactivity costs the state vastly more than cycling brain injuries. Compulsory helmets would dangerise cycling and discourage casual users.

The recent debate over helmet laws started after a cyclist called Dan was crushed by a left-turning doubledecker bus. He was wearing a helmet.
He was killed by a shockingly dangerous road layout installed for the Olympic VIPs. No helmet would have saved him.

I wear a helmet. It probably makes me overconfident and drivers think I'm protected. Not sure it makes me safer.

You are referring to 'Dan' who probably leapt on his bicycle without any form of assessment or training and clearly never gave a thought that the bus would be making a left turn as he cycled up the side of the it where he wouldn't have seen the indicators? That is a synopsis of his actions that night which cost him his life and has left an innocent bus driver mentally scarred. Another example of a needless death because when you decide to use a bicycle you are the sort road user who doesn't need any training or testing.

Again - you talk about things you know nothing about. The victim was a guy who tweeted daily on twitter. I know people knew him through that website.

He even tweeted and talked that he would never, ever ride up the left hand gap of large vehicles. The bus came from one lane, he was in another. There appears - from what others have divulged online - to have been some kind of effort to make out that something else happened

Put things in perspective. Plenty of drivers die each year despite testing and training. For example - motorcyclists (mentioned above in the article) account for 1% of traffic - yet they account for 21% of all fatalities.

I apologize for using the account that one of the witnesses on the bus gave to the Police and then told the news reporters who used it the next day. It's always everyone elses fault when a bicycle comes to grief. No-one on a bicycle seems to accept the need for training or testing, the vast majority scorn insurance, no-one will ever get rich by selling bicycle lights, they chose their own route and expect others to understand their logic and they can all pass judgement on a motorists performance in spite of having no qualifications to do so. I expect they can also walk on water and then turn it in to wine, but they always come off worst in any accident.

One "account" that was quickly withdrawn from the Reddit site does not make evidence. The coach driver has been arrested and bailed. He has not given a statement to the press, neither have his passengers that I am aware.

As I and others have said oh so many times before on testing/training/ins
urance/etc, yet for some ludicrous reason it never sets in.. perhap the reason you and others like to demonise cyclists is down to how you drive.

Guilt?

There are statistical and legal reasons why testing and training are mandatory with heavy machines like motor vehicles. They actively remove you from experiencing your surroundings thus increasing your risk to others.

And I'll ask you exactly what everyone else on here has avoided. Given that 48% of all head and brain injuries on the road are car passengers or drivers - why do YOU not wear a helmet?

You complain about cyclists passing judgement, but this is exactly what you and others do every time on these comments boards when cycling is raised.

Hoist by your own petard.

Having previously lived in an area where they spent a small fortune on cycle paths and allowing cyclist to use the esplanade i can speak with some experience, when asked why the head down go like mad lycra brigade still use the road i was told they cant go fast enough on the cycle paths, when asked why he was on the pavement when he knocked down and killed a pedestrian the reply was the traffic lights changed and he got 7 months yes 7 months for killing an elderly gent. Now i know it is a difficult concept for a lot of cyclist to understand but road tax was introduced in 1920 and was ring fenced until 1937 for road construction after 1937 it went into the communal tax pot but was still referred to as road tax by the government until it was changed to VED, now we have that clear it still doesn't alter the fact that motorists have paid all that money in for the privilege of using the roads and cyclist pay nothing yet most have little or no idea about the highway code and a very high proportion of bikes are not even roadworthy and you have the audacity to ask that the motorist be assumed guilty in any accident, is it any wonder why motorist have no respect for cyclist. I would support the building of an entire network of cycle paths provided it is made compulsory to use them and cyclists banned from the road, helmets must be made compulsory and the wearing of hi viz clothing. As a motorist i am obliged to wear a seat belt as a motorcyclist i am obliged to wear a helmet as a motorist i am obliged to have insurance have my car inspected every year i can be prosecuted for a defect like a light thats not working even in daylight a lot of bikes don't even have lights, so lets even things up a little.

ohec wrote:
Having previously lived in an area where they spent a small fortune on cycle paths and allowing cyclist to use the esplanade i can speak with some experience, when asked why the head down go like mad lycra brigade still use the road i was told they cant go fast enough on the cycle paths, when asked why he was on the pavement when he knocked down and killed a pedestrian the reply was the traffic lights changed and he got 7 months yes 7 months for killing an elderly gent. Now i know it is a difficult concept for a lot of cyclist to understand but road tax was introduced in 1920 and was ring fenced until 1937 for road construction after 1937 it went into the communal tax pot but was still referred to as road tax by the government until it was changed to VED, now we have that clear it still doesn't alter the fact that motorists have paid all that money in for the privilege of using the roads and cyclist pay nothing yet most have little or no idea about the highway code and a very high proportion of bikes are not even roadworthy and you have the audacity to ask that the motorist be assumed guilty in any accident, is it any wonder why motorist have no respect for cyclist. I would support the building of an entire network of cycle paths provided it is made compulsory to use them and cyclists banned from the road, helmets must be made compulsory and the wearing of hi viz clothing. As a motorist i am obliged to wear a seat belt as a motorcyclist i am obliged to wear a helmet as a motorist i am obliged to have insurance have my car inspected every year i can be prosecuted for a defect like a light thats not working even in daylight a lot of bikes don't even have lights, so lets even things up a little.

You say that the roads are now maintained out of communal taxes, this is true but you also seem to think that motorists pay more, your VED as you rightly called it isn't for the priviledge of using the roads, it's for researching renewable energy and finding ways to clean up the 100tonnes+ of carbon that your car puts into the air and the 20tonnes of it that your motorcycle puts into the air on a weekly basis, this is why we cyclists don't pay it because we don't have emissions, I wear a helmet but I have no doubt that it would be useless for a hard knock, especially if I was able to just stamp on one lightly and it disintegrates, if they do ever make cycle helmets a legal requirement (and i hope they don't) then they would have to manufacture them to be as strong as motorcycle helmets. Do you wear a helmet in your car like you do on your motorbike considering 40+% of all head injuries are the occupants of cars and only 3% are cyclists and pedestrians? do you wear body armor in the home since 60+% of ALL injuries happen in the home?

There are a lot of points here to address.


ohec: "7 months for killing an elderly gent" Actually this is a pretty stiff sentence for killing someone on the roads. Killer drivers can expect something like a £200 fine and 3 points, especially if they can claim that the sun was in their eyes. Look at the cycling lawyer's blog for some shocking recent sentencing stories. If you want to kill someone and avoid jail, just use a car.


ohec: "motorists have paid all that money in for the privilege of using the roads and cyclist pay nothing" A lot of people seem to share this opinion. It is completely wrong. I suggest reading ipayroadtax.com. In a nutshell:

- we all pay for the roads via general taxation

- motoring taxes (VAT on car/fuel, fuel duty, car IPT, VED) do not cover the total costs of UK motoring when external costs are taken into account. External costs are things like the cost of accidents, NHS and personal costs of bad health due to pollution, cost of congestion, cost of community severence by urban roads. Add externals to the obvious stuff like repairing potholes, maintaining signs and signals and policing and you have a bill that exceeds tax take from drivers and driving. UK motorists are actually being subsidised by the state. Not so much as in America, but British driving is cheaper than it should be.

- most adult cyclists are also drivers (83% from memory) so each cyclist you see on the road most likely has a (VED-paid) car sitting on their driveway and not belching particulates in your traffic jam.

- you didn't mention insurance but this point is so often raised in tandem with the "road tax" one. Look at your home insurance policy: you'll see it covers you for a very large amount of 3rd party liability as a cyclist. So most cyclists are insured but many don't even know it.


TEBOURBA: "Dr Eynon knows better than anyone how the wearing of a helmet can reduce the severity of injuries to the brain."

Agreed. Anyone with elevated risk of brain injury should put on a lid: motorcycling, freerunning, skateboarding, paragliding, whitewater kayaking, ice hocky goalkeeping, working on a building site, epilepsy, BMX stunt riding etc. Head protection is compulsary for some of these activities and just conventional for others. But making bare-head cycling illegal in the UK is not an open and shut case. A full cost-benefit analysis together with an evaluation of the alternate ways of reducing cyclists injuries are prerequisites of a pragmatic government.

As a final note, type "Dutch cycling" into Google and look at the image results. You'll see a lot of adults and children riding bicycles with the wind in their hair. The Dutch have designed danger out of their road network and in doing so have not only made Dutch cycling safer than UK walking but have achieved enviable low levels of inactivity-related illness.

ohec wrote:
Having previously lived in an area where they spent a small fortune on cycle paths and allowing cyclist to use the esplanade i can speak with some experience, when asked why the head down go like mad lycra brigade still use the road i was told they cant go fast enough on the cycle paths, when asked why he was on the pavement when he knocked down and killed a pedestrian the reply was the traffic lights changed and he got 7 months yes 7 months for killing an elderly gent. Now i know it is a difficult concept for a lot of cyclist to understand but road tax was introduced in 1920 and was ring fenced until 1937 for road construction after 1937 it went into the communal tax pot but was still referred to as road tax by the government until it was changed to VED, now we have that clear it still doesn't alter the fact that motorists have paid all that money in for the privilege of using the roads and cyclist pay nothing yet most have little or no idea about the highway code and a very high proportion of bikes are not even roadworthy and you have the audacity to ask that the motorist be assumed guilty in any accident, is it any wonder why motorist have no respect for cyclist. I would support the building of an entire network of cycle paths provided it is made compulsory to use them and cyclists banned from the road, helmets must be made compulsory and the wearing of hi viz clothing. As a motorist i am obliged to wear a seat belt as a motorcyclist i am obliged to wear a helmet as a motorist i am obliged to have insurance have my car inspected every year i can be prosecuted for a defect like a light thats not working even in daylight a lot of bikes don't even have lights, so lets even things up a little.

Privilege is not right. You agreed to those statutes when you took the licence.

How do you personally know those bikes are unroadworthy?

How do you know that compulsion to cycle helmets wont result in the 30% drop off in adult cyclist numbers like in Aus, or the 50%+ of child riders?

How do you know that compulsory cycle lane use wont lead to the same issues as in the Republic or Ireland - again seeing a drop off in cyclists for those areas with said facilities?

I really dont see that you've either proved your case or know very much about modern cycling.

You talk of "evening things up". To be even you have to be understanding, as I constantly have to repeat myself to people like you on here, understandind to WHY it is that you pay for something or that laws are different.

If anything logical reasoning would surely suggest that you'd argue for a loosening of various laws, rather than adding new ones.

downfader wrote:

ohec wrote:
Having previously lived in an area where they spent a small fortune on cycle paths and allowing cyclist to use the esplanade i can speak with some experience, when asked why the head down go like mad lycra brigade still use the road i was told they cant go fast enough on the cycle paths, when asked why he was on the pavement when he knocked down and killed a pedestrian the reply was the traffic lights changed and he got 7 months yes 7 months for killing an elderly gent. Now i know it is a difficult concept for a lot of cyclist to understand but road tax was introduced in 1920 and was ring fenced until 1937 for road construction after 1937 it went into the communal tax pot but was still referred to as road tax by the government until it was changed to VED, now we have that clear it still doesn't alter the fact that motorists have paid all that money in for the privilege of using the roads and cyclist pay nothing yet most have little or no idea about the highway code and a very high proportion of bikes are not even roadworthy and you have the audacity to ask that the motorist be assumed guilty in any accident, is it any wonder why motorist have no respect for cyclist. I would support the building of an entire network of cycle paths provided it is made compulsory to use them and cyclists banned from the road, helmets must be made compulsory and the wearing of hi viz clothing. As a motorist i am obliged to wear a seat belt as a motorcyclist i am obliged to wear a helmet as a motorist i am obliged to have insurance have my car inspected every year i can be prosecuted for a defect like a light thats not working even in daylight a lot of bikes don't even have lights, so lets even things up a little.

Privilege is not right. You agreed to those statutes when you took the licence.

How do you personally know those bikes are unroadworthy?

How do you know that compulsion to cycle helmets wont result in the 30% drop off in adult cyclist numbers like in Aus, or the 50%+ of child riders?

How do you know that compulsory cycle lane use wont lead to the same issues as in the Republic or Ireland - again seeing a drop off in cyclists for those areas with said facilities?

I really dont see that you've either proved your case or know very much about modern cycling.

You talk of "evening things up". To be even you have to be understanding, as I constantly have to repeat myself to people like you on here, understandind to WHY it is that you pay for something or that laws are different.

If anything logical reasoning would surely suggest that you'd argue for a loosening of various laws, rather than adding new ones.

Your argument about the reduction in cycle use doesn't hold water as has been proved by the requirement to wear seat belts or crash helmets people might not like them but eventually wear them, what is the point in having cycle paths if as you say they wont get used, and as for cycle use dropping off because of enforced legislation all i can say is good (less idiots to worry about) so make sure your bike is roadworthy including lights and a bell put your helmet and viz-vest on and have a nice day.

ohec wrote:

downfader wrote:

ohec wrote:
Having previously lived in an area where they spent a small fortune on cycle paths and allowing cyclist to use the esplanade i can speak with some experience, when asked why the head down go like mad lycra brigade still use the road i was told they cant go fast enough on the cycle paths, when asked why he was on the pavement when he knocked down and killed a pedestrian the reply was the traffic lights changed and he got 7 months yes 7 months for killing an elderly gent. Now i know it is a difficult concept for a lot of cyclist to understand but road tax was introduced in 1920 and was ring fenced until 1937 for road construction after 1937 it went into the communal tax pot but was still referred to as road tax by the government until it was changed to VED, now we have that clear it still doesn't alter the fact that motorists have paid all that money in for the privilege of using the roads and cyclist pay nothing yet most have little or no idea about the highway code and a very high proportion of bikes are not even roadworthy and you have the audacity to ask that the motorist be assumed guilty in any accident, is it any wonder why motorist have no respect for cyclist. I would support the building of an entire network of cycle paths provided it is made compulsory to use them and cyclists banned from the road, helmets must be made compulsory and the wearing of hi viz clothing. As a motorist i am obliged to wear a seat belt as a motorcyclist i am obliged to wear a helmet as a motorist i am obliged to have insurance have my car inspected every year i can be prosecuted for a defect like a light thats not working even in daylight a lot of bikes don't even have lights, so lets even things up a little.

Privilege is not right. You agreed to those statutes when you took the licence.

How do you personally know those bikes are unroadworthy?

How do you know that compulsion to cycle helmets wont result in the 30% drop off in adult cyclist numbers like in Aus, or the 50%+ of child riders?

How do you know that compulsory cycle lane use wont lead to the same issues as in the Republic or Ireland - again seeing a drop off in cyclists for those areas with said facilities?

I really dont see that you've either proved your case or know very much about modern cycling.

You talk of "evening things up". To be even you have to be understanding, as I constantly have to repeat myself to people like you on here, understandind to WHY it is that you pay for something or that laws are different.

If anything logical reasoning would surely suggest that you'd argue for a loosening of various laws, rather than adding new ones.

Your argument about the reduction in cycle use doesn't hold water as has been proved by the requirement to wear seat belts or crash helmets people might not like them but eventually wear them, what is the point in having cycle paths if as you say they wont get used, and as for cycle use dropping off because of enforced legislation all i can say is good (less idiots to worry about) so make sure your bike is roadworthy including lights and a bell put your helmet and viz-vest on and have a nice day.

Actually it does hold water, a lot of water to be honest, it has been proven by many other countries that it would cause a severe drop in numbers of cyclists, there are still too many out there who don't wear a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet and it would be better to go dutch with cycling, even though they have the highest numbers of cyclists in europe, they have the best quality of life in the world and they're the healthiest people in europe, you'd be hard pushed to find an obese person over there due to cycling everywhere, yes, most dutch cities are completely empty of motorised traffic other than maybe the rare taxi, bus (which would be electric) or cop car, also I do wear a helmet but only because it has my nice little camera on it, I have lights, my bike is road worthy (though I'm waiting for a better one), I have hi-vis and I have a horn, good day to you sir.

ohec wrote:

downfader wrote:

ohec wrote:
Having previously lived in an area where they spent a small fortune on cycle paths and allowing cyclist to use the esplanade i can speak with some experience, when asked why the head down go like mad lycra brigade still use the road i was told they cant go fast enough on the cycle paths, when asked why he was on the pavement when he knocked down and killed a pedestrian the reply was the traffic lights changed and he got 7 months yes 7 months for killing an elderly gent. Now i know it is a difficult concept for a lot of cyclist to understand but road tax was introduced in 1920 and was ring fenced until 1937 for road construction after 1937 it went into the communal tax pot but was still referred to as road tax by the government until it was changed to VED, now we have that clear it still doesn't alter the fact that motorists have paid all that money in for the privilege of using the roads and cyclist pay nothing yet most have little or no idea about the highway code and a very high proportion of bikes are not even roadworthy and you have the audacity to ask that the motorist be assumed guilty in any accident, is it any wonder why motorist have no respect for cyclist. I would support the building of an entire network of cycle paths provided it is made compulsory to use them and cyclists banned from the road, helmets must be made compulsory and the wearing of hi viz clothing. As a motorist i am obliged to wear a seat belt as a motorcyclist i am obliged to wear a helmet as a motorist i am obliged to have insurance have my car inspected every year i can be prosecuted for a defect like a light thats not working even in daylight a lot of bikes don't even have lights, so lets even things up a little.

Privilege is not right. You agreed to those statutes when you took the licence.

How do you personally know those bikes are unroadworthy?

How do you know that compulsion to cycle helmets wont result in the 30% drop off in adult cyclist numbers like in Aus, or the 50%+ of child riders?

How do you know that compulsory cycle lane use wont lead to the same issues as in the Republic or Ireland - again seeing a drop off in cyclists for those areas with said facilities?

I really dont see that you've either proved your case or know very much about modern cycling.

You talk of "evening things up". To be even you have to be understanding, as I constantly have to repeat myself to people like you on here, understandind to WHY it is that you pay for something or that laws are different.

If anything logical reasoning would surely suggest that you'd argue for a loosening of various laws, rather than adding new ones.

Your argument about the reduction in cycle use doesn't hold water as has been proved by the requirement to wear seat belts or crash helmets people might not like them but eventually wear them, what is the point in having cycle paths if as you say they wont get used, and as for cycle use dropping off because of enforced legislation all i can say is good (less idiots to worry about) so make sure your bike is roadworthy including lights and a bell put your helmet and viz-vest on and have a nice day.

Prove me wrong. Show me studies and research that counters what I (and many others including the BMA) have read.

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

ohec wrote:

downfader wrote:

ohec wrote:
Having previously lived in an area where they spent a small fortune on cycle paths and allowing cyclist to use the esplanade i can speak with some experience, when asked why the head down go like mad lycra brigade still use the road i was told they cant go fast enough on the cycle paths, when asked why he was on the pavement when he knocked down and killed a pedestrian the reply was the traffic lights changed and he got 7 months yes 7 months for killing an elderly gent. Now i know it is a difficult concept for a lot of cyclist to understand but road tax was introduced in 1920 and was ring fenced until 1937 for road construction after 1937 it went into the communal tax pot but was still referred to as road tax by the government until it was changed to VED, now we have that clear it still doesn't alter the fact that motorists have paid all that money in for the privilege of using the roads and cyclist pay nothing yet most have little or no idea about the highway code and a very high proportion of bikes are not even roadworthy and you have the audacity to ask that the motorist be assumed guilty in any accident, is it any wonder why motorist have no respect for cyclist. I would support the building of an entire network of cycle paths provided it is made compulsory to use them and cyclists banned from the road, helmets must be made compulsory and the wearing of hi viz clothing. As a motorist i am obliged to wear a seat belt as a motorcyclist i am obliged to wear a helmet as a motorist i am obliged to have insurance have my car inspected every year i can be prosecuted for a defect like a light thats not working even in daylight a lot of bikes don't even have lights, so lets even things up a little.

Privilege is not right. You agreed to those statutes when you took the licence.

How do you personally know those bikes are unroadworthy?

How do you know that compulsion to cycle helmets wont result in the 30% drop off in adult cyclist numbers like in Aus, or the 50%+ of child riders?

How do you know that compulsory cycle lane use wont lead to the same issues as in the Republic or Ireland - again seeing a drop off in cyclists for those areas with said facilities?

I really dont see that you've either proved your case or know very much about modern cycling.

You talk of "evening things up". To be even you have to be understanding, as I constantly have to repeat myself to people like you on here, understandind to WHY it is that you pay for something or that laws are different.

If anything logical reasoning would surely suggest that you'd argue for a loosening of various laws, rather than adding new ones.

Your argument about the reduction in cycle use doesn't hold water as has been proved by the requirement to wear seat belts or crash helmets people might not like them but eventually wear them, what is the point in having cycle paths if as you say they wont get used, and as for cycle use dropping off because of enforced legislation all i can say is good (less idiots to worry about) so make sure your bike is roadworthy including lights and a bell put your helmet and viz-vest on and have a nice day.

Actually it does hold water, a lot of water to be honest, it has been proven by many other countries that it would cause a severe drop in numbers of cyclists, there are still too many out there who don't wear a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet and it would be better to go dutch with cycling, even though they have the highest numbers of cyclists in europe, they have the best quality of life in the world and they're the healthiest people in europe, you'd be hard pushed to find an obese person over there due to cycling everywhere, yes, most dutch cities are completely empty of motorised traffic other than maybe the rare taxi, bus (which would be electric) or cop car, also I do wear a helmet but only because it has my nice little camera on it, I have lights, my bike is road worthy (though I'm waiting for a better one), I have hi-vis and I have a horn, good day to you sir.

He's just a typical internet ranter - not proof, just wants to moan that someone else is to blame for the worlds ills.

The Dutch cycle lanes are so radically different and improved on what we've tried. The Republic of Ireland just put people on pavements (like Hamble Lane again as a good example)

downfader wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

ohec wrote:

downfader wrote:

ohec wrote:
Having previously lived in an area where they spent a small fortune on cycle paths and allowing cyclist to use the esplanade i can speak with some experience, when asked why the head down go like mad lycra brigade still use the road i was told they cant go fast enough on the cycle paths, when asked why he was on the pavement when he knocked down and killed a pedestrian the reply was the traffic lights changed and he got 7 months yes 7 months for killing an elderly gent. Now i know it is a difficult concept for a lot of cyclist to understand but road tax was introduced in 1920 and was ring fenced until 1937 for road construction after 1937 it went into the communal tax pot but was still referred to as road tax by the government until it was changed to VED, now we have that clear it still doesn't alter the fact that motorists have paid all that money in for the privilege of using the roads and cyclist pay nothing yet most have little or no idea about the highway code and a very high proportion of bikes are not even roadworthy and you have the audacity to ask that the motorist be assumed guilty in any accident, is it any wonder why motorist have no respect for cyclist. I would support the building of an entire network of cycle paths provided it is made compulsory to use them and cyclists banned from the road, helmets must be made compulsory and the wearing of hi viz clothing. As a motorist i am obliged to wear a seat belt as a motorcyclist i am obliged to wear a helmet as a motorist i am obliged to have insurance have my car inspected every year i can be prosecuted for a defect like a light thats not working even in daylight a lot of bikes don't even have lights, so lets even things up a little.

Privilege is not right. You agreed to those statutes when you took the licence.

How do you personally know those bikes are unroadworthy?

How do you know that compulsion to cycle helmets wont result in the 30% drop off in adult cyclist numbers like in Aus, or the 50%+ of child riders?

How do you know that compulsory cycle lane use wont lead to the same issues as in the Republic or Ireland - again seeing a drop off in cyclists for those areas with said facilities?

I really dont see that you've either proved your case or know very much about modern cycling.

You talk of "evening things up". To be even you have to be understanding, as I constantly have to repeat myself to people like you on here, understandind to WHY it is that you pay for something or that laws are different.

If anything logical reasoning would surely suggest that you'd argue for a loosening of various laws, rather than adding new ones.

Your argument about the reduction in cycle use doesn't hold water as has been proved by the requirement to wear seat belts or crash helmets people might not like them but eventually wear them, what is the point in having cycle paths if as you say they wont get used, and as for cycle use dropping off because of enforced legislation all i can say is good (less idiots to worry about) so make sure your bike is roadworthy including lights and a bell put your helmet and viz-vest on and have a nice day.

Actually it does hold water, a lot of water to be honest, it has been proven by many other countries that it would cause a severe drop in numbers of cyclists, there are still too many out there who don't wear a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet and it would be better to go dutch with cycling, even though they have the highest numbers of cyclists in europe, they have the best quality of life in the world and they're the healthiest people in europe, you'd be hard pushed to find an obese person over there due to cycling everywhere, yes, most dutch cities are completely empty of motorised traffic other than maybe the rare taxi, bus (which would be electric) or cop car, also I do wear a helmet but only because it has my nice little camera on it, I have lights, my bike is road worthy (though I'm waiting for a better one), I have hi-vis and I have a horn, good day to you sir.

He's just a typical internet ranter - not proof, just wants to moan that someone else is to blame for the worlds ills.

The Dutch cycle lanes are so radically different and improved on what we've tried. The Republic of Ireland just put people on pavements (like Hamble Lane again as a good example)

True, too many people in this country are scared of change, what would they do if suddenly their supply of fossil fuels for their cars and stuff was cut off? Oh, that's right, they'd all jump on their bikes to go protest at a petrol station even though it wouldn't do anything just because it would make them feel better.

Torchie1 wrote:

Cyclestrian wrote: In Holland the majority of short journeys are made by bike, not car, and without a helmet. Dutch cycle injury rates are about 1/8 of ours. No-one there calls for helmet compulsion. Fact is, UK streets are designed for boy racers, not people on foot or on bike. That's what we need to fix. Also in Holland, 12% of cyclist casualties are wearing helmets but only 0.1% wear one. Work that out. Inactivity is a much much bigger cause of illness and death than cycling head injuries. And inactivity costs the state vastly more than cycling brain injuries. Compulsory helmets would dangerise cycling and discourage casual users. The recent debate over helmet laws started after a cyclist called Dan was crushed by a left-turning doubledecker bus. He was wearing a helmet. He was killed by a shockingly dangerous road layout installed for the Olympic VIPs. No helmet would have saved him. I wear a helmet. It probably makes me overconfident and drivers think I'm protected. Not sure it makes me safer.

You are referring to 'Dan' who probably leapt on his bicycle without any form of assessment or training and clearly never gave a thought that the bus would be making a left turn as he cycled up the side of the it where he wouldn't have seen the indicators? That is a synopsis of his actions that night which cost him his life and has left an innocent bus driver mentally scarred. Another example of a needless death because when you decide to use a bicycle you are the sort road user who doesn't need any training or testing.

You can f*ck right off you ignorant cnut. Having been to the junction where he was killed, it is a ridiculously dangerous place.

Dr Eynon is seriously misinformed, and it might be hoped that a Dr would look at all the evidence rather than his perceptions.

To inform the good doctor and any others interested in the facts rather than assumption, invention and downright lies, cyclehelmets.org has a large amount of original papers and criticisms and isn't just one sided.