does a helmet make you feel safe

Cunobelin

Dismissing Ian walker's work as "having a bit of fun" is ridiculous, especially when others have shown similar results!


Driver's perceptions of cyclists, published by the TRL and authored by Basford, L,Reid, S,Lester, T,Thomson, J,Tolmie, A in 2000 showed similar.

This report (TRL report 549) looked at ‘Drivers perceptions of cyclists’ and the way that drivers make judgments as to how safe a cyclist was - it showed that where they feltt he cyclist was competent and they could predict their actions and were therefore willing to overtake a ‘predictable’ cyclist at higher speed and more closely than others. Those riders judged to be predictable include ’serious’ cyclists who wear helmets, the helmet being one of the indicators!

By the way, in reply to the query about intelligence and cyclists - the TRL did demographic profiles and found that compared to the average population regular cyclists were more likely

to have a high income, come from the highest socio-economic groups, own their own home, have a personal computer, be employed, read a broadsheet newspaper, have a car!

richardast

Always Tyred wrote:

I wrote a long post a couple of weeks ago picking apart a "study" on helmet use in British Columbia. The point I was making has been re-iterated here, by members of both camps - that is that the statistics are being extracted from data with a vast amount of background "noise" and don't appear to show anything at all.

Despite this, lots of authors claim definitive conclusions from their analyses, or at the very least, their readers interpret the studies this way and don't appreciate the "disclaimers".

In the BC example, which I picked becuase I was living there at the time and knew more about the chronology upon which the anti-helmet author's assumptions were based, I was able to demonstrate that with the addition of new information, the author's own reasoning tipped their conclusions on their heads (pardon the pun).

I'd like to have someone from 'the other side' pick through my argument (they key point was that helmet uptake was pretty much complete by the time the law came into force, and that the authors' highlighted drop in injury rates that predated the law - according to them demonstrating that this was nothing to do with the law - demonstrated just the opposite) and argue against it. Instead, I/we are simply invited to comment on some other piece of irrefutable evidence. Is it just me that finds this exasperating?

There are a lot of people here saying "think for yourself, make your own mind up". I'm not sure that reading and quoting another individual's interpretation of data and another person's conclusions qualifies as thinking for yourself. If you can defend that opinion, have something of a working understanding of it, at least then its an opinion that can be respected, even if you don't agree.

There's also a lot of talk here about the "negative effects of helmet wearing". As I understand it, this falls into 2 categories; (1) it puts people off cycling (2) it makes drivers and cyclists wearing helmets take more risks.

(1) Here's an analogy that's less contentious. Lets imagine that wearing a flotation device is compulsory, but appears to put people off kayaking. What do you do? I mean, you are likely to be able to swim better without one, if you get caught under something, it is more likely to get caught up, etc. On the other hand, if you do happen to get knocked unconscious or are otherwise unable to swim, it will stop you from drowning. Do you (a) say, well kayaking is fun and healthy and the greater benefit is served by waiving the obligation for wearing a flotation device, because its really unlikely that you are going to get into an accident whilst kayaking? Or do you say (b) flotation devices are likely, but not always, going to save people in the event of an incident, but spread the word that you aren't likely to ever get into a situation where you need one and that they aren't all that bothersome anyway, so don't let it put you off? Besides, they come in lots of cool colours.

So I'm not sure I get why the analogous argument as applied to helmets degenerates into a debate about whether or not they provide any protection at all.

(2) Says who? Says motorists, in surveys. Unless anyone knows different, I'm aware of only one study that appears to show that helmet use actually manifests in changed behaviour. There was thay guy (was he at Bath Uni?) who played around wearing different things on his daily commute, measuring the passing distance afforded him by cars. What he didn't do, as far as I know, was include much in the way of controls. So, setting aside his rediculously low statistical sample (as I recall from what might well have been a poor summary of his work) he didn't take care to wear the same colours each time, even.

Look, I'm not saying the guy was an idiot, he was just having some fun, much like the study that was performed on toast landing butter side up/down (about 50:50, it turned out) and he gave some insight into human behaviour. But the study didn't in fact go any further than giving small clues into the things that we all know intuitively anyway - such as giving a wibbly wobbly cyclist more wobble room than an apparrently serious roadie, who we assume is going to hold a more predictable line.

But why is that? Is that because of the helmet the roadie is wearing, or because the helmet is a more common on the keen cyclist than the guy with his shopping dangling from the handlebars?

The argument (2) therefore appears to be based largely on what mortorists think that they do, without any real information as to what they actually do, or why. Someone else has already pointed out the distinction between correlation and causation. An example might be that cyclists as a group are, on average, amongst the most intelligent in society - I am not sure if that's true or not btw - This doesn't mean that cycling makes you more intelligent, it just means that the sport is comparatively expensive, money is correlated to success, etc, etc.

What was the question put to the motorist in these surveys, incidentally? Was it something open like "what factors determine how much room you give a cyclist?" or was it more like "do you give cyclists less room if they are wearing a helmet because you think they are safer?"

One question is rather more leading than the other, the other is so broad you are going to need to ask an awful lot of motorists to draw any meaningful conclusions. Those are obviously extremes of questions, but the point is that its very difficult not to produce a perturbation in the results as a consequence of the way that you gather them.

I doubt many of us are really able to comment in an informed way on the design of the studies, but you have to admit therefore that you are awfully reliant on some one else's expertise and objectivity.

There is a final incongruent argument that is cropping up: "I wear my helmet mountain biking, but there isn't any point on the road" (or words to that effect)

I don't understand. In mountain biking, the helmet is for when you fall off and hit your head under your own momentum, right? You are cycling in an unpredictable environment, there is a risk of falling, the environment contains solid objects (like trees and rocks) that you might hit your head on, so you wear a helmet.

What's different about the road, exactly?

The environment is unpredictable - okay, the terrain isn't all that unpredictable, but unlike mountain biking, the obstacles you negotiate are moving. There is a risk of falling (there are statstics out there that indicate that cyclists occasionally fall off, right?) and when you fall I can't see how you are less likely to hit your head than when you fall whilst mountain biking.

Under those circumstances, surely the helmet performs the same function as when mountain biking?

As I think we established on a previous thread, that's where some people "believe" that helmets are beneficial. Not much use against massive trauma associated with being hit in a big way by a car, but effective when you fall for some other reason, such as swerving out of the way of something.

As much as I got irritated in the dreaded "glasses" thread, the initial point (after the flip comment about glasses being more use than helmets were ever going to be) was that prevetative measures were much more effective than a helmet.

I totally agree.

Where I disagree (and its a personal choice either way) is that it follows that there is no point in wearing a helmet to mitigate the residual risk associated with the situations that you can't avoid.

Hell, if in another 10 years I've still not fallen off again, maybe I'll agree with that too!

I simply cannot accept that there aren't situations in which wearing a helmet will not provide protection. If you hit me over the head with a baseball bat, I'd rather be wearing my egg carton. I knocked myself out cycling one time from a blow right to the top of my head, so impacts of this type do happen.

So is the debate therefore not "does a helmet protect your head from moderate blunt force trauma?", because surely this is inarguable - if not, come by and I'll happily hit you all on the head with a plank of wood - but rather "is the likelihood of sustaining blunt force trauma of the type that a helmet provides protection from so low that their use is not worthwhile?"

That's arguable. Its a sensible argument to have. It opens up loads of other questions, a lot of which point to shared motivations, such as encouraging more cycling and better driving.

That's good, but in the mean time, for those of us who aren't put off by wearing our helmets, we are reducing our personal risk by some amount which may or may not be diminishingly small. The population based studies don't apply, because the helmet don't change our cycling habits or put us off cycling.

So, my beef is to evangelists one way or the other, really, which is what got me exersised on that other thread.

So is that a "Yes" or a "No"? You didn't say.

richardast

One thing Walker doesn't seem to do is draw any firm conclusions or make any recommendations, unlike some of his readers.

Secondly, surely it's the one car in a million that actually hits you that's important, rather than the mean average distance of the 999,999 that miss - and that's just down to luck.

Most importantly though, did he get knocked off his bike more times when wearing a helmet or not?
And why hasn't he voted yet?

cjw

BentMikey wrote:

We'd have reduced deaths and head injuries all round, but instead there's nothing visible. That's stunning really, and it's what convinced me to stop wearing a helmet when cycling, and instead focus on far more important and effective safety measures.

Bent, that is interesting. I fully agree that other measures are more effective than wearing a helmet. But, until I read your post above I thought... hey why not wear the hat AND ride defensively etc etc... As you used to wear a helmet, some research clearly made you go "bugger, this helmet is not safe for me... I'm going to stop wearing it or I'll get hurt!" What research was it?

BentMikey

If helmet evidence is being "lost in the noise", that implies to me that they have very little real effect on safety. Stuff like cyclists getting killed under HGVs and riding in the door zone isn't "lost in the noise", so that means there is little real world direct effect from helmets.

CJW, I do understand your point, but it doesn't work for me as a road rider. Here's my reasoning: If helmets aren't doing anything for safety, why wear one? Helmets also have two very serious and rather bad indirect effects. One is to promote the FUD that cycling is dangerous, when it isn't, and that causes less people to cycle. Having more people cycling has a very noticeable positive effect on cyclist safety for those who do cycle, one that isn't lost in the noise. Secondly, there are big negative health effects for those who cycle less or not at all due to the helmet FUD issue.

Always Tyred (good username, btw!!!), my eyes glaze over with long posts like that. I'm sorry, but you'll have to make your point more succinctly.

richardast

I would have thought that with 100s of hours of reading reports about the negative effects of helmets in population level studies under your belt, you would have gobbled AT's little post up in no time.

Cunobelin

Part of the problem is "proof"

I have seen head injuries where there is little damage to the helmet, and the injury is didsorportionate - possibly due to the helmet arresting motion and the conseuent "shaking" of the brain. concussion, and haemorrhage can be caused by the helmet...All the following papers suggest a contribution to head injury by helmets!

National Health and Medical Research Council. Football injuries of the head and neck. Australian Government Publishing Service, GPO Box 84, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia, 1994.

Mills NJ, Gichrist A, Reassessing bicycle helmet impact protection, University of Birmingham, UK

Lane J C, 'Helmets for child bicyclists some biomedical considerations' CR47, FORS, Canberra, Oct 1986. Full Paper

McCaul KA, McLean AJ, Kloeden CN, Hinrichs RW, 'Study of head injury in children' CR 64, NH&MRC Road Accident Research Unit, University of Adelaide, March 1988.


However can you really state that this was the case, again it is equivocal, but that does mean that choosing NOT to wear a helmet on this evidence is equally valid as choosing to wear one!

If you believe that this increased risk outweighs the possible contribution by wearing a helmet - then it is your choice and no-one has the righto bully or blackmail you to change it.

cjw

Cunobelin wrote:

Part of the problem is "proof"

I have seen head injuries where there is little damage to the helmet, and the injury is didsorportionate - possibly due to the helmet arresting motion and the conseuent "shaking" of the brain. concussion, and haemorrhage can be caused by the helmet...All the following papers suggest a contribution to head injury by helmets!

National Health and Medical Research Council. Football injuries of the head and neck. Australian Government Publishing Service, GPO Box 84, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia, 1994.

Mills NJ, Gichrist A, Reassessing bicycle helmet impact protection, University of Birmingham, UK

Lane J C, 'Helmets for child bicyclists some biomedical considerations' CR47, FORS, Canberra, Oct 1986. Full Paper

McCaul KA, McLean AJ, Kloeden CN, Hinrichs RW, 'Study of head injury in children' CR 64, NH&MRC Road Accident Research Unit, University of Adelaide, March 1988.


However can you really state that this was the case, again it is equivocal, but that does mean that choosing NOT to wear a helmet on this evidence is equally valid as choosing to wear one!

If you believe that this increased risk outweighs the possible contribution by wearing a helmet - then it is your choice and no-one has the righto bully or blackmail you to change it.

Sorry Cunobelin, but have you read those papers? I picked one at random (honestly) and have just read the paper you pointed to "Reassessing bicycle helmet impact protection". The conclusion states

Most criticisms of current bicycle helmet design are not valid ... current designs provide adequate protection for oblique impacts on road surface

http://www.perg.bham.ac.uk/pdf/IRCOBI03.pdf

The paper DOES NOT suggest a contribution to head injury by wearing a helmet. TRY READING THE PAPERS THAT YOU QUOTE :roll:

cjw

And another of your papers Lane J C, 'Helmets for child bicyclists some biomedical considerations' CR47, FORS, Canberra, Oct 1986. Full Paper ...

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/1986/pdf/Bic_Crash_2.pdf

The conclusion states Head injury is a major component of bicyclist' injuries. Helmets have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing or preventing head injuries for bicyclists, as they have for motorcyclists. There are possibilities for improvements in helmets.... (one of which) the range of helmets at present appears to be defiicient in small sizes

YOU OWN PAPERS SUPPORT THE ADVANTAGE OF HEMETS IF YOU READ THEM.

cjw

Now on to your National Health and Medical Research Council. Football injuries of the head and neck. Australian Government Publishing Service, GPO Box 84, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia, 1994.

A criticism on another paper was

NHMRC report on football injuries of the head and neck. "The NHMRC's assessment was that
helmets may possibly reduce scalp lacerations and other soft tissue injury, but may increase cerebral and
non-cerebral injuries including diffuse brain injury".

The response...

We disagree. The NHMRC report is not evidence based, but simply a statement of opinions. The
Thompson, 1989 study is misquoted; this study found that the protective effect of helmets for brain
injury was 88% (Thompson 1989). For several reasons observations based on sport helmet use can not
be applied to bicycle helmets, which are designed to absorb energy of one crash event and then be
replaced. Sport (football) helmets are equipped with resilient liners that are intended to recover their
properties after an impact. As a result, much of the impact management that might be fitted into the
same helmet volume is lost. Also the impact standards are much less demanding so that in impacts
comparable to those applied to bicycle helmets, a football helmet would be overwhelmed.

cjw

Now heres the summary of a study in Australia....

Effectiveness of bicycle helmets in preventing head injury in children: case-control study
S Thomas, C Acton, J Nixon, D Battistutta, W R Pitt, R Clark

Objective : To examine the risk of injury to the head and the effect of wearing helmets in bicycle accidents among children.
Design : Case-control study by questionnaire completed by the children and their carers.
Setting : Two large children's hospitals in Brisbane, Australia.
Subjects : 445 children presenting with bicycle related injuries during 15 April 1991 to 30 June 1992. The cases comprised 102 children who had sustained injury to the upper head including the skull, forehead and scalp or loss of consciousness. The controls were 278 cyclists presenting with injuries other than to the head or face. A further 65 children with injuries to the face were considered as an extra comparison group.
Main outcome measures : Cause and type of injury, wearing of helmet.
Results : Most children (230) were injured after losing control and falling from their bicycle. Only 31 had contact with another moving vehicle. Children with head injury were significantly more likely to have made contact with a moving vehicle than control children (19 (19%) v 12 (4%), P<0.001). Head injuries were more likely to occur on paved surfaces than on grass, gravel, or dirt. Wearing a helmet reduced the risk of head injury by 63% (95% confidence interval 34% to 80%) and of loss of consciousness by 86% (62% to 95%).
Conclusions : The risk of head injury in bicycle accidents is reduced among children wearing a helmet. Current helmet design maximises protection in the type of accident most commonly occurring in this study. Legislation enforcing helmet use among children should be considered.



Bottom line. Helmet reduced risk of head injury by 63%.

always_tyred

BentMikey wrote:

If helmet evidence is being "lost in the noise", that implies to me that they have very little real effect on safety. Stuff like cyclists getting killed under HGVs and riding in the door zone isn't "lost in the noise", so that means there is little real world direct effect from helmets.

CJW, I do understand your point, but it doesn't work for me as a road rider. Here's my reasoning: If helmets aren't doing anything for safety, why wear one? Helmets also have two very serious and rather bad indirect effects. One is to promote the FUD that cycling is dangerous, when it isn't, and that causes less people to cycle. Having more people cycling has a very noticeable positive effect on cyclist safety for those who do cycle, one that isn't lost in the noise. Secondly, there are big negative health effects for those who cycle less or not at all due to the helmet FUD issue.

Always Tyred (good username, btw!!!), my eyes glaze over with long posts like that. I'm sorry, but you'll have to make your point more succinctly.

Hang on a sec - you've studied this subject in depth, but you can't get to the end of my posts? I broke it up into paragraphs and everything.

cjw

Problem is that these guys don't seem to read the reports. Just pick up on someone else's interpretation (usually misinformed) from other sites. I though your post was very clear.

Anonymous

Cunobelin wrote:

I fell over drunk and banged my head. If I was wearing ahelmet I would not have banged my head. - Therefore helmets will sve drunks from injuries!

I think not getting drunk would be the solution.

Cunobelin

bikers46 wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

I fell over drunk and banged my head. If I was wearing ahelmet I would not have banged my head. - Therefore helmets will sve drunks from injuries!

I think not getting drunk would be the solution.

Which is the point about cycle numbers falling...... People ses it as dangerous and do not cycle

Cunobelin

The paper DOES NOT suggest a contribution to head injury by wearing a helmet. TRY READING THE PAPERS THAT YOU QUOTE Rolling Eyes

Lets start from the top....

http://www.perg.bham.ac.uk/pdf/IRCOBI03.pdf

You have selectively quoted one sentence:

Most criticisms of current bicycle helmet design are not valid ... current designs provide adequate protection for oblique impacts on road surface

....and forgot the limitation......in terms of the peak linear and rotational head accelarations. You forgot to mention that they realise these are limitations in present helmet tests and suggest a test for acceleration is included in EN1078. This is the limitation - your helmet has no test to assess it's efficiency in this case.

The more pertinent quote is that:

It is impossible to predict from the perpendicular impacts in BSEN1078 the performance of bicycle helmets in oblique impacts.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/198 ... rash_2.pdf

Again you are selectively quoting..

The essential
element is inertial loading to the head, produced by a head impact
or by rotational acceleration without head impact.
As the magnitude of acceleration increases there is, Cnnmaya
suggests, a progressive extension of critical strain from the surface
towards the centre of the brain, the strain producing functional
disconnection of elements of the brain. Clinical "concussion" is in
the middle of this range of severity.

You also chose to ignore the large section on rotational injuries....


Please do read these papers in full, that is why they were posted, but review the evidence within them. The statements in the conclusion are not definitive of the content, read and make up your own mind.

Hence you will note the use of the words "suggest" in my initial post and the sentence....

However can you really state that this was the case, again it is equivocal, but that does mean that choosing NOT to wear a helmet on this evidence is equally valid as choosing to wear one![/i]

bracestower

Apparently, also helmets are safety tested to something like 12kph against a flat surface.

That's roughly 8mph.

Reports also suggest that rotational injuries are the main cause of death in head injuries which helmets will not prevent and may possibly...POSSIBLY...make more likely in an accident.

Anyway - I'm also one of those who has given up wearing a helmet.

cjw

OK... On the first article... I did read it fully... let me quote more fully;

With respect to rotational...

It is not possible to perform oblique impacts of an unhelmetted headform... However without a helmet it is highly likely that the bicyclist would suffer a skull fracture and severe brain damage

AND

Current designs provide adequate protection for oblique impacts on to a road surface, in terms of the peak linear and rotational accelerations.

Which part of that statement (now in full) do you not get? I agree that the author concludes that an enhanced test should be included in EN1078, but this is what was done in this research.

cjw

bracestower wrote:

Apparently, also helmets are safety tested to something like 12kph against a flat surface.

That's roughly 8mph.

Reports also suggest that rotational injuries are the main cause of death in head injuries which helmets will not prevent and may possibly...POSSIBLY...make more likely in an accident.

Anyway - I'm also one of those who has given up wearing a helmet.

20kph... about 12.5 mph against flat and other shaped surfaces (anvils). Also note that this is the test standard and the helmets will give some protection above that speed. The only way they wouldn't is if the helmet were to magically disappear as the built in speed sensor noted that falling at 12.5 mph = helmet OK.... falling at 12.6mph = helmet spontaniously vanishes.

Which report shows that helmets make rotational injuries more likely? None I've seen so far suggest that.

I just want to see a reputable piece of work that shows that wearing a helmet is harmfull to ME. I don't give a damn (in this instance) about population scale that shows, for example compulsory wearing decreases cycling which leads to decline in the populatiion's health blah blah....

always_tyred

I just want to see a reputable piece of work that shows that wearing a helmet is harmfull to ME. I don't give a damn (in this instance) about population scale that shows, for example compulsory wearing decreases cycling which leads to decline in the populatiion's health blah blah....

I agree, as you will see in chapter 6, paragraph 82, line 47 of my previous post.

BentMikey

Always Tyred wrote:

Hang on a sec - you've studied this subject in depth, but you can't get to the end of my posts? I broke it up into paragraphs and everything.

Bit of a cheap score surely? FWIW I think long posts on forums are generally verbal or rather keyboard diarrhea. I don't know whether yours was.

BentMikey

cjw wrote:

I just want to see a reputable piece of work that shows that wearing a helmet is harmfull to ME. I don't give a damn (in this instance) about population scale that shows, for example compulsory wearing decreases cycling which leads to decline in the populatiion's health blah blah....

And yet you should care about this, because the evidence is much clearer than that for helmets. Less cyclists happen as a result of mandatory helmet laws, and that has a severe effect on all our safety.

Like many helmet religeonists, it's all too easy to focus in on the helmet and the direct effects on your safety, when it's really a minor issue, assuming you care about the safety of all cyclists. To my mind that's a very blinkered viewpoint.

david2

confused.

The title of the thread is "does a helmet make you feel safe" but the poll is about whether the guys on this site wear a helmet or not.

I often wear a helmet these days but it doesn't make me feel safe - just makes me feel uncomfortable. Too hot or end up with chaffing from the straps. So why do you wear one? I hear you ask.

its 'cause I've been nagged into it by people who havn't really looked into the issue of helmets. See I had an accident that caused a severe head injury and I wasn't wearing a helmet at the time. If I had been I could now say "well that didn't do any good" but I wasn't so everyone seems to believe that if I had been wearing a helmet I wouldn't have suffered any damage. The guy I was riding with at the time said his speedo was reading 36mph. I neither have a speedo or any memory of the event so I can't be sure how fast I was going, but it was downhill on an apparently clear road so it could have been that sort of speed.

Anyway I don't bother wearing one for my 2 mile commute to work on a lovely sit up and beg step through bicycle 'cause it would just look to silly although at the speed I ride that a helmet might actually be able to have an affect if I did have a bump.

Cunobelin

You also can't "fall off" a recumbent Trike!

snooks

I don't wear it to feel safe, my riding makes me feel safe.

I wear it cos I don't want to look like they guy in the office with a 3 inch x 2 inch scab on his forehead, where he came off a few weeks ago.

Which, now thanx to a bit of sun, is now a different colour than the rest of his head...He's sick of answering questions about he did it and now always wears his helmet.

I spent money and got the best I could, it's light, cooling and comfortable, and no hardship to wear it.

I don't wear it to save me from the wheels of a truck, or head butting a tree at full pelt, I wear it so that if I do come off, my head has the best protection I could buy it...And I'm not left wondering what if?

Cunobelin

snooks wrote:

I don't wear it to feel safe, my riding makes me feel safe.

I wear it cos I don't want to look like they guy in the office with a 3 inch x 2 inch scab on his forehead, where he came off a few weeks ago.

Which, now thanx to a bit of sun, is now a different colour than the rest of his head...He's sick of answering questions about he did it and now always wears his helmet.

I spent money and got the best I could, it's light, cooling and comfortable, and no hardship to wear it.

I don't wear it to save me from the wheels of a truck, or head butting a tree at full pelt, I wear it so that if I do come off, my head has the best protection I could buy it...And I'm not left wondering what if?

One really has to ask if the same fuss would be made if he had fallen on the stairs to the office?

snooks

Cunobelin wrote:

One really has to ask if the same fuss would be made if he had fallen on the stairs to the office?

If he had the same size scab, which is pretty hard to miss, he's still be answering questions about how he did it, yes.

But he didn't fall in the office....he came off his bike!

The second question after how he did it ,is "weren't/were you wearing a helmet?" he then has to explain that he wasn't, even though his girlfriend bought him one for Christmas which he now wears religiously.

In the 9 years I've worked in the office, no one I know has fallen over and been left with road rash on their head. But I know a couple who have eating dirt after doing a unconvincing superman impressions from their bikes and have facial scars to show for their efforts.

I wear gloves to protect my hands from having little stones scraping my skin off and being forced into my palms by my 14 stone landing on them. I wear a helmet to stop the same little stones embedding themselves in my head.

I quite like my face scar and scab free, OK I'm not that good looking to begin with, and thanks to nature my forehead is loosing it's natural covering, so I make up with Carbon, Kevlar and poystyrene.

I'm not saying everyone should wear a helmet, these are just my reasons for doing so...not to feel safe, but to save my head from road rash.

cjw

Cunobelin wrote:

snooks wrote:

I don't wear it to feel safe, my riding makes me feel safe.

I wear it cos I don't want to look like they guy in the office with a 3 inch x 2 inch scab on his forehead, where he came off a few weeks ago.

Which, now thanx to a bit of sun, is now a different colour than the rest of his head...He's sick of answering questions about he did it and now always wears his helmet.

I spent money and got the best I could, it's light, cooling and comfortable, and no hardship to wear it.

I don't wear it to save me from the wheels of a truck, or head butting a tree at full pelt, I wear it so that if I do come off, my head has the best protection I could buy it...And I'm not left wondering what if?

One really has to ask if the same fuss would be made if he had fallen on the stairs to the office?

No... much worse fuss. Especially if he had hast a lost time accident or reportable to HSE under RIDDOR (for example by fracturing a finger. Then there are all sorts of invistagtions as to root causes, prevention, training - are the stiars well enough lit, was he using the handrail (if not why not) goes on and on. Big issue (especailly in my industry - and I'm sure everyone elses) if anyone is injured at work.

always_tyred

BentMikey wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Hang on a sec - you've studied this subject in depth, but you can't get to the end of my posts? I broke it up into paragraphs and everything.

Bit of a cheap score surely? FWIW I think long posts on forums are generally verbal or rather keyboard diarrhea. I don't know whether yours was.

Did I score though?

always_tyred

BentMikey wrote:

cjw wrote:

I just want to see a reputable piece of work that shows that wearing a helmet is harmfull to ME. I don't give a damn (in this instance) about population scale that shows, for example compulsory wearing decreases cycling which leads to decline in the populatiion's health blah blah....

And yet you should care about this, because the evidence is much clearer than that for helmets. Less cyclists happen as a result of mandatory helmet laws, and that has a severe effect on all our safety.

Like many helmet religeonists, it's all too easy to focus in on the helmet and the direct effects on your safety, when it's really a minor issue, assuming you care about the safety of all cyclists. To my mind that's a very blinkered viewpoint.

Isn't this a bit like blaming the police when your bike gets stolen, rather than blaming the bloke who nicked it? Lets not look sight of the fact that the culprit here is the average (British) driver, not a.n. other cyclist trying to look after their head.

In your way, aren't you reinforcing the perception? Surely, if you wear one or not, its possible to address perceptions and barriers to cycling participation without discouraging the choice of wearing a helmet or not.