Origin of The Specious, possibly.I'm not too sure what Darwin has to do with wearing a helmet.
A
Origin of The Specious, possibly.I'm not too sure what Darwin has to do with wearing a helmet.
Nothing in 'origin of the species' says you will die if you do not take all safety precautions.Origin of The Specious, possibly.
A
I'm not too sure what Darwin has to do with wearing a helmet. He's very often mis-quoted on forums.
It's each person's personal choice on whether to wear a helmet or not.
You invoke Darwin but act more like a creationist in ignoring the available evidence.Ride without a helmet and win your own Darwin Award.....![]()
Why does a reference to the Darwin Awards keep attracting comments about Darwin?You invoke Darwin but act more like a creationist in ignoring the available evidence.
"In honor of Charles Darwin, the Darwin Awards commemorate those who improve our gene pool by (accidentally) removing themselves from it. The Award is generally bestowed posthumously."Why does a reference to the Darwin Awards keep attracting comments about Darwin?
Improve's our gene pool by (Accidentally)removing themselve's, how so? If I understand this comment correctly, it suggest's that all those whom by spirit of adventure, lack of fear, lust for understanding and knowledge, the risk taker's and pioneer's whom lost their live's to the benefit of us all, were little more than fool's whom mankind is better off without? Please tell me I've completely misunderstand this, because at this moment I'm not holding out much hope for future generation's, whom its seems will be super intelligent, but afraid to get out of bed in the morning."In honor of Charles Darwin, the Darwin Awards commemorate those who improve our gene pool by (accidentally) removing themselves from it. The Award is generally bestowed posthumously. ".
(3 February 2008, California) Two dirtbikes, two drivers, two passengers. Zero helmets, zero headlights, and a new moon. Four friends were tearing around on private land, where helmets and lights are not required. The Highway Patrol said the two couples were killed when their bikes collided between 1:30 and 3:30 AM in Modesto.
Simple fact remains that even if the behaviour was silly, one or more might have survived if they had worn helmets. Helmets can give you better odds. Helmets will not eliminate injuries or prevent silly mistakes.Improve's our gene pool by (Accidentally)removing themselve's, how so? If I understand this comment correctly, it suggest's that all those whom by spirit of adventure, lack of fear, lust for understanding and knowledge, the risk taker's and pioneer's whom lost their live's to the benefit of us all, were little more than fool's whom mankind is better off without? Please tell me I've completely misunderstand this, because at this moment I'm not holding out much hope for future generation's, whom its seems will be super intelligent, but afraid to get out of bed in the morning.
Regarding the accident. Exceptional circumstances, offroad in complete darkness. Foolish even for well protected rider's. Although helmets were not worn by any of the four, its only an assumption that they all died from head injury? Cause of death hadn't been ascertained at the time of this report. Speed was claimed to be a major factor in this accident, nevertheless all four dying was extraordinary.
Hardly a useful example for assessing the risk factors for cyclist's on the road.
The figures are interesting, hittheroad, but not conclusive, nor are they comprehensive enough in their analysis.There is a clear trend visible that Helmet wearers do not die as often.
.....
I do think that the arguments that are being used to promote "freedom" are usually unconvincing. I have heard the same arguments about seat-belts (non-seat-belt wearers may drive safer etc.) and they have been proven not to make sense.
I checked before I submitted. "Half (50%) of bicyclists wear a helmet for at least some trips, with 35 percent using them for all or most trips. "Those USA figures are statistical nonsense, all they show is that US cyclists mostly don't wear helmets. They do not show that the deaths incidence is lower for helmet wearers as you've claimed, it could easily be the reverse.
What is shown is that the helmet promoting brigade are as dishonest as ever about the facts.
.
I agree. Mobile Phone usage while driving is illegal and if campaigning combined with enforcement was more effective there would probably be less victims. Simple fact remains that if you're cycling and are unfortunate enough to be involved in a collision with a car the risk of serious head or brain injury would be significantly less.The figures are interesting, hittheroad, but not conclusive, nor are they comprehensive enough in their analysis.
Q (for example) what were each group doing (i.e. the helmet-wearers vs the no helmet wearers) when they had their accident?
If the A is 'whacking along as fast as they could without regard for their own safety', then the statistics only lead on to further questions.
As was said earlier in the thread (and elsewhere of course) it is a question of priorities. I have a feeling (no stats) that if mobile-phone use by drivers was banned and the ban enforced, there might be a reduction in accidents involving cyclists, wearing helmets or not.
Allen.
What is known is that the level of protection offered by bicycle helmets is minimal and not sufficient to offer significant protection from injury if exceeding speeds at which most people can easily run, or falling from a height greater than they would if they tripped up. Ergo if wearing a helmet makes you significantly safer why stop with bicycles? What about joggers? A relative of mine slipped and fell backwards on the ice a few years ago. He hit his head on the pavement and died as a result. He was a fit youngish man of about 30. It was a tragic (freak) accident. Perhaps the gene pool is improved as a result and maybe he was stupid to walk on an icy pavement without a helmet![]()
Come on, if you think helmets should be compulsory, then they should offer a considerably higher standard of protection than they currently do - so heavy 'full facers' would be the ones to go for. Other than that they are largely promoting a false sense of security - and that is hardly going to improve safety.
Why is it everyone only ever considers fatalities as accidents? Most accident are not, and injuries (non fatal) are a bigger drain on victims resources and the NHS than fatalities. Most of these involve knees, elbows, hands and eyes. I see helmet wears out in T shirts and shorts all the time apparently unconcerned about badly skinned knees and hands, which are MUCH more likely than a fatal injury. Why no protection here?
I see a double standard. I wear a helmet occasionally - to keep my head dry when its raining, or to keep the sun out of my eyes when it's low, but I don't wear it all time, I don't ride expecting anything much from it and I AWAYS wear cycling gloves and glasses. Those are items that have protected me from more serious injury on countless occasions. Helmets? well in 45yrs of cycling (and a few falls) I have never been the worse for not wearing one.
Ok I might die from a head injury in a horrendous crash tomorrow, but I'm not going to lose sleep worrying about tonight. I expect an impact sufficient to cause this would have a similar result helmet or not. Anyhow, who knows they won't have a heart attack or stroke tomorrow?
Make your choices, wear a helmet if you like, fine with me. Compulsion, for helmets alone, on current safety specs? Make mine a chocolate teapot.
Phil
You believe that? US cyclists do not wear helmets at remotely like that rate, they don't even wear helmets for motorcycling!!!I checked before I submitted. "Half (50%) of bicyclists wear a helmet for at least some trips, with 35 percent using them for all or most trips. "
cheers
Hi,Hi Phil.
Do you have any figures and facts supporting your claim that "the level of protection offered by bicycle helmets is minimal and not sufficient to offer significant protection from injury"?