Helmets - yes or no?

BentMikey

Explain to me then why head injury rates went up when helmet wearing rates went up in Australia after the mandatory helmet law? This while cycling went down.

Massimo

I can't, as I said its a simplistic view. I feel safer when I've got my skid lid on - but I take yout point. Perhaps its the feeling of invincibility that causes helment wearing cyclists to take more risks and therefore have more injurys.

Cyclegent

Massimo wrote:

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.

So I hope you wear a helmet in the shower, in case you slip and bump your head, or when walking, in case you fall over, or in the pub, in case you get p*ssed and fall off your barstool, or in a plane, in case it crashes, or in the car, or just sitting in the garden in case a satellite drops on your head. It's a dangerous world out there!

whome

Until there is evidence that helmets do save lives, then it isn't a "positive role model" to wear one and is not "assuming you are not going to be hit" to not wear one.

The argument that a helmet could be harmful - I believe that is based on
a) increased rotational forces from "catching" on things - your head/hair will generally slide and the skin even has a give which reduces rotation forces on the skull. And of course the suposition that the increased weight could have an effect.
b) increased size making it more likely you are hit.

BentMikey

I seem to recall seeing some calculations that at somewhere around 40mph the energy a helmet is able to absorb is exceeded by its own kinetic energy. LOL, that's actually really funny!

Clever Pun

question for BM... if it was illegal to not wear a helmet... what would you do? given you know/feel it's more dangerous

BentMikey

That's not an accurate portrayal of my position.

More accurately: I don't think it's particularly dangerous to wear a helmet from an individual injury point of view, but not beneficial either. I suspect that they have a tiny and insignificant negative effect on injury rates. On the other hand, for society as a whole they are incredibly bad, because of the associated effects on cycling and health.

From that stance, my choice is easy - I would simply wear a helmet. In fact I do already wear a helmet when racing because the rules force me.

baudman

BentMikey wrote:

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.

It IS me being a positive role model, as (I repeat) it is the LAW in Australia. Similarly, I wouldn't break road rules with her around (not that I do much when she isn't, either). Whatever my own opinion of rules/laws, they are for me to challenge, not for my daughter to challenge through mimicking my actions.

BentMikey

In your para you wrote "I'd probably wear one anyway - especially now to be a positive role-model for my young daughter". I.e. we were talking about the example we're setting if there was no law in Australia.

To now quote following the law as your reason for being a role model is moving the goalposts.

baudman

BentMikey wrote:

In your para you wrote "I'd probably wear one anyway - especially now to be a positive role-model for my young daughter". I.e. we were talking about the example we're setting if there was no law in Australia.

To now quote following the law as your reason for being a role model is moving the goalposts.

The law argument is argument enough. I'm not going to encourage a toddler to break the law. However - I'd encourage her to wear a helmet whenever on a bike to stop the small scuffs and lumps which I received as a child. The whole 'serious injury' argument is a moot point in my mind when it comes to kids, as I am happy if all it does do is protect from the minor stuff (for me, but ESPECIALLY for her).

I would also encourage her to wear wrist/elbow/knee guards if on in-line skates, for exactly the same reason.

BentMikey

That's not really very honest debating when you change your tune like that, is it?

gilbert_by_proxy

Can anyone recommend a decent helmet for commuting/leisure?

Is there a great deal of differences between them?

baudman

BentMikey wrote:

That's not really very honest debating when you change your tune like that, is it?

BM.. where exactly did I change my tune?

My orig post said about bumps and scratches. The above post says about bumps and scratches. That's my main reason for wearing one (apart form the fact that I don't really wish to break the law - at least not on helmet use).

BentMikey

You yourself excluded the helmet law as a reason to be a good example by wearing a helmet, and then quickly put it back in after my post on FUD to avoid losing ground in the debate we were having. You clearly didn't like the idea that if helmets didn't work as advertised, then you would be setting a poor example to your child in the scenario you posted.

whome

baudman, you seem to have forgotten what you said previously - a quick recap to see if there is a misunderstanding. I have emphasised the bit that you seem to be now ignoring.

baudman: Compulsory in Australia. I think I'd probably wear one anyway - especially now to be a positive role-model for my young daughter.

BentMikey: 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.

baudman: It IS me being a positive role model, as (I repeat) it is the LAW in Australia.

So, you said you would wear one anyway (even if it was not compulsory) as a positive role model. But if that role model is legal compliance as you later stated and you were initially talking about the situation if it wasn't compulsory (wearing one anyway) - then there is a contradiction between the two posts. i.e. you have changed your argument between the one post and the other.

BentMikey

Oh, that's a far better job of putting what I meant, thank you!

baudman

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).

If yr gonna quote me - don't misquote me.

whome

I didn't misquote (none of the quote was wong) and I can't see how the parts I left out affect the argument about your change of argument from if-not-compulsory to compulsory.

Unless you are now saying you would have worn it anyway (even if not compulsory) because of minor injury protection - but that's not what you say in the next post, where you go back to the current situation where is it compulsory.

So it still appears you are trying to change your argument between the two posts. Your two posts I quote above (whether they include that part you mention or not) are contradictory.

baudman

I wear it for two reasons. It is compulsory. It protects against minor injuries. I feel that both are good reasons for me to be seen wearing it in front of my daughter, and to that effect, she reaches for her helmet if we're getting her bike trailer (yep - compulsory in that too believe it or not!)

So I'm trying to be a positive role model in both capacities. It's a LOT easier, if she has to wear it legally, for her to want to wear it. And if it has the added benefit of, when she starts on her run-bike and eventually, to a 'real' bike, that it saves her some bumps/concussion/stitches, it's all good.

The fact that I didn't mention both in my second post does not mean I changed my argument.

BentMikey

You did change your tune on the law issue. What if wearing the helmet makes her 7 times more likely to hit her head in the first place? What if it slightly raises the risk of serious head injuries, and never teaches her how to avoid the things that lead to serious crashes in the first place?

I'll say it again, apart from the law where I agree with you, IMO you're not setting a good example.

baudman

I didn't change my tune - perhaps I should've written more on the first line of my first post.

FFS - I'm over it. See you in a few months boys. Congratulations.

whome

You said you would wear one even if it was not compulsory - which is what BentMikey responded to and then you objected to his response on the grounds that it was compulsory.

That is a change of tune or a contradiction between the two posts. I am not trying to score points, just trying to help you see that contradiction and find out which you did mean.

My only conclusion from what you have said since is that you didn't mean what you said in that first post about wearing one anyway (even if it wasn't compulsory).

Clever Pun

BentMikey wrote:

That's not an accurate portrayal of my position.

More accurately: I don't think it's particularly dangerous to wear a helmet from an individual injury point of view, but not beneficial either. I suspect that they have a tiny and insignificant negative effect on injury rates. On the other hand, for society as a whole they are incredibly bad, because of the associated effects on cycling and health.

From that stance, my choice is easy - I would simply wear a helmet. In fact I do already wear a helmet when racing because the rules force me.

Fair enough, just reading your posts you come across as slightly anti helmet...

whome

is "anti-helmet" a bad thing?

BentMikey

Clever Pun wrote:

Fair enough, just reading your posts you come across as slightly anti helmet...

I am anti-helmet, because of the bad effect they have on society.

Doom

BentMikey wrote:

What if wearing the helmet makes her 7 times more likely to hit her head in the first place? What if it slightly raises the risk of serious head injuries, and never teaches her how to avoid the things that lead to serious crashes in the first place?

I have kept half an eye on this discussion more out of amusement as I strongly believe people, given the choice, will justify their actions/choices either way. I am and always will be pro choice despite coming from a country where helmets are and have been a legal requirement long before I started riding meaning that it is ingrained in the culture.

Having said that BM your comments have hit a bit of a nerve. 7 times more likely to hit her head? Never teach her how to avoid crashes? I dont speak for everyone else obviously but wearing a helmet does not suddenly make me Dangerous Dave taking risks I wouldnt normally without the "all protecting" cover of a helmet.

The statistics on the sites you promote are somewhat flawed as they only reflect half the story and are sadly used by people like yourself to justify your own choice. That you choose not to wear a helmet, other than when forced too when racing, is down to you and your preferences so don't go forcing it down other peoples throats using someone else's numbers to back up your arguement. My choice as to whether or not I wear a helmet is based on personal experience and preference not advertising or statistics by internet 'experts'.

I think its probably time to dry my eyes and get back on the bike as thats what I really enjoy not bickering.

BentMikey

I've no problem with you ignoring the evidence mate. You'll find that risk compensation is a well documented effect, so there's little point in arguing that it doesn't exist for you because of some factor.

cupofteacp

I think its funny to find anti helmet people advocating not RLJing

whome

I don't see the 2 are related? explain?

BentMikey

Yeah, I don't get that either. Maybe you can explain.