Bear quad helmet

[Andy84]

I know it’s long overdue but I need to buy a helmet for the quad. What’s the best ones on the market now especially for fowk that aren’t used to wearing one I need as much uptake as possible!

 

[Highland Mule]

I know it’s long overdue but I need to buy a helmet for the quad. What’s the best ones on the market now especially for fowk that aren’t used to wearing one I need as much uptake as possible!

I've got an open face motorbike helmet. Wife's has a front flip visor. Both bought for not very much off ebay - brand new, to a recognised standard and boxed. I wouldn't ask staff to share one though - it's right next to your face and hair when wearing it, and not all will have the same standards of hygiene, plus of course heads vary massively in size, and it is a safety helmet. Just put a few hooks up wher ethe bike is overnighted for them to hang them when not in use.

Give them all a choice - £50 to choose their own, or a free P45?

 

[Loftyrules]

I bought a Logic one which is fine for me, if you are an NFU member I believe you get a discount from Spada who seem to do a good helmet too.

 

[AftonShepherd]

I have an old Spada and a Logic. Much prefer the Logic, even on a cold day the Spada can get too warm for me.

 

[Agrivator]

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that wearing a helmet on a quad bike, particularity on steep rough hill ground, is not to be recommended. You can't see, you can't hear, and you become unbalanced if you try to look behind.

The HSE will strongly disagree, but their own evidence shows that a helmet wearers are more likely to suffer serious injury.

Many of you on here will also disagree, but unless you have had years of experience of riding quads on hill ground, you aren't qualified to comment.

 

[Loftyrules]

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that wearing a helmet on a quad bike, particularity on steep rough hill ground, is not to be recommended. You can't see, you can't hear, and you become unbalanced if you try to look behind.

The HSE will strongly disagree, but their own evidence shows that a helmet wearers are more likely to suffer serious injury.

Many of you on here will also disagree, but unless you have had years of experience of riding quads on hill ground, you aren't qualified to comment.

Is it not something you get used to?

 

[JP1]

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that wearing a helmet on a quad bike, particularity on steep rough hill ground, is not to be recommended. You can't see, you can't hear, and you become unbalanced if you try to look behind.

The HSE will strongly disagree, but their own evidence shows that a helmet wearers are more likely to suffer serious injury.

Many of you on here will also disagree, but unless you have had years of experience of riding quads on hill ground, you aren't qualified to comment.

I think you may be right. It also helps if you understand a quad's capabilities and high centre of gravity and don't take riks or act like a twit on one

I believe the Kiwis and in Northern Ireland where it's law on the road prefer the quad high up type helments that leave the ears and side more open for just that reason

My Son has a Logic one, I don't wear one

 

[Highland Mule]

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that wearing a helmet on a quad bike, particularity on steep rough hill ground, is not to be recommended. You can't see, you can't hear, and you become unbalanced if you try to look behind.

The HSE will strongly disagree, but their own evidence shows that a helmet wearers are more likely to suffer serious injury.

Many of you on here will also disagree, but unless you have had years of experience of riding quads on hill ground, you aren't qualified to comment.

You've bought the wrong helmet, if it affects your vision or balance.

As for the statistics - please do share. I'm sceptical, based on my own many years of riding quads on hill ground, but also am not averse to doing my own bespoke risk assessments that run contrary to HSE guidance, if that is appropriate.

 

[Agrivator]

You've bought the wrong helmet, if it affects your vision or balance.

As for the statistics - please do share. I'm sceptical, based on my own many years of riding quads on hill ground, but also am not averse to doing my own bespoke risk assessments that run contrary to HSE guidance, if that is appropriate.

A number of years ago, the HSE, in a concerted bid to make riders aware of the need to wear helmets, they wrote something like this:

''Of the fatalities and serious injuries suffered by quad riders, 30% were wearing helmets and 70% were not wearing helmets. This indicated that non-helmet wearers are more than twice as likely to suffer death or injury than helmet wearers''.

But my own observations are that less than 10% of riders wear helmets. So if you are capable of logical thought, you will be able to deduce for yourself that the HSE were completely mistaken in their deductions.

 

[Highland Mule]

A number of years ago, the HSE, in a concerted bid to make riders aware of the need to wear helmets, they wrote something like this:

''Of the fatalities and serious injuries suffered by quad riders, 30% were wearing helmets and 70% were not wearing helmets. This indicated that non-helmet wearers are more than twice as likely to suffer death or injury than helmet wearers''.

But my own observations are that less than 10% of riders wear helmets. So if you are capable of logical thought, you will be able to deduce for yourself that the HSE were completely mistaken in their deductions.

I certainly couldn't base a formal risk assessment on that little, I'm afraid. It would rightly be laughed out of court. For one thing, are you including all the recreational quad users, as they mostly wear helmets. As one capable of properly understanding that risk assessment has a deterministic as well as probabilistic side, I will stick to the obvious logical conclusion that a properly selected helmet that does not interfere with one's faculties but has the potential to prevent your brain being minced will always be better than not.

 

[Agrivator]

I certainly couldn't base a formal risk assessment on that little, I'm afraid. It would rightly be laughed out of court. For one thing, are you including all the recreational quad users, as they mostly wear helmets. As one capable of properly understanding that risk assessment has a deterministic as well as probabilistic side, I will stick to the obvious logical conclusion that a properly selected helmet that does not interfere with one's faculties but has the potential to prevent your brain being minced will always be better than not.

No. They were referring specifically to Agriculture. From your own observations, via actual physical observations and observations of quad riders on farming programmes on TV ( mainly on moorland gathering sheep), what proportion of riders on difficult terrain wear helmets.

My own guestimate is certainly no more than 10%. Is that about right? Or would you put it significantly higher or significantly lower?

So in summary: wearing rate 10:90. Fatal or serious injury rate 30:70. As JP1 said above, wearing a helmet not only impairs vision, balance and hearing, it might give a false sense of security. Would it reduce car deaths if drivers were banned from using seat belts, and had a 6'' long spike sticking out from the centre of the steering wheel?

 

[JP1]

No. They were referring specifically to Agriculture. From your own observations, via actual physical observations and observations of quad riders on farming programmes on TV ( mainly on moorland gathering sheep), what proportion of riders on difficult terrain wear helmets.

My own guestimate is certainly no more than 10%. Is that about right? Or would you put it significantly higher or significantly lower?

So in summary: wearing rate 10:90. Fatal or serious injury rate 30:70. As JP1 said above, wearing a helmet not only impairs vision, balance and hearing, it might give a false sense of security. Would it reduce car deaths if drivers were banned from using seat belts, and had a 6'' long spike sticking out from the centre of the steering wheel?

My final throwback in these things is to say "you try persuading Her Majesty she now needs a hard hat for riding " ......................

 

[Highland Mule]

No. They were referring specifically to Agriculture. From your own observations, via actual physical observations and observations of quad riders on farming programmes on TV ( mainly on moorland gathering sheep), what proportion of riders on difficult terrain wear helmets.

My own guestimate is certainly no more than 10%. Is that about right? Or would you put it significantly higher or significantly lower?

Around my farm, it's 100%, but that's a very small sample size. I don't watch broadcast TV very often, so couldn't comment from that. I regretfully will agree that you have a larger sample size than me.

So in summary: wearing rate 10:90. Fatal or serious injury rate 30:70.

I don't think you can compare statistics like that, at least not meaningfully and when they come from such different and small sample sized groups. It certainly wouldn't be be enough to make an adequate legal justification for a risk assessment that went against the code of practice, imho. As I wrote above, risk assessment needs a probabilitic and a deterministic element. Further, the deterministic side should always take precidence over the probabilistic side (i.e. don't use numbers to argue against logic).

As JP1 said above, wearing a helmet not only impairs vision, balance and hearing, it might give a false sense of security.

As I wrote above, a properly fitted helmet doesn't. Perhaps both JP and yourself are just poor at chosing the right type?

Would it reduce car deaths if drivers were banned from using seat belts, and had a 6'' long spike sticking out from the centre of the steering wheel?

History would suggest not. 1966 was the highest peacetime death rate on roads, and is pretty much when they started fitting seatbelts in cars, and then airbags thereafter. In spite of increased traffic levels, more powerful cars etc., road deaths have fallen since then and are less than a quarter of what they were then.

You've come up with a cracking set of excuses for not wearing a helmet, I'll grant you, but none that would stand up to proper scrutiny if an employee was injured whilst riding a bike. The law states that you should do all that is reasonably practicable to reduce the risk, and supplying a properly fitted helmet would (in my opinion) fall into that category. Ultimately, the coroner would decide, of course, but neither of us would want it to come to that.

 

[Optimus]

If your going to wear one buy a full face.can bet if you come off its your face/chin that's going to cop it.

 

[JP1]

Around my farm, it's 100%, but that's a very small sample size. I don't watch broadcast TV very often, so couldn't comment from that. I regretfully will agree that you have a larger sample size than me.



I don't think you can compare statistics like that, at least not meaningfully and when they come from such different and small sample sized groups. It certainly wouldn't be be enough to make an adequate legal justification for a risk assessment that went against the code of practice, imho. As I wrote above, risk assessment needs a probabilitic and a deterministic element. Further, the deterministic side should always take precidence over the probabilistic side (i.e. don't use numbers to argue against logic).



As I wrote above, a properly fitted helmet doesn't. Perhaps both JP and yourself are just poor at chosing the right type?



History would suggest not. 1966 was the highest peacetime death rate on roads, and is pretty much when they started fitting seatbelts in cars, and then airbags thereafter. In spite of increased traffic levels, more powerful cars etc., road deaths have fallen since then and are less than a quarter of what they were then.

You've come up with a cracking set of excuses for not wearing a helmet, I'll grant you, but none that would stand up to proper scrutiny if an employee was injured whilst riding a bike. The law states that you should do all that is reasonably practicable to reduce the risk, and supplying a properly fitted helmet would (in my opinion) fall into that category. Ultimately, the coroner would decide, of course, but neither of us would want it to come to that.

I can see both sides of the discussion however statistics can be skewed any which way

RTC - nearly always speed is listed as a contributory factor whereas it should only be listed if it was an inapprpriate speed.

Covid - until recently i can die of anything in the UK but it would be Covid that killed me in the last 28 days if I'd had a positive test - even if I'd bled to death in the aforementioned RTC


You see where I'm going ....

 

[neilo]

No. They were referring specifically to Agriculture. From your own observations, via actual physical observations and observations of quad riders on farming programmes on TV ( mainly on moorland gathering sheep), what proportion of riders on difficult terrain wear helmets.

My own guestimate is certainly no more than 10%. Is that about right? Or would you put it significantly higher or significantly lower?

So in summary: wearing rate 10:90. Fatal or serious injury rate 30:70. As JP1 said above, wearing a helmet not only impairs vision, balance and hearing, it might give a false sense of security. Would it reduce car deaths if drivers were banned from using seat belts, and had a 6'' long spike sticking out from the centre of the steering wheel?

I’d put the figure significantly lower than 10%. I don’t know if anyone that wears one, other than a few (mostly arable farmers) on here that claim to.
I wouldn’t take any official figures on helmet wearing as being anything like accurate, as they could only be based on sales, or on how people answer HSE inspectors’ questions.
I know helmet sales saw a spike round here, with everywhere selling out, just before the round of inspections locally. I still haven’t seen one being worn though, other than on the ridiculous training courses they made us all go on.

I suspect the odd accident that is actually caused, or made worse, by the impaired sight and sound, is why the HSE haven’t made their use a legal requirement, much less an insurance requirement.

 

[neilo]

I have a Logic btw, purely as it was the only one still available.

 

[Highland Mule]

statistics can be skewed any which way

Absolutely - hence they should rarely be used for risk assessment purposes (ie deterministic should outweigh probabilistic).

 

[Agrivator]

Absolutely - hence they should rarely be used for risk assessment purposes (ie deterministic should outweigh probabilistic).

Just do a Chi Square analysis on the figures I've presented. The null hypothesis is that wearing a helmet on a quad has no effect on accident severity.

Wearing rate: 10 : 90
Expected accident rate: 10 : 90
Observed accident rate: 30 : 70.

If I could remember the actual analysis, it would conclude with little room for doubt that the null hypothesis is well and truly rejected. I'll explain that to the next twit I see wearing a helmet.

The only benefit of Kelso Tup Sales being off this year is that I won't be subjected to the ridiculous sight of the riders on the quad trailers wearing helmets. The site is perfectly level, and the riders have to get on and off their bikes to handle big BFL, Suffolk and Texel tups, wearing helmets (the riders, not the tups). It's downright dangerous but it's purely to satisfy the requirements of the stupid HSE body.

 

[Highland Mule]

Just do a Chi Square analysis on the figures I've presented. The nul hypothesis is that wearing a helmet on a quad has no effect on accident severity.

Wearing rate: 10 : 90
Expected accident rate: 10 : 90
Observed accident rate: 30 : 70.

The nul hypothesis is well ans truly rejected.

No, I won't, for the reasons I've stated above. PSA should never be used as a primary decision tool in safety assessment. The Chernobyl reactor type could be demonstrated to pass the relevant probabilistic tests for the UK, but the design is fundamentally flawed and would never have been licenced here.