3 ms·

What a loads of bollocks. I've been personally in the incident where not having a helmet would have a high probability of me dying on spot, or at least have a m

What a loads of bollocks. I've been personally in the incident where not having a helmet would have a high probability of me dying on spot, or at least have a massive frontal fracture of my skull in forehead, with god knows what consequences. I've flown head-first over the bike, fallen head-first too, have a 5-10 second memory loss of the details from the head impact, but when coming back together, big spiky rock was sticking out of the ground in front of my eyes, touching my helmet on my forehead. Had a bruise in my forehead for a long time (from inside of helmet), some sort of sun shield on helmet went off, but if I didn't buy my first ever bike helmet couple of weeks before that accident, I am damn sure my life wouldn't be the same, and probably not at all anymore. I was shellshock-like for quite a while after that. You don't want to wear helmet? Sure, just in case of incident and head trauma, you'll pay all the medical bills for your head treatment, if you actually survive. And if you don't buy a helmet for your kids, social services on you (how the heck did I survive my childhood without it is still a mystery to me)

dijit 11y ago
Your case is literally the only case helmets are tested for. Helmets are tested, from a standing height, falling forwards at no higher speeds than 7mp/h (this is the UK safety requirement). to me, that sounds like a pedestrian helmet. I'm glad that your helmet saved your life, but there is a very simple fact that it's not anywhere close to the safety people expect from helmets- and additionally, people who are forced to use protective gear are likely to give up cycling in the first place. I know personally, if I'm cycling for 40 minutes with a helmet (on a hot summers day)- or I can take the car.. I'd take the car. without a helmet, the trip would be enjoyable on a bike.
bkor 11y ago
Almost nobody in The Netherlands cycles with a helmet. There's been various studies that cars are not as careful with cyclists when cyclists wear a helmet. You're talking about one example where this helmet would've saved you. However, requiring helmets would mean a massive decrease in cycling. Further, the studies that a cyclist seems safer with a helmet, so more risk is taken by others in traffic. > You don't want to wear helmet? Sure, just in case of incident and head trauma, Why be all dramatic about this? Millions of people cycle without a helmet, including kids. It's nice to be over protective but society is actually worse off. Helmets are more common on racing bikes of course. It's better to have separate clearly marked cycling paths, make cars responsible (basically: car responsible for anything more fragile than them, same for a cyclist), etc. Again, you hardly see anyone with a helmet in The Netherlands. Though strangely, in Denmark everyone seems to use it. Number of cyclist related injuries is pretty small.
- tajen 11y ago
  I forgot to mention Badinter's law (since 1985, France) [1]. Among a general review of insurance code, it says a car is always guilty when involved in an accident with a cyclist or a pedestrian. It's a different legislation than anglosaxon countries, which consider that cyclists and car drivers have equal rights. [1] http://www.adjcourtage.fr/LoiBadinter.html http://www.adjcourtage.fr/LoiBadinter.html
- Symbiote 11y ago
  I've recently moved to Copenhagen, and have seen very few people using helmets -- perhaps 1-2%. (Plus people going very fast on racing bikes, who also wear helmets in NL.)

dijit 11y ago

Your case is literally the only case helmets are tested for. Helmets are tested, from a standing height, falling forwards at no higher speeds than 7mp/h (this is the UK safety requirement). to me, that sounds like a pedestrian helmet. I'm glad that your helmet saved your life, but there is a very simple fact that it's not anywhere close to the safety people expect from helmets- and additionally, people who are forced to use protective gear are likely to give up cycling in the first place. I know personally, if I'm cycling for 40 minutes with a helmet (on a hot summers day)- or I can take the car.. I'd take the car. without a helmet, the trip would be enjoyable on a bike.

bkor 11y ago

Almost nobody in The Netherlands cycles with a helmet. There's been various studies that cars are not as careful with cyclists when cyclists wear a helmet. You're talking about one example where this helmet would've saved you. However, requiring helmets would mean a massive decrease in cycling. Further, the studies that a cyclist seems safer with a helmet, so more risk is taken by others in traffic. > You don't want to wear helmet? Sure, just in case of incident and head trauma, Why be all dramatic about this? Millions of people cycle without a helmet, including kids. It's nice to be over protective but society is actually worse off. Helmets are more common on racing bikes of course. It's better to have separate clearly marked cycling paths, make cars responsible (basically: car responsible for anything more fragile than them, same for a cyclist), etc. Again, you hardly see anyone with a helmet in The Netherlands. Though strangely, in Denmark everyone seems to use it. Number of cyclist related injuries is pretty small.

tajen 11y ago
I forgot to mention Badinter's law (since 1985, France) [1]. Among a general review of insurance code, it says a car is always guilty when involved in an accident with a cyclist or a pedestrian. It's a different legislation than anglosaxon countries, which consider that cyclists and car drivers have equal rights. [1] http://www.adjcourtage.fr/LoiBadinter.html http://www.adjcourtage.fr/LoiBadinter.html
Symbiote 11y ago
I've recently moved to Copenhagen, and have seen very few people using helmets -- perhaps 1-2%. (Plus people going very fast on racing bikes, who also wear helmets in NL.)