"Where's your helmet?"

BentMikey

Mikey Mouse wrote:

It really gets on my tits.

I'm sorry that's the case, but it's something you need to change. I can't help it that you don't like the facts being argued..

jbindman

My helmet cracked when I came down onto the tarmac and once peiced back together you can easily see where it absobed the impact. (Just above my right ear). I jus got a few cuts and bruises on my arm, shoulder and face. Going by the dent on the helmet it clearly shows it performed well and did what it was meant to do...spread out the force of the impact.

heads are much tougher than helmets- a cracked helmet does not prove you would have had a serious head injury, you would probably have had a minor one, unless you remember having significant concussion (nausea, confusion, headache etc) despite the helmet. an impact hard enough to kill you without one would likely have injured you quite a bit with one.

as an epidemiologist I know how hard it would be to prove conclusively that helmets save lives and im not surprised the evidence is debatable.

on the other hand, i wear one because its just not that hard to do once you get into the habit. and even at £70 (& ive had to buy 3 in 3 years) its a small part of the cost of cycling and im prepared to do it for what I accept is probably a fairly marginal advantage. scalps bleed a lot, even a small cut can ruin all your clothes!

also im quite assertive about promoting cycling at work and setting an example- going into meetings and putting a helmet on the table is a way of making a point and establishing a culture and a solidarity among cyclists!

its probably more important to modify your riding style. my accidents have all involved stupid drivers/peds, but being honest my aggression has often contributed also; i put myself in situations I dont need to be in and as far as i can see a lot of other riders do too- its worth working on riding in the right head space....

Cunobelin

Gussio wrote:

orienteer wrote:

"Where's yours?": more deaths and injuries would be prevented by vehicle occupants wearing helmets - not to mention pedestrians!

Not strictly speaking true. The weight of a helmet on your head in a car crash exacerbates whiplash and increases the likelihood of serious neck injury.

There are already plenty of helmets on the pavements

There is evidence that this occurs with cycle helmets!

As "aerodynamics" moved design from smooth surfaces to vents and ports, the edges (snag points) cause the helmet to rotate and or stop on impact, increasing neck injuries.

Cunobelin

Plus studies that show wearing a helmet does not significantly reduce the cyclists death or serious injury rate are missing the point. It only takes one case (where is saves a life) for it to be worthwhile.

Helmets for pedestrians will therefore become immediately compulsory then?

Anyone arguing against this or refusing to wear one must be fooling themselves surely?

mailmannz

hamboman wrote:

Why can't people mind there own business? Those who don't want to wear a helmet - that's their call. Would you shout at someone walking in the rain without an umbrella?!

Because I like to meddle in your life

Mailman

Cyclegent

I have to laugh at the aussies and kiwis coming over here and saying we ought to wear helmets, just because they are compulsory in their countries. That's a bit like the Taliban coming over here and saying our women ought to wear veils just because theirs do.

As for the Hovis Freewheel, I would think many of the people on that were nervous newbies (and therefore more likely to wear helmets). I recently walked from Islington to Holborn and counted the cyclists. Out of 200, 120 were not wearing helmets, so I guess there are a few of us idiots left, but hey, we'll all soon be killed anyway I suppose!

mailmannz

Cyclegent wrote:

I have to laugh at the aussies and kiwis coming over here and saying we ought to wear helmets, just because they are compulsory in their countries. That's a bit like the Taliban coming over here and saying our women ought to wear veils just because theirs do.

Actually I think you will find the reason kiwi's and CY's (criminal yobs ) go on about them is because their "cycling culture" is quite a bit more evolved than in this country.

As for the Hovis Freewheel, I would think many of the people on that were nervous newbies (and therefore more likely to wear helmets). I recently walked from Islington to Holborn and counted the cyclists. Out of 200, 120 were not wearing helmets, so I guess there are a few of us idiots left, but hey, we'll all soon be killed anyway I suppose!

And whats your point?

Are you saying that because someone thinks they are an expert they will never have an accident?

Mailman

BentMikey

mailmannz wrote:

Actually I think you will find the reason kiwi's and CY's (criminal yobs ) go on about them is because their "cycling culture" is quite a bit more evolved than in this country.

But positiviely jurassic compared to the Danish and Dutch cycling culture, where they have the lowest rate of head injuries despite the lowest rate of helmet wearers in the world.

mailmannz

BentMikey wrote:

mailmannz wrote:

Actually I think you will find the reason kiwi's and CY's (criminal yobs ) go on about them is because their "cycling culture" is quite a bit more evolved than in this country.

But positiviely jurassic compared to the Danish and Dutch cycling culture, where they have the lowest rate of head injuries despite the lowest rate of helmet wearers in the world.

Linky or it never happened!

Mailman

BentMikey

www.cyclehelmets.org - see the image. It's been linked before, I guess you didn't read it.

mailmannz

Ah, is there a connection with obesity?

Interestingly enough that website is quite hazy about the numbers behind their "helmet laws reduce numbers" arguement.

Mailman

nicklouse

it is interesting to see the cycling infrastructure of the cycling countries.

and how the figures would compare with Kms done on roads or cycle routes.

many of the low helmet use countries have dedicated cycle only routes that are away from the roads and not just a white line down the side of the road.

BentMikey

It's a good point, but I don't think cycle routes are the reason for the difference in injury rates. Cycle routes don't have a good history in accident terms.

nicklouse

BentMikey
but what kills? the seriousnes/severity of the accident. and usually means vehcles driven by the internal combustion engine.

Now take me cycling down a cycle route with Zero Traffic other than one or 2 peds and the odd kid on a Euro scooter (dont get me started) the worst i can do is hit an other cyclist coming the other way.

the Swedes and Dane have the right idea totally seperate peds and cyclist from traffic.

So there is a situation where cycle racks at schools are full (well over flowing) and we dont have mum and dad dropping the kids of at school by car.

And if i wish to cycle just about anywhere locally i do not have to ride on any road. all the busy ones have underpasses or cycle ped controlled lights.

i really feel sorry for the comuters in the UK.

too sum up on my thoughts on cycle safety. without a good infrastructure you will strugle to reduce acidents.

i would also like to see more current info on that site as the figures are old...

whome

But most cycle routes are not cycle paths away from all traffic for their entirety. Where they interface with roads they are often more dangerous. Shared use pavenments are especially bad for this.

There is a Danish study that shows that their cycle lanes have actually made it more dangerous, but the perception is that they are less dangerous, which they acknowledge is a important point in encouraging people to ride.

dirk_van_gently

Helmets? YES, Computsion NO.

However I would like to tell you why I belieive.

some years ago, out mountain biking on a section of single track (quite technical) I binned it, big time. I was wearing shoes and spds, so clipped in. I landed on my back, on some fairly soft ground, bike was still attached to my feet, and when it did let go, the top of the stem smacked me on the head, well actually on the helmet, (no inuendo intended). My helmet had a large indent the same size and shape as the stem. If it had not been for the helmet I would have had a hole in my head (some say I already have) or perhaps an even worse injury.
So I beleive.

mailmannz

whome wrote:

There is a Danish study that shows that their cycle lanes have actually made it more dangerous, but the perception is that they are less dangerous, which they acknowledge is a important point in encouraging people to ride.

Where did you see this study?

Mailman

whome

Searching around again I think it was www.cyclecraft.co.uk, note I haven't seen the original, just the quoted extracts. Also I can't find the part about perception of danger. So will see if there is another study I am mixing it up with.

---

Cykelstier i byer - den sikkerhedsmaessige effekt

Bach, Rosbach, Joergensen. Vejdirekforatet, Denmark, 1988
Tabulated results
http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/s ... unsafe.htm

Traffic safety of cycle tracks in Danish cities.
Before and after study of 105 new cycle paths in Denmark, introduced 1978-81, totalling 64km. Cyclist casualties increased 48% following introduction of paths. Car drivers, moped riders and pedestrians also suffered more accidents, with overall rise in casualties of 27%.

---