Dad stops kid from crashing bike into parked car (+ link to video)

Bluebug wrote:

giff77 wrote:

SteveAustin wrote:

Amazing how many people, on this site, who ride bikes are so anti helmet. Considering a helmet could be the difference between consuming food through a tube for the rest of my life, i find it hard to be as against them as others.

I’m actually pretty amazed at the amount of people on this forum whose balance is so bad that they require a helmet. 

You mean you have stopped trying to do tricks on your bike? Gosh you are an old git :p

this auld git still knows how to fall 

SteveAustin wrote:

Amazing how many people, on this site, who ride bikes are so anti helmet. Considering a helmet could be the difference between consuming food through a tube for the rest of my life, i find it hard to be as against them as others.

any kids in my care will wear a helmet, as i dont want to have to explain why to their parents why they weren't, not sure petty arguments can be used in real life to argue away life changing injuries, that could have been prevented by something as simple as wearing a helmet.

The issue is rarely about the actual lid, or lack thereof, it’s a ‘compulsion’ issue usually. I think it’s incredibly childish. “I don’t care if I smash my head in, I don’t have to wear a lid, so I’m not going to, and anyone who says otherwise is a big smelly poo head”. It’s a very sad attitude for an adult to have.

Judge dreadful wrote:

SteveAustin wrote:

Amazing how many people, on this site, who ride bikes are so anti helmet. Considering a helmet could be the difference between consuming food through a tube for the rest of my life, i find it hard to be as against them as others.

any kids in my care will wear a helmet, as i dont want to have to explain why to their parents why they weren't, not sure petty arguments can be used in real life to argue away life changing injuries, that could have been prevented by something as simple as wearing a helmet.

 

The issue is rarely about the actual lid, or lack thereof, it’s a ‘compulsion’ issue usually. I think it’s incredibly childish. “I don’t care if I smash my head in, I don’t have to wear a lid, so I’m not going to, and anyone who says otherwise is a big smelly poo head”. It’s a very sad attitude for an adult to have.

it would be sad if any adult had that attitude. But they don't, and it's sad that you have constructed a childish strawman in place of any actual thought-through contribution. 

There are two issues. Do helmets do what their proponents claim? Should they be compulsory?

All the evidence that I've read suggests that the benefits are hugely oversold, and the disadvantages hugely understated. In any case, at best the answer to the first question is that the jury is still out.

This doesn't prevent any individual from wearing one if they want to - they're adults and can make up their own minds. It would be nice if you could treat people who decided not to wear one with the same courtesy.

Even if the answer was a clear and unequivocal 'yes', it does not follow that they should be compulsory. That argument relies on a whole other set of assumptions, criteria, value judgements and evidence, none of which are childish. These include questions of personal choice, population-scale impact on healthcare costs and health itself, and balance of risk compared to other activities.

These are complex questions. If all you have to offer is 'smelly poo head' perhaps your own head is in the wrong place.

Judge dreadful wrote:

SteveAustin wrote:

Amazing how many people, on this site, who ride bikes are so anti helmet. Considering a helmet could be the difference between consuming food through a tube for the rest of my life, i find it hard to be as against them as others.

any kids in my care will wear a helmet, as i dont want to have to explain why to their parents why they weren't, not sure petty arguments can be used in real life to argue away life changing injuries, that could have been prevented by something as simple as wearing a helmet.

 

The issue is rarely about the actual lid, or lack thereof, it’s a ‘compulsion’ issue usually. I think it’s incredibly childish. “I don’t care if I smash my head in, I don’t have to wear a lid, so I’m not going to, and anyone who says otherwise is a big smelly poo head”. It’s a very sad attitude for an adult to have.

Dumbest post I've ever seen on one of these threads.  Have you considered growing up?   Maybe next time actually engage with the points being made,  you know, like a reasoning adult, instead of resorting to the baby-talk?

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

>  A helmet has saved me from serious injury on three occasions so I choose to wear one.

Perhaps you should learn how to avoid crashing your bicycle.  Observation, anticipation, they're good skills to have.

I have bumpers on my car but I don't drive around bumping into things.

You win the prize for the most ridiculous post ever. Well done. Maybe it's time to start lobbying vehicle manufacturers to remove all safety aids and devices from their vehicles, and simply tell their customers not to crash.

Here's an x-ray of my shoulder after a van turned left into my path whilst I was in a blue cycle lane in London. Obviously with your skills of observation and anticipation you would have avoided the collision (or are your anticipation skills so finely honed that they cause you not to ride and just post ridiculous comments from the safety of your keyboard instead?). I'm pretty sure my helmet, which also impacted a solid wall of metal, prevented my skull from looking like the rest of those bones.

Mark_1973_ wrote:

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

>  A helmet has saved me from serious injury on three occasions so I choose to wear one.

Perhaps you should learn how to avoid crashing your bicycle.  Observation, anticipation, they're good skills to have.

I have bumpers on my car but I don't drive around bumping into things.

 

You win the prize for the most ridiculous post ever. Well done. Maybe it's time to start lobbying vehicle manufacturers to remove all safety aids and devices from their vehicles, and simply tell their customers not to crash.

Do you think that removing or reducing the adverse concequences of crashing for the driver is likely to make them take more or less care?

Do you think that removing all legal penalties for driving into others would make drivers more or less likely to do so?   Why is it different if the penalties are physical rather than legal?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Mark_1973_ wrote:

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

>  A helmet has saved me from serious injury on three occasions so I choose to wear one.

Perhaps you should learn how to avoid crashing your bicycle.  Observation, anticipation, they're good skills to have.

I have bumpers on my car but I don't drive around bumping into things.

 

You win the prize for the most ridiculous post ever. Well done. Maybe it's time to start lobbying vehicle manufacturers to remove all safety aids and devices from their vehicles, and simply tell their customers not to crash.

 

Do you think that removing or reducing the adverse concequences of crashing for the driver is likely to make them take more or less care?

Do you think that removing all legal penalties for driving into others would make drivers more or less likely to do so?   Why is it different if the penalties are physical rather than legal?

 

He's being hyperbolic, he doesn't actually want lawless roads. PeowPeow was making an argument from infallibility. There was another guy on here a while ago who was always saying 'ride to conditions' like he had never found a patch of ice or pothole on the road. Expect the unexpected unless you are Danny Macaskill (oh wait even he wears a helmet.)

Peowpeowpeowlasers wrote:

>  A helmet has saved me from serious injury on three occasions so I choose to wear one.

Perhaps you should learn how to avoid crashing your bicycle.  Observation, anticipation, they're good skills to have.

I have bumpers on my car but I don't drive around bumping into things.

Prize for the most sanctimonious answer goes to....

dodpeters wrote:

Everybody I know that recommends wearing a helmet learned to ride without one...

I'm not really sure that this argument bears anything out other than a logical fallacy.

Cars 30 years ago were inherently unsafe, should we therefore remove all modern safety features from cars because drivers have survived?

kitsunegari wrote:

dodpeters wrote:

Everybody I know that recommends wearing a helmet learned to ride without one...

I'm not really sure that this argument bears anything out other than a logical fallacy.

Cars 30 years ago were inherently unsafe, should we therefore remove all modern safety features from cars because drivers have survived?

 BS - cars have never been ‘unsafe’.  It has been the operators that have been the problem.  Look at that tragic incident in Birmingham last week. It never ceases to amaze me individuals are granted licenses to operate machinery on the roads. 

kitsunegari wrote:

dodpeters wrote:

Everybody I know that recommends wearing a helmet learned to ride without one...

I'm not really sure that this argument bears anything out other than a logical fallacy.

Cars 30 years ago were inherently unsafe, should we therefore remove all modern safety features from cars because drivers have survived?

Not true, it wasn't the cars that were unsafe but the operators, have the operators improved in their behavior/habits since more 'safety' features have been added, I think not, quite the opposite, it's just that the tech sometimes gets them out of trouble and protects them, however such are the lowered behavioural issues with those feeling protected they still manage to globally kill 1.25million people and maim tens of millions and still suffer a ridiculously large ampount of head injuries (greater than in any other aspect in our society) despite airbags, crash protection systems, seatbelts tracgtion control and all manner of driver aids and protection systems.

Remove all 'safety' features and those outside the vehicle benefit massively(the reverse of what happened when seatbelts were brought in), change the behaviour/actions of those that are unsafe or remove them from the machinery that they harm with instead of trying to mask the problem through ever increasing tech that is flawed massively. Helmets would never ever be proposed as a solution to something that wasn't ever a problem until others decided to use a weapon to kill and maim with it, the problem would be taken out of the equation not add PPE as this is the final option as we know it is the weakest aspect of addressing safety.

I managed to drive a 850kg vehicle with no power steering, no airbags, no crumple zones, no impact beams and had basic non inertia seatbelts without harming another person or making anyone feel threatened. I never died driving it nor was ever injured, I don't see that it is the vehicle itself but the attitude of the driver that needs modifying and adding so called safety aids has a direct negative effect on that attitude/way of behaving, just as some people on bikes have their behaviour modified when they think they are safer by wearing a plastic hat.

alansmurphy wrote:

Not sure why you wouldn't stick a lid on a kid when teaching them to ride...

Did anyone learn to ride without a helmet?

Are you dead?

I rest my case.

don simon wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Not sure why you wouldn't stick a lid on a kid when teaching them to ride...

Did anyone learn to ride without a helmet?

Are you dead?

I rest my case.

my father, his brothers and sisters, their parents, aunts and uncles and their grandparents and great grandparents learned to ride their bikes without helmets, and every single one of them is dead now.

My great-great aunt Cissie on the other hand never learned to ride a bike at all, but she went everywhere in a brass fireman's helmet, and she's 173 now.

don simon wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Not sure why you wouldn't stick a lid on a kid when teaching them to ride...

Did anyone learn to ride without a helmet?

Are you dead?

I rest my case.

No but I crashed wearing a helmet and I'm not dead. I rest my case.

don simon wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Not sure why you wouldn't stick a lid on a kid when teaching them to ride...

Did anyone learn to ride without a helmet?

Are you dead?

I rest my case.

When I learnt to ride a bike, helmets weren't available, so what's your point?

I've been wearing ever since they became widely available and I've been glad of them a couple of times, most notably when I went over the handlebars and landed on my head (hired bike that hadn't been put together properly). I was pretty happy the dent in the front of that one wasn't in the front of my head! Pretty bad case of road rash elsewhere. I also had a pretty nasty MTB crash after snapping my handlebars - the guy I was with at the time who wasn't wearing a helmet went straight to the nearest bike shop on his way home to buy one.

Just taken daughter to school on her bike - she's still learning to ride, doesn't always remember to use the brakes, doesn't always look where she's going, the pavements aren't in great condition and she gets easily distracted. Last week, she stopped suddenly and climbed off her bike because she'd seen an interesting-looking conker. Yes, she's wearing a helmet.

don simon wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Not sure why you wouldn't stick a lid on a kid when teaching them to ride...

Did anyone learn to ride without a helmet?

Are you dead?

I rest my case.

I also know lots of people who  learnt to drive without wearing a seatbelt (those who passed their driving test before 1983) who are not dead. This does not mean that they should not be wearing one now, nor does it suggest that seatbelts are not saving lives.
I am not saying that I am for helmet use, I am not saying that I am against it. All I am pointing out is the flaw in such an arguement regarding helmet use.

Jamminatrix wrote:

Target fixation. Very common phenomenon... Be it bicycles, motorcycles, jet skis, etc. Years ago when we were kids, my brother learned to ride his bike, ran through sprinklers and his rim brakes got wet...rather than just coast to a stop in open space he just target fixated our Dad's car.

Totally avoidable. Obviously using deep section carbon rims with wrong pads.. Totaly avoidable with discs.  

jimt wrote:

Totally avoidable. Obviously using deep section carbon rims with wrong pads.. Totaly avoidable with discs.  

Oh great, a helmet debate combined with a disc brake debate! Some heads are going to explode.

FrankH wrote:

Dad is running the same speed as the kid.

If Dad falls his head hits the ground from a greater height than the kid's would.

Therefore: Dad needs a helmet more than the kid.

Anybody care to fault my logic?

Yes.

i. The child is much more likely to fall than the adult as he is wobbling along on an unstable two wheeled vehicle that he is not yet competent to control

ii. The child is likely to have slower reflexes than the adult

iii. The child's head is proportionally heavier than the adult's with a weaker neck so will have more momentum and strike the ground proportionally harder with greater force

iv. The child's skull is still not fully formed so will possibly be subjected to more lasting damage

v. The child's outstretched arms probably have insufficient strength to prevent his head hitting the ground, should he fall

vi. The child probably has less experience of falling and, therefore, of controlling a fall

p.s. I couldn't care less who wears a helmet but the angle you've approached this from is so tiring. A helmet has saved me from serious injury on three occasions so I choose to wear one.