Cyclists...do you wear a helmet?

Garnett said:
I love the "road tax" argument. It's so wonderfully self-defeating. There's no such thing as road tax.
Click to expand...

Yes there is, it's a tax you pay to use a motor vehicle on a public highway.

Do you perhaps mean there's no such thing as a road fund licence, which is what the VED (Vehicle Excise Disc) used to be called.


Personally, I hate cyclists....
 
cycle helmets are to be frank pretty crap, they help a bit, but generally, just stop the scrapes and cuts. If you are hit by a car at any decent speed, the rest of your body - back, legs, feet, neck, face and head, will not stand a chance

... coming firsthand from someone who was hit by a drunk driver doing 50MPH
 
realspeed said:
The difference being motorist pay to use the roads, cyclists don't
The difference being motorist have to take a test to use the roads cyclists don't
The difference being motorist have to be insured to use the roads cyclists don't.

Just as 3 examples


Realspeed
Click to expand...
Well tests, insurance and paying dont stop motorists from speeding, generally acting like pricks or being inconsiderate. there are 2 sides of this argument, and on the other side, cyclists are not driving 2 tonne rocketships capable of 100MPH +
There are plenty of crap inconsiderate drivers, and plenty of crap inconsiderate cyclists. However, it is very unlikely a cyclist will ever kill a driver by crashing into the car

Pedestrians, horses, tractors, cyclists, all are allowed on the roads, and car drivers may be in the majoritory, but they still cause many deaths. Quoting stats from the BBC


In 2008, 2,538 people died on Britain's roads, on average nearly seven every day. Using official data released by the Department of Transport, this map plots the location of every fatal road crash in Great Britain between 1999 and 2008, a total of 32,298 deaths.


We as a society rant and rave about murderers, paedophiles, and even workplace accidents.. we should be ranting and raving about this
 
Richard King said:
cycle helmets are to be frank pretty crap, they help a bit, but generally, just stop the scrapes and cuts. If you are hit by a car at any decent speed, the rest of your body - back, legs, feet, neck, face and head, will not stand a chance

... coming firsthand from someone who was hit by a drunk driver doing 50MPH
Click to expand...

They're not really an anti-car protection system though Richard. I believe that for a fall during cycling, they can be a life saver.
 
Been on both sides.

Which ever way you look at it, who ever is at fault, the cyclist will be the one hurt.

Does it not make sense to spend £20 on some protection for your skull???

If people make their kids wear one, why don't they??? Winds me up watching a kid cycling along with a helmet on followed by a parent without. What a great example to set.

A quote off facebook about a recent cyclist killed by a bus...

on the cyclist who got killed yesterday, it's a shame it happened but from eye witness account (another cyclist that was with him) it was his own fault.......
''A fellow unidentified cyclist, who claimed to be riding on his way home next to the dead rider and gave a graphic account of the accident.
Writing on a riding blog, he said: "As we approached a bus he went inside while I held back.
"The lights changed as he was in the buses blind spot and as he was attempting to go straight the bus turned left.
"He didn't really have anywhere to go and no time to do anything anyway... he got pulled under the wheel and dragged around 10 feet or so........''

Person versus vehicle...... person loses everytime, don't put yourself in that position!!!

Then there are times that you have done absolutely nothing wrong and some idiot hits you. A helmet is not designed to protect you from a car crash, it is designed to protect you from falling off, but every little bit will help will it not???

The bloke I hit on his bike would not have epilepsy if he wore a helmet (he wouldn't of been hit if he had a brain and cycled sensibly)
 
Dale_d3100 said:
Been on both sides.

Which ever way you look at it, who ever is at fault, the cyclist will be the one hurt.

Does it not make sense to spend £20 on some protection for your skull???

If people make their kids wear one, why don't they??? Winds me up watching a kid cycling along with a helmet on followed by a parent without. What a great example to set.

A quote off facebook about a recent cyclist killed by a bus...

on the cyclist who got killed yesterday, it's a shame it happened but from eye witness account (another cyclist that was with him) it was his own fault.......
''A fellow unidentified cyclist, who claimed to be riding on his way home next to the dead rider and gave a graphic account of the accident.
Writing on a riding blog, he said: "As we approached a bus he went inside while I held back.
"The lights changed as he was in the buses blind spot and as he was attempting to go straight the bus turned left.
"He didn't really have anywhere to go and no time to do anything anyway... he got pulled under the wheel and dragged around 10 feet or so........''

Person versus vehicle...... person loses everytime, don't put yourself in that position!!!

Then there are times that you have done absolutely nothing wrong and some idiot hits you. A helmet is not designed to protect you from a car crash, it is designed to protect you from falling off, but every little bit will help will it not???

The bloke I hit on his bike would not have epilepsy if he wore a helmet (he wouldn't of been hit if he had a brain and cycled sensibly)
Click to expand...


Pretty much agree with everything you say, though the bold bit... when its cyclist V pedestrian... one of my real gripes against some cyclists here in London are the red light jumpers/riding up the nearside of a vehicle turning left, but also I get so narked when they ride straight across a zebra/pelican crossing when traffic is stationary and pedestrians are on the crossing. Saw a classic example of this last night, cyclist rides up the inside of a bus infront of me and straight across the pelican we were all waiting for.... with a bus in the way, unless he was telepathic he had no idea if there was some old dear crossing slowly and about to be in his path... :bang:
 
Dale_d3100 said:
Does it not make sense to spend £20 on some protection for your skull???
Click to expand...

Nope, it makes sense to spend a lot more than that... and that's my issue, most helmets are not fit for purpose

And plenty of mums&dads are so happy for little Johnnie to go out on bikes so long as they have a helmet on, like that magically is going to protect them
 
I had a great laugh in London a month or so ago, not far from Liverpool Street. We cam to a Zebra Crossing, loads of visibility and started to cross, we noticed around 15 cyclists coming towards us. The majority seemed happy to cycle straight across narrowly missing us, thankfully it was the 2 cyclists at the front who slowed down, much to the annoyance and shock of the cyclists behind.

Only 2 out of the 15 or so had helmets on :(
 
Of course I wear a helmet. Just look at the things. Does anyone think you're any safer by NOT wearing a helmet? It's bonkers not to wear one in my opinion.

One thing I do do however which most people won't agree with is wear headphones too. However they're open ear retro looking Koss Porta Pros, so I can still hear cars just as well. I'd certainly say I can hear better than people in cars with radios. I always give a wave when I hear one of my work colleagues honk me as he drives past on the way into work (that's when he's behind me, I hear the horn before I see him ;) ). People who wear those earphones with the rubber buds, they're the crazy ones.

EDIT: On a similar note, I gave my brakes a good test on my new road bike today (triban 3), some idiot in a blue Focus pulled out right in front of me. I then looked him in the eye and he looked all apologetic. Perhaps if he looked before he went!
 
Last edited:
Richard King said:
Nope, it makes sense to spend a lot more than that... and that's my issue, most helmets are not fit for purpose

And plenty of mums&dads are so happy for little Johnnie to go out on bikes so long as they have a helmet on, like that magically is going to protect them
Click to expand...

Your suggestion would be? Cotton Wool wrap them, ban cycles or american football armour.

Millions of kids grew up cycling around parks without helmets, how did we survive?

Road use is different.
 
foggy4ever said:
Without going into too much detail I had a mild road rage incident with a car on the way to work which left me battered grazed and laying flat on my back at a busy rounder bout.

My main point is I had a quite heavy hit to the back of my head when I landed which was taken fully by my helmet. I see a lot of commuters/cylists that still don't wear helmets.....it only takes 1 second so please wear one.
Click to expand...

ALWAYS!
My dad wouldn't be about without one!
 
Oooo thread revival.

without quoting too many....


Insurance, most should be covered under their house insurance. I am and have used it when a car driver tried to claim against me.

Helmets save your noggin against the tarmac, cars/ vans lorries will squish you regardless of your head gear.

Their are careless driver, cyclists and pedestrians.... and Olympic bus drivers.

I'm off or more :beer: and less :boxer:

:thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Flash In The Pan said:
Yes there is, it's a tax you pay to use a motor vehicle on a public highway.
Click to expand...

lrg_audi_a1_diesel_hatchback_51334.jpeg


You half-quoted what I said, but suddenly the other half seems pertinent...

Garnett said:
There's few other arguments where one side put forward such an inadvertently eloquent demonstration of how ignorant they are and therefore how worthless anything else they have to say is!
Click to expand...
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Yes, it does, because what you wrote was completely wrong ;)
Click to expand...

And you do realise you likewise only partially quoted what I had posted, don't you? ;) :lol:
 
Boopop said:
Of course I wear a helmet. Just look at the things. Does anyone think you're any safer by NOT wearing a helmet? It's bonkers not to wear one in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not convinced it makes a lot of difference and I've researched the point extensively in the past.

While there is some evidence that helmets do help, there's also plenty of evidence that they make little difference to fatalities. They may even increase risk of accidents occurring in the first place (adversely modifying the behaviour of cyclists and other road users) or injuries where they do occur (e.g. increasing rotational forces on impact).

They're most clearly effective when the incident involves a cyclist falling with no other vehicle involved, which is exactly what their design parameters are for, and why they are most appropriate for young and inexperienced cyclists who are most likely to fall - my 5 year old son always wears a helmet on his bike for precisely this reason. Beyond 12mph, the protection they offer is marginal. N.B KE = 1/2 mv2

Certainly in respect of compulsory wearing of helmets, it's highly inconclusive, except that where helmets have been made mandatory, cycle use is shown to decline significantly with all the health implications that has.

Statistically, it's by no means as clear cut as the case for helmet wearing with motorcycles or seat belt wearing in cars. Actually, if we were looking for the greatest reduction of injuries, it would be far more effective to require pedestrians and car occupants to wear cycle helmets, as they suffer far greater numbers of head injuries that these helmets are designed to protect against.

By far the best protection is to ride well, IMO. Stay legal, anticipate hazards and mitigate them before they become threats. I've come a cropper once in 30 years and the driver involved was banned. I survived with a sprained ankle, though my bike was trashed.

FWIW, I do wear a helmet when commuting, mostly to keep the (non-cyclist) other half happy.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I don't get why people wouldn't want to attempt to protect their bounces while cycling - they're not that expensive, if they help to soften the blow and save you from brain damage then it's worth it, and there are some really stylish helmets for those who think they look ugly.

Garnett said:
I love the "road tax" argument. It's so wonderfully self-defeating. There's no such thing as road tax. There's few other arguments where one side put forward such an inadvertently eloquent demonstration of how ignorant they are and therefore how worthless anything else they have to say is!
Click to expand...

Maybe cool it with the ignorance and worthless comments...
 
Last edited:
Garnett said:
1)

2)

3
So how much "road tax" do owners of the mtor vehicle above pay? :clap:

Hehehe. I haven't kept track of what else you post. Is it all as 1) baseless, 2) incendiary, and 3) self-defeating? ;)
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that in order to use a mtor (sic) vehicle on a public road it requires to have vehicle tax disc which the DVLA also refer to as, and I quote, "car tax/road tax" , or do you feel that "car tax" does not pertain to the use of said vehicle on a public road?
 
I would always wear a helmet if I actually owned and rode a bike, I can't see any reason not to.
I understand that a helmet is only of use in certain conditions, but in those scenarios I'd definitely be better off with one than without.
Wearing a helmet is certainly not going to make any collision or injury worse so there is really no reason for not wearing one.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I think you'll find that in order to use a mtor (sic) vehicle on a public road it requires to have vehicle tax disc which the DVLA also refer to as, and I quote, "car tax/road tax" , or do you feel that "car tax" does not pertain to the use of said vehicle on a public road?
Click to expand...

Could you point to where precisely the DVLA refer to the tax as "road tax"?
 
OK, thanks for that. I notice though that the DVLA directly and correctly refer to the tax as "vehicle tax" with "car tax/road tax" in brackets to clarify the long obsolete colloquial terms.

As has been already stated, the whole proceeds of vehicle tax have long since been paid direct to central Treasury tax receipts and there is no direct correlation with expenditure on roads.

True road tax was abolished in 1937.

Good link here:

http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/bring-back-the-road-fund/
 
Last edited:
Thought it was called a road fund licence now
 
pepi1967 said:
Thought it was called a road fund licence now
Click to expand...
Read my link and all will be revealed. But here is a quote from it:

"In May 1936, Austen Chamberlain the told the House of Commons that the Road Fund would be wound-up the following year and absorbed by the Ministry of Transport. The Road Fund, raided by Churchill in 1926, halting it in all but name, was therefore defunct from 1937 onwards."
 
ah ok thanks for that bob
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Why doesn't someone create a thread about it?
Click to expand...

It shouldn't even be a point of discussion. It's an argument borne out of absolute ignorance of what the relevant taxes are for.
 
Yellowbelly said:
OK, thanks for that. I notice though that the DVLA directly and correctly refer to the tax as "vehicle tax" with "car tax/road tax" in brackets to clarify the long obsolete colloquial terms.

As has been already stated, the whole proceeds of vehicle tax have long since been paid direct to central Treasury tax receipts and there is no direct correlation with expenditure on roads.
Click to expand...

Nowhere did I say, or even infer, that the tax collected by the DVLA was used to fund expenditure on the roads, I merely pointed out that payment of the duty (regardless of the actual rate, before zero-rated vehicles are brought up as a counter argument) was required before a vehicle could be used on a public road, ergo it is still a "road tax".
 
Er ... I see what you are getting at. So is the VAT you pay on a packet of biscuits really a biscuit tax?


;)



OK OK, I'll get me coat. :)
 
Yellowbelly said:
Er ... I see what you are getting at. So is the VAT you pay on a packet of biscuits really a biscuit tax?

;)

OK OK, I'll get me coat. :)
Click to expand...

No, because vehicle tax is only levied on vehicles, and specifically vehicles which are to be used on a public road. VAT isn't specific to one particular good or service and is
levied on a variety of different items, including that coat you're just about to put on :naughty:
 
I haven't ridden a bike "properly" for over 10 years but apart from the first year or two, I always used to wear a helmet when off-road, unless just pootling around. In fact, the very first time I wore a lid on a pushbike - I hired it from the bike shop in Betws Y Coed because I knew the day's trail was very steep and technical in parts - I fell on my head later that day! :lol: Plastic certainly sounds better against rock than skullbone does!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top