Helmets - yes or no?

BentMikey

You can learn more by reading www.cyclehelmets.org

Cycle helmets are a bad thing on the overall population level, because they do things such as increase the wrong perception that cycling is dangerous, and thus stop people from cycling.

Shadowduck

I think we're skirting around the real issue here. Of course helmets should be compulsory, as should hi-viz clothing, dayglo paint and cycle lane usage - but only for people on recumbents 'cos they're so much harder to see.

*waves at bentmikey*
*sticks out tongue*
*runs away giggling*

BentMikey

LOLOL! That's funny!

The more serious point is that many of us probably have the same goal on this issue - longer life, more safety, and more health for cyclists, regardless of whether we're pro or anti-helmet.

mailmannz

BentMikey wrote:

mailmannz wrote:

Yes helmets should be compulsory, cause some times people are just too dumb to know whats good for them

Mailman

That's simple ignorance on your part. If you actually read up on the evidence, you wouldn't make such a stupid statement.

Really? Im the ignorant one because I choose to protect the old noggin? From your lack of ability to discuss the helmet issue without calling someone ignorant it sounds like you have had one too many whacks to the head already!

In almost every helmet argument, it's the pro-helmet brigade that rely on common sense and emotion in their arguments, and yet haven't spent much time at all reading up on the research and thinking about the issue.

Actually, you should look at your posting. Calling someone ignorant isnt exactly keeping your emotion out of a discussion is it?

Now...to keep within the discussion I do have a serious question for you.

What happened to you in the past to make you so anti helmets? Did you have a smash or someone you know have a smash and the helmet didnt help?

Regards

Mailman

BentMikey

And how would you judge yourself calling people dumb when they've clearly done thinking about the issue than you have?

Ignorance is simple fact in your case IMO, because I think you haven't read up on the helmet issue, and are just posting from your bias and assumptions. Calling someone dumb on the other hand, is just an emotive insult.

I used to be pro helmet, just like you. Reading extensively about the subject is what has convinced me that they are a red herring with respect to safety. I don't believe helmets bring any benefit on an individual basis, and that they bring harm to society as a whole.

mailmannz

There you go again, keeping your emotions out of the arguement!

Mailman

homercles

Does anyone know if the idea of making helmets compulsory is even on the radar for any of those involved at policy making level? I get the impression it's not going to be an issue in the near future but one of you may know differently?

PhilTheFish

Hmmm. Read the main page of that website and it's quite clear to see that they are biased towards Non-Helmet wearing.

Website is full of useless statistics which don't enable any useful conclusions to be drawn from.

I don't want to start or become involved in an argument over this as it would be totally pointless, but I wouldn't be basing my decision to wear or not wear one on the "facts" available on that particular website.

BentMikey

PhilTheFish wrote:

Hmmm. Read the main page of that website and it's quite clear to see that they are biased towards Non-Helmet wearing.

LOL, and yet some of the people who are behind that website are helmet wearers, rather knocking your argument for a six.

whome

mailmanz - I thought the NZ helmet law is one of the bits of data that shows helmets don't help. The level of helmet use went up hugely, the number of serious injuries did not drop hugely.

whome

homercles wrote:

Does anyone know if the idea of making helmets compulsory is even on the radar for any of those involved at policy making level? I get the impression it's not going to be an issue in the near future but one of you may know differently?

It has been mentioned that this government has stated that they will introduce a mandatory law when the natural level reaches 80%. I have seen this mentioned a few times, but don't have a reference to back that up.

beckenham

I don't wear one, it's just that I feel more comfortable without one and enjoy the wind in my hair feeling, well I would if I had any hair :?

Clever Pun

dondare wrote:

I own a helmet.

Sometimes I wear it, sometimes I don't.

I wear mine commuting, but wont always if I'm just out for a ride somewhere

I never used to wear on when traveling along canals and the like, but now I'm on the road all the time I use a helmet

Paps

hey guys, just thought I'd add my 2p's worth.

I haven't rode with a helmet before even after the odd accident or two and generally hadn't thought about wearing one and concentrated on cycling itself by being 'seen' as per cyclecraft.

But (you knew it was coming eh?) on Monday 17/09 on the way to work I was knocked by a van which was initailly travelling behind me. The driver decided he could 'squeeze' through the spce between me and the parked cars on the far right. As he passed, I was pushed into the kerb and........

As I fell I cut my head open requiring 5 stiitches. I have scared myself only because it was so unexpected and random - and now have got the lid on.

My choice. No wrongs or rights to say why people should either. Just personal choice.

mea00csf

Never really thought too much about it before, you just do, don't you?? Always wore one as a kid, and wouldn't consider not using one now, feels far too wierd! Having said that, they don't guarantee safety and safer riding is better than unsafe riding without a helmet. Prevention better than cure (well minimising damage in this case) and all that.

A mcuh better option to increase road safety would be a campaign on such issues as over/under taking and road positioning. It's amazing how many casual cyclists and drivers don't realise that it's completely fine (and much safer) for cyclists to overtake on the right as opposed to the left and to use an entire lane, particularly at junctions.

Didn't think much to that website either, didn't get very far with it but it seemed poorly put together, out of date and entirely unprofessional and biased. For instance, the shock factor of the % helmet wearers vs fatalities graph on the front page. Utterly flawed. No-one would (or should) expect a cycle helmet to save your life in a fatal accident, it just wouldn't happen. Those to me would be more indicative of their driving standards and road network setup. helmets will however most likely lessen the chance of concussion and other not-too-serious head injuries.

mailmannz

whome wrote:

mailmanz - I thought the NZ helmet law is one of the bits of data that shows helmets don't help. The level of helmet use went up hugely, the number of serious injuries did not drop hugely.

Do you know what those injuries where and whether helmets would have helped "save" the rider in the first place?

Mailman

whome

Irrelevant surely. For that large a population, the protective effect of almost 100% helmet use either shows in the data or is insignificant and therefore not a useful safety feature.

Trudester

mea00csf wrote:

Never really thought too much about it before, you just do, don't you?? Always wore one as a kid, and wouldn't consider not using one now, feels far too wierd! Having said that, they don't guarantee safety and safer riding is better than unsafe riding without a helmet. Prevention better than cure (well minimising damage in this case) and all that.

A mcuh better option to increase road safety would be a campaign on such issues as over/under taking and road positioning. It's amazing how many casual cyclists and drivers don't realise that it's completely fine (and much safer) for cyclists to overtake on the right as opposed to the left and to use an entire lane, particularly at junctions.

Didn't think much to that website either, didn't get very far with it but it seemed poorly put together, out of date and entirely unprofessional and biased. For instance, the shock factor of the % helmet wearers vs fatalities graph on the front page. Utterly flawed. No-one would (or should) expect a cycle helmet to save your life in a fatal accident, it just wouldn't happen. Those to me would be more indicative of their driving standards and road network setup. helmets will however most likely lessen the chance of concussion and other not-too-serious head injuries.

Well said!!

I had a look at the website and came to the same conclusion!

freebs

I have had a look at the website and found a lot of stats but not much practical info.

Having read this thread, I cant see how wearing a helmet can make cycling more dangerous.

If I was hit on the head (cycling or not) I would appreciate some sort of protection.

Are the stats saying wearing a helmet turns me into a bad rider? I try to avoid cars and riding off the road whether or not I am wearing a helmet.

If you choose not to wear a helmet, fine, but will someone explain all the hysteria that helmets make me more likely to suffer some sort of injury? If that is really the case then I would consider dipping in for one of those lovely cycling caps!

whome

Never really thought too much about it before, you just do, don't you??

Err, no? The last cycle count I did I think it was about 50/50, IIRC. And obviously the Dutch/Danish definately don;t think along those lines.

I seem to remember it was much higher in the evil CenterParcs, but perhaps that is the USA influence?

Big Red S

mailmannz wrote:

Yes helmets should be compulsory, cause some times people are just too dumb to know whats good for them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Big Red S

BentMikey wrote:

I don't believe helmets bring any benefit on an individual basis,

I _know_ that my helmets have helped me in the past. I've had accidents that I've got up and walked away from because of the helmet. Had I not been wearing the helmet, no, i probably wouldn't have died. But I'd have bled all over the ambulance.

To me, it's worth paying that bit of money so I can sit at the side of the road with a bit of a headache until I feel better rather than hope someone happens to pass and decide to get me an ambulance.

In my eyes, that'a benefit on an individual basis.

Big Red S

freebs wrote:

If you choose not to wear a helmet, fine, but will someone explain all the hysteria that helmets make me more likely to suffer some sort of injury? If that is really the case then I would consider dipping in for one of those lovely cycling caps!

The most oft-touted one seems to be based on the idea that since helmet wearers are expected to be more experienced cyclists, they're given less room on the roads. Or something.

Really, the biggest argument against them is the idea that they portray cycling as a dangerous sport, since it's one for which lots of people wear helmets.

drenkrom

Whatever "research" you may want to quote, my helmet has saved my head from very serious injury two times. Not the same helmet, mind you, as both were pretty totaled afterwards. If I include friends I've ridden with and seen crashing, it's a minimum of 8 heavy head injuries and two of my friends would undoubtably be six feet under were it not for their lid. I've seen a helmet become 4 distinct and detatched pieces!

I used to leave the helmet at home when I went for short slow spins on bike paths or calm roads, until I was hit by a car on one of those easy rides where I did wear my helmet, for some reason known only to the guy upstairs. Without it, I would've been toast. I still lost 3 teeth, but I ain't riding a road bike with a full-face anytime soon.

You will never be the one to decide when and how you crash. Whenver I see some defense of not wearing a helmet based on some statistical analysis, I think of my friend Pat and how happy I am he's still around to ride with.

jel

I wear a helmet. I don't think it'll save my life but I don't think it'll kill me either. I quite like a full head of skin.

snooks

I only used to wear my helmet when I was riding on the road or if I was going for a long ride. It was cheapish, bigish, bulky and didn't fit comfortably, I know that now, but at the time I thought all helmets were like that.

Now I've spent a small fortue on a good helmet which I wear, it's comfy and secure, and because of that, I wear it all the time.

If a helmet is comfy you'll wear it more often....I know I do. If you want to wear a helmet it's up to you. It's your head, it's up to you whether you choose to protect it.

baudman

Compulsory in Australia.

I think I'd probably wear one anyway - especially now to be a positive role-model for my young daughter. (The lumps I wore on my non-helmetted head from falling off my bike were plentiful! A helmet would've helped many of these low-speed crashes).

BentMikey

Big Red S wrote:

BentMikey wrote:

I don't believe helmets bring any benefit on an individual basis,

I _know_ that my helmets have helped me in the past. I've had accidents that I've got up and walked away from because of the helmet. Had I not been wearing the helmet, no, i probably wouldn't have died. But I'd have bled all over the ambulance.

You're right. Sorry, I should have been more specific - I meant in terms of serious head/brain injury, excluding roadrash type stuff. I'm not sure that anyone would dispute helmets are probably good from a minor injury point of view.

BentMikey

drenkrom wrote:

Whatever "research" you may want to quote, my helmet has saved my head from very serious injury two times. Not the same helmet, mind you, as both were pretty totaled afterwards. If I include friends I've ridden with and seen crashing, it's a minimum of 8 heavy head injuries and two of my friends would undoubtably be six feet under were it not for their lid. I've seen a helmet become 4 distinct and detatched pieces!

You can't tell what the helmet did to save your life though. No one can. Read this page, because if everyone's claims about how a helmet saved their life were true, there would be indisputable evidence of it in whole population data:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019

If a helmet split into 4 pieces, I think that's generally regarded as brittle failure, where very little energy was absorbed, and the helmet actually didn't work.

baudman wrote:

Compulsory in Australia.

I think I'd probably wear one anyway - especially now to be a positive role-model for my young daughter. (The lumps I wore on my non-helmetted head from falling off my bike were plentiful! A helmet would've helped many of these low-speed crashes).

Yes, but if helmets don't work, then wearing one isn't a positive example. It's instead an example of the triumph of FUD over logic and evidence, and that's not one I want to set my little boy.

Massimo

Wear a helmet, come off your bike, hit your head, get up, get home

Don't wear a helmet, come off your bike, hit your head, spend the next 6 months re-learning the alphabet...

Yes, Its a simplistic view but IMO it makes sense.