Thread: I've got to ask, to helmet or not?

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

Please, do not turn this into a cyclists vs the world thread. This was not it's intention.
If you want one of those, start your thread :

It’s more like the world v cyclist......maybe the world butt out and leave the thread to cyclist.

Regardless of if you are riding a Rented bike or your own the exact same Safety and legality issues apply it makes NO difference whatsoever, NO helmet NO ride.

Originally Posted by martnH

I think it's fair for people, who choose to opt out from Medicare, not to wear helmet or to do whatever they want....If they will not use public health system.... Including ambulance

Because I surely don't want to pay for a preventable 30days hospilation in ICU.

Really.....what percentage of Medicare do you reckon cyclist take??...sweet **** all compared to the rest of society.

Yes Mick, I was about to comment that we all had gone off on a tangent...me included! The article actually asks whether the mandatory use of helmets is saving enough lives to compensate for the amount of people not taking exercise on a bike because of helmet laws, which would be beneficial to general health.

In regards to the actual article.....there are two chances of the laws getting relaxed.

Buckles and None

I wonder what if there is any data the Europeans have on head injuries from cycling?

AFAIK we're the only country in the world where its compulsory to wear a helmet while cycling.

A friend has moved back to Germany (a large uni city in the north) and she says hardly anyone drives to the shops, work, etc, they either cycle or bus, even in winter but no one wears a helmet unless going for a big ride, e.g. exercise.
The lack of congestion due to the reduced traffic in town may skew results.

Living where I am now I'm seriously thinking of buying a town bike to go to the shops, cafe, etc and I'm not sure I'd throw the helmet on for those little trips yet I've worn one every time I've jumped on a bike over the last seventeen years.

Originally Posted by weeds

Really.....what percentage of Medicare do you reckon cyclist take??...sweet **** all compared to the rest of society.

Proportion doesn't matter.

You misread my post.
What I have said is cycling without helmet should not be covered by Medicare as it is what economist call moral hazard.
These guys (cycling without helmet) increase their risk of getting injury while not be made to pay a higher premium for insurance for such risk.

This is also why motor sports event will (I guess) require additional insurance because of perceived increased risk....

If shared bikes can be ridden without helmet, then the company offer such service should insure it's costumer for potential injury....

Originally Posted by martnH

Proportion doesn't matter.

You misread my post.
What I have said is cycling without helmet should not be covered by Medicare as it is what economist call moral hazard.
These guys (cycling without helmet) increase their risk of getting injury while not be made to pay a higher premium for insurance for such risk.

This is also why motor sports event will (I guess) require additional insurance because of perceived increased risk....

If shared bikes can be ridden without helmet, then the company offer such service should insure it's costumer for potential injury....

Not at all, you’re saying people that don’t follow rulz, Instructions it the law shouldn’t be covered.

I reckon bike riders would be in the lower percentage.