Helmets - yes or no?

dondare

cupofteacp wrote:

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

Knowledge of facts, a capacity for logical thought and confident, skillful cycling make both helmets and RLJing unnecessary.

Doom

dondare wrote:

Knowledge of facts, a capacity for logical thought and confident, skillful cycling make both helmets and RLJing unnecessary.

There is nothing that makes RLJ necessary... Helmets what thats another whole boring arguement!

whome

precisely, they are entirely separate, we're just confused why cupofteacp thinks they are linked.

Anyway this is the room for Helmet arguing, not RLJ

mailmannz

BentMikey, why are you so anti-helmets?

Mailman

mailmannz

BentMikey wrote:

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.

Can you explain the types of accidents involved and whether a helmet would have helped anyways?

Was the only reason the accident rate went up because of helmets?

Anyone actually asked the cyclists involved if they had the accident because of the helmets?

Mailman

mailmannz

BentMikey wrote:

On the other hand, for society as a whole they are incredibly bad, because of the associated effects on cycling and health.

What are these associated effects on cycling and health? Surely this is nothing more than a cultural issue?

Mailman

karate monkey

seeing cyclists wearing helmets make alot of people think"bikes are dangerous 'or"you have to look like an idiot to ride a bike".
this discourages them from riding bikes,and so they lose out on the associated health benefits,and make other people ill with the noxious gases their cars emit.

snooks

karate monkey wrote:

seeing cyclists wearing helmets make alot of people think"bikes are dangerous 'or"you have to look like an idiot to ride a bike".
this discourages them from riding bikes,and so they lose out on the associated health benefits,and make other people ill with the noxious gases their cars emit.

Do you really believe that? :?

Friends of mine don't cycle because of london traffic, not because they see ppl like me with a helmet on. They base their experience on either driving in London, being cut up getting lost or beeped at or almost being runover as a pedestrian.

The reason more people don't cycle is the car drivers and pollution on the roads or they are too lazy to get on a bike. Not because they see people wearing helmets

mailmannz

karate monkey wrote:

seeing cyclists wearing helmets make alot of people think"bikes are dangerous 'or"you have to look like an idiot to ride a bike".
this discourages them from riding bikes,and so they lose out on the associated health benefits,and make other people ill with the noxious gases their cars emit.

I am yet to meet a person who doesnt cycle because they equate helmets to how dangerous cycling is.

In fact those that I tell I cycle all pretty much say the same thing "innit dangerous with all those cars on the street?". They dont say "my god, you wear a helmet...crickey cycling must be dangerous!".

Actually...last chap who gasp about cycling in london asked me how I dealt with the noxious gasses their cars emit.

Mailman

Big Red S

whome wrote:

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

A cynic might point out that they are both minority positions opposing generally fashinable majority ones.

BentMikey

mailmannz wrote:

In fact those that I tell I cycle all pretty much say the same thing "innit dangerous with all those cars on the street?".

Obv!!! I beleive it's helmets that caused that perception of danger. Cycling is actually about as safe as walking, so it is only a perception.

Big n Daft

It's simple isn't it?

Until a law is introduced, we all have a choice, make the most of it, because sooner or later, you won't have it.

Whether you wear a helmet or not, doesn't really matter to me, you are fellow cyclists and providing your not riding in a way likely to kill me or others are entitled to respect on the road.

Yes, I wear a helmet, why? I suppose it's force of habit, I ride a motorcycle and have had cause to need my helmet (A beautiful £300 Shoei, which I had reason to use as an emergency brake from 30 mph) Now I can honestly say, I walked away with a headache, without that helmet I am sure my head would have been a red and grey smear on the road.

Do I think a cycle helmet offers me the same protection? Not in a 30mph crash no, however the likelyhood of me ever reaching 30 mph on my bike are for me less than being struck by lightning in the Blackwall Tunnel.

In a low speed impact, In the region of say 15 - 20 mph (which to be fair is all I do) I would guess that something is better than nothing, I don't need to read statistics, I wear it because I want to, I feel more protected. What others do.....meh, I don't care.

Shadowduck

*gives Big n Daft a standing ovation*

Cyclegent

Does anyone have any ideas why, in the countries where cycling is most popular - The Netherlands and Denmark, almost nobody wears cycling helmets or 'gear'? (I will not include countries like India and China, where poverty could be cited).

Could it be because cyclists feel more protected because of segregation from motor traffic, and laws favouring cyclists over motorists, or could it just be that cycling is simply viewed as a normal mode of transport no different to walking or driving?

I prefer the latter explanation. If people are genuinely worried about falling off and hitting their head, this could happen in a crowded or an icy cycle lane even with no cars about.

I think cycling in Holland and Denmark has always been about utility, and there was never a period when it was viewed as the poor man's car, as it was and still is in this country.

Because of this perception, the Brits have been able to, or have had to, market cycling as a competitive, dangerous sport requiring all sorts of flash 'safety' equipment like helmets and dayglo jackets costing £85 +, a form of horizontal bunjee jumping if you will. This made helmets and special equipment the norm, and meant that new cyclists (who weren't around before all this marketing started in the 90s) perceived this as necessary.

I would back this up by pointing out cyclists in Oxford and Cambridge, the only real areas of mass 'utility' cycling in the UK. Helmets, though worn by some, are not the norm and I believe this is because the cycling culture of those cities predates the marketing and safety hype of the last two decades.

BentMikey

Big n Daft wrote:

In a low speed impact, In the region of say 15 - 20 mph

I hate to burst your safety bubble, but cycle helmets design limits are a 12mph impact against a flat surface. The low speeds you quote above will far exceed the helmet's ability to absorb those impacts.

jam1ec

Always a helmet. I have been knocked off by cars and saved by my helmet twice. I think what makes cycling different than walking in this context is that you do it in closer proximity to cars. And it is different to driving because you do not have a steel cage and perhaps airbags surrounding you. Irrespective of how sensible or safely you cycle you cannot guard against some car drivers concentration lapse. A helmet seems such a cheap and unobtrusive way to help protect yourself from others mistakes, get a decent one and you will not find it makes your head too hot.

redddraggon

BentMikey wrote:

Big n Daft wrote:

In a low speed impact, In the region of say 15 - 20 mph

I hate to burst your safety bubble, but cycle helmets design limits are a 12mph impact against a flat surface. The low speeds you quote above will far exceed the helmet's ability to absorb those impacts.

The helmet wil absorb the force of 12mph, leaving your head to take 3-8mph of force. That's an estimate not accurate, but a helmet will absorb some of the impact at least. I personally think that the force absorbed by the helmet will be enough.

BentMikey

LOL, your knowledge of energy is astounding!! You can't subtract velocities like that, you need to look up the formula for kinetic energy to see why.

Did you know that the average helmet can absorb between 70-100j of energy, whilst the average skull takes ~1000j to break?

Big n Daft

The same 12mph impact that could mean the difference between death and life.

As I said, you do what you want to do, I'll do the same.

I am not in any sort of a safety bubble, I know from experience that falling from a moving vehicle at speed hurts....a lot.

However, I can live with flesh wounds and the odd broken bone, living with a massive brain injury is however, not something I have any wish to try, (and having seen the damage caused to an expensive gold standard MC helmet and equating that damage to my injuries, I'll take my chances ta all the same) or indeed force my family to cope with.

I could very well still suffer the same injury whether helmeted or not, life is about risk, I can do what I feel right to at least mitigate or minimise that risk can't I?

I'll carry on wearing my helmet, you carry on doing what it is you do, hopefully neither of us will ever have the opportunity to put it to the test. That unfortunately isn't always in our hands though is it?

BentMikey

jam1ec wrote:

I have been knocked off by cars and saved by my helmet twice. I think what makes cycling different than walking in this context is that you do it in closer proximity to cars.

I doubt that the helmet saved your life. Read here:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1019

Cycling and walking aren't that different in terms of the number of deaths and serious injuries. That means a helmet, assuming it even works, would likely be equally effective for walking as it would be for cycling. You don't wear a helmet to walk anywhere, so why wear one for cycling which has a very similar risk level?

Oh, and nearly all helmets sold come with a disclaimer that they are not designed to protect you against impacts involving motor vehicles.

redddraggon

BentMikey wrote:

LOL, your knowledge of energy is astounding!! You can't subtract velocities like that, you need to look up the formula for kinetic energy to see why.

Did you know that the average helmet can absorb between 70-100j of energy, whilst the average skull takes ~1000j to break?

Obviously your a know it all. It was only an estimate, if you propel your head at a wall at 20mph without a helmet your head will absorb all the energy, if you do the same with a helmet on the helmet with have to absorb so much of the energy for it to break, and so the head recieves less than the total force.

You're obviously missing the point that in an impact your better off with a helmet than not. I could go in far deeper science of the helmets than your GCSE level kinetic energy terms.

cupofteacp

If you don't wear a helmet you're a donkey.

Why? Because insurance companies will now mitigate again you for not wearing one

Saying that you don't need a helmet because you're a safe cyclist is like saying you can cross red lights safely.

Saying that wearing a helmet increases your risk of injury, is like saying cycling through a set of lights is safer because your a safe cyclist and sitting at lights would increase the risk of being hit from behind.

I don't care if you do or don't wear a helmet your not my problem

BentMikey

redddraggon wrote:

You're obviously missing the point that in an impact your better off with a helmet than not. I could go in far deeper science of the helmets than your GCSE level kinetic energy terms.

Ahahahaha, that's really funny after the unscientific response you posted earlier! Good job on the irony. :P

As for your point that you're better off with a helmet than not in an impact, well the evidence actually runs the other way.

dondare

You're better off avoiding the impact.

Has "risk compensation" reared its helmeted head yet?

BentMikey

cupofteacp wrote:

If you don't wear a helmet you're a donkey.

Why? Because insurance companies will now mitigate again you for not wearing one

Can you quote a real life example where this has happened? Insurance companies have tried this approach a few times, and have failed every time. As far as I know they no longer try to blame the victim for not wearing a helmet. That would make you this: WRONG.

cupofteacp wrote:

Saying that you don't need a helmet because you're a safe cyclist is like saying you can cross red lights safely.

Saying that wearing a helmet increases your risk of injury, is like saying cycling through a set of lights is safer because your a safe cyclist and sitting at lights would increase the risk of being hit from behind.

I don't care if you do or don't wear a helmet your not my problem

That analogy doesn't work. Why don't you wear a helmet when walking, because you're at just as much risk of injury or death as when cycling.

Helmets do increase your risk of injury, albeit very slightly, and there's real evidence to prove it. Quite unlike on the red light jumping debate.

BentMikey

dondare wrote:

You're better off avoiding the impact.

Has "risk compensation" reared its helmeted head yet?

Several times I think. At least one person has tried to deny it exists, LOL!

redddraggon

BentMikey wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

Ahahahaha, that's really funny after the unscientific response you posted earlier! Good job on the irony. :P

It was unscientific, it was a quick point, I even said it wasn't accurate in my original post.

Are you a scientist anyway? What's your field?

BentMikey

redddraggon wrote:

It was unscientific, it was a quick point,

And it was utterly wrong. Don't try to shift the focus to me, the discussion is about helmets and it's up to you to show the real difference one might make with some assumptions and calculations.

Big n Daft

In every single situation a helmet is likely to be called into use?

Can you say, hand on heart that every time a helmet wearer crashes the helmet has no injury reduction factor whatsoever?

I don't think you can, exactly the same as the pro helmet people cannot say it saves every injury it could have.

It's an un-winnable argument.

Every single bike involved accident hasn't been studied, would it be fair to say that lives have and have not been saved due to helmet use?

Statistics may show one way or the other, but there may very well be other variables involved that are not counted, for example, how many accidents involved cars? How many accidents involved head and road meeting? How many accidents involved a direct blow? Speed of accident, Weight of rider, Type of vehicle involved....all would make a difference to the energy involved.

I respect both points of view, but don't take either as gospel I'm afraid.

As I say, my head, my choice.

redddraggon

BentMikey wrote:

redddraggon wrote:

It was unscientific, it was a quick point,

And it was utterly wrong.

Therefore you beleive that the same amount of energy is absorbed by your helmet and your skull, as if you were wearing no helmet. Now that's utterly wrong and unscientific. I might have rushed my point in saying that there is a difference, but I still made the point, and its not utterly wrong. God help you if you are a scientist.