Princess Diana and the helmet argument.

[Hot Flatus]

Nor me.

You won't often catch me without one, though.

[Palinurus]

You don't have to carry a seatbelt around with you in the shops.

[Polar Bear]

Seatbelts work
Helmets don't.

Did for me when I came off in the summer

I've fallen off several times, hard enough in one case to break a bone, but never succeeded in hitting my head. In all those instances I was wearing a helmet. It stands to reason that now I've mostly stopped wearing one (snow/ice being the main reason I wear one) when I do fall off I'll hit my head.

The case for mandatory seatbelt wearing is weakened by the fact that motorists are much more of a danger to others than cyclists, so any risk compensation element means the danger posed to others increases at a result of seatbelt use.

That's not a weakening of the case for wearing a seatbelt.  It's a case for driver education.

[mattc]

The case for mandatory seatbelt wearing is weakened by the fact that motorists are much more of a danger to others than cyclists, so any risk compensation element means the danger posed to others increases at a result of seatbelt use.

That's not a weakening of the case for wearing a seatbelt.  It's a case for driver education.

Even if you educate drivers to take more care, risk compensation will still operate
(unless you somehow brainwashed them into thinking seatbelts were mandatory but useless )

[Polar Bear]

I'm not suggesting at all that driver education isn't nigh on impossible, I'm simply asserting that it is necessary.   

I know that 99% of all known germs motons somehow consider themselves invincible and with a higher order of right to the road than anybody else* but just because they have shit between their ears is no excuse.

* Except of course as soon as they leave their vehicles then somehow they acquire a divine higher right as pedestrians to the detriment of all other road users including the other pedestrians.

In fact, let's just call them selfish fuckers.   
 

[andygates]

The case for mandatory seatbelt wearing is weakened by the fact that motorists are much more of a danger to others than cyclists, so any risk compensation element means the danger posed to others increases at a result of seatbelt use.

Pish, what about their passengers?

There's nothing to suggest that a belted passenger encourages riskier driving -- the driver isn't any safer, so his behaviour doesn't modify.

Driver behaviour doesn't only risk us.  It risks their passengers too.  Round here, the usual headline is "ghastly chav kills girlfriend and mates in stupid car stunt, walks away."

[Cudzoziemiec]

That's an argument for mandatory passenger seatbelt wearing, leaving the driver the choice to wear or not.

[mattc]

The case for mandatory seatbelt wearing is weakened by the fact that motorists are much more of a danger to others than cyclists, so any risk compensation element means the danger posed to others increases at a result of seatbelt use.

Pish, what about their passengers?

There's nothing to suggest that a belted passenger encourages riskier driving -- the driver isn't any safer, so his behaviour doesn't modify.

Driver behaviour doesn't only risk us.  It risks their passengers too.  Round here, the usual headline is "ghastly chav kills girlfriend and mates in stupid car stunt, walks away."

"chav dies alone" tends not to make the headlines!

It's an interesting question - I wonder how many unbelted passengers die compared to peds/cyclists?

[Cudzoziemiec]

Anecdata: When I was about 18, three teenagers were driving to a football match. I knew two of them. On the way they crashed head on into another car at 70mph. The driver and front seat passenger, belted, escaped with minor injuries. The rear seat passenger, unbelted - it was only compulsory in the front back then, in fact there were still many older cars without belts in the back - was flung about inside the car and suffered serious brain injuries. He still can't walk properly, in fact he'll never have a 'normal' life at all.

Would a seatbelt have saved him? Seems like it. A helmet? No idea. Does this prove anything? Doubt it.

[simonp]

What has been shown to be effective is making people financially responsible for crashes.

[Euan Uzami]

In general I'm in favour of free choice where the consequences are very likely to be limited to the person who made the decision. Wearing/not wearing a helmet on a bike doesn't affect anyone else regardless of whether or not they work, whereas if those seatbelt ads from years ago are true then not wearing one could cause you to fly forward and hit the front passenger/driver, or go through the windscreen and injure someone else or cause another accident.

ah but the consequences aren't limited to them, though, what about their bereaved family?

[mattc]

In general I'm in favour of free choice where the consequences are very likely to be limited to the person who made the decision. Wearing/not wearing a helmet on a bike doesn't affect anyone else regardless of whether or not they work, whereas if those seatbelt ads from years ago are true then not wearing one could cause you to fly forward and hit the front passenger/driver, or go through the windscreen and injure someone else or cause another accident.

ah but the consequences aren't limited to them, though, what about their bereaved family?

I think that's between the risk-taker and their family. Everyone should judge their own attitude to personal risk. We can't go around banning everything with an element of danger.

[Euan Uzami]

ah but the consequences aren't limited to them, though, what about their bereaved family?

I think that's between the risk-taker and their family. Everyone should judge their own attitude to personal risk.

We can't go around banning everything with an element of danger.

Point taken. But their family might not agree with their attitude to risk. This is, as far as I  can tell, (one of) the main reason(s) why motorcycle helmets are mandatory. Should we make them optional?

[Jaded]

It's an interesting question - I wonder how many unbelted passengers die compared to peds/cyclists?

Who knows. It seems unimportant in the collation and reporting of statistics. It is also completely irrelevant to newspaper reports of crashes, unlike cycle helmets, which MUST be reported on, even if the cyclist was killed by being turned into a sheet of pasta by a road roller.

[mattc]

ah but the consequences aren't limited to them, though, what about their bereaved family?

I think that's between the risk-taker and their family. Everyone should judge their own attitude to personal risk.

We can't go around banning everything with an element of danger.

Point taken. But their family might not agree with their attitude to risk. This is, as far as I  can tell, (one of) the main reason(s) why motorcycle helmets are mandatory. Should we make them optional?

Well actually I'm pretty undecided on this. I don't ride motorbikes, so on that basis I'm pretty cautious to jump to conclusions (especially as I'm anti-cycle-helmet compulsion). Then there's the fact that my worst head injury yet was in a car, and noone asked me if I was wearing a helmet in that crash ...

[Clandy]

Well actually I'm pretty undecided on this. I don't ride motorbikes, so on that basis I'm pretty cautious to jump to conclusions (especially as I'm anti-cycle-helmet compulsion). Then there's the fact that my worst head injury yet was in a car, and noone asked me if I was wearing a helmet in that crash ...

Which was one of the main points made in the 'Why we shouldn't bike with helmet' presentation video.

[sas]

ah but the consequences aren't limited to them, though, what about their bereaved family?

I think that's between the risk-taker and their family. Everyone should judge their own attitude to personal risk.

We can't go around banning everything with an element of danger.

Point taken. But their family might not agree with their attitude to risk. This is, as far as I  can tell, (one of) the main reason(s) why motorcycle helmets are mandatory. Should we make them optional?

Depends on their effectiveness, the absolute number of injuries that would be prevented, and who's liable for the accident (self-inflicted, or caused by someone else). Ideally it should be down to personal choice, but in practice society has to pay some costs through the NHS so it's not so clear cut. However if the main reason is as you suggest (family pressure) then I think it shouldn't be compulsory.

[Mr Larrington]

Also of interest are the wheel tethers - wheels and hubs are tied onto the chassis, to prevent loose wheels flying off at high speed and hitting another car.

The only problem with wheel tethers is that they appear not to work very well.  If you know a good medium you could ask Henry Surtees.  The latest batch of F1 rule changes include beefing up the wheel tether system.

[Pedaldog.]

Motorcycle crash, mechanical failure and nobodies fault. Wearing a good quality helmet. Traumatic Brain Injuries and not expected to live.  Then Coma but still alive now.  The helmet must have done some good as it was in a really bad state after my wife got it back and there were dents and scrapes in parts that weren't dented or scraped on my head!

I still don't wear a helmet cycling, or at least very rarely do.

Go Figure?