No helmet today
Comments
-
-
-
I think it started yesterday with Robmanic's post here:
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... 5#14800365
I ignored that one easily enough, but I'm not going to ignore insulting and ignorant comments about death wishes and darwinism. Pro choice is all fine, but not when it results in nastiness like that.0 -
-
This one?
http://www.prendas.co.uk/details.asp?ID=1667
It does look rather cool. I have a Giro Atmos, which I also like the look of.0 -
BentMikey wrote:This one?
http://www.prendas.co.uk/details.asp?ID=1667
It does look rather cool. I have a Giro Atmos, which I also like the look of.
Yeh, that's the one. I've got a cheaper Bell Alchera aswell for commuting.0 -
I couldn't afford a whisper, so popped to my local Ikea and got one of these... Kinda looks the same from a distance....
0 -
Insulting, ignorant and nasty? A hat-trick!!!BentMikey wrote:[...] I'm not going to ignore insulting and ignorant comments about death wishes and darwinism. Pro choice is all fine, but not when it results in nastiness like that.
Not sure where the 'ignorant' comes in - I was only relating a personal experience relevant to the subject under discussion. If we're supposed to study a subject before we can talk about it then I guess things are going to get awfully quiet...
'Insulting' and 'nasty'? Well, perhaps. It certainly wasn't intended, but if you're going looking for that kind of thing (did I say looking? I meant 'trolling') I guess you can find it in quite a lot of posts.
Anyway, there's not much point continuing the discussion. If you found my reference to Darwinism to be so insulting I dread to think how you'd react to any answer I could give to your suggestion that cycling is no more dangerous than walking... :roll:0 -
I saw an ophthamologist (eye doctor) last week and what he said about the number and types of head injuries sustained by commuters in London concerned me. I need to do some more research, however it seems that the racing type helmets do not provide much, if any protection to the visual cortex, the lower back of the skull.
Trauma here can cause the IV and VI nerves to become damaged (they can snap )leaving you with no binocular vision, amongest other problems (I'm checking this out). This is similar to injuries to rugby players.
I do not know how many people are injured per year, nor do I know if the "piss pot" style helmets would assist.
Needless to say the doctor used to be a cyclist in London, but thinks that the risks outweigh the benefits for him. "There are too many confusing cycle lanes and contra flow areas placing all road users and paedestrians at risk."0 -
Why do folks get so upset when reading a thread with "helmet" in the title , and find people discussing, guess what?Pictures are better than words because some words are big and hard to understand.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34335188@N07/3336802663/0 -
I fall into the non-helmet wearing camp on-road. Just like not wearing one, that's all.
But to pick up on the comments about doctors, the only time I fell off and hit the ground hard rock climbing (at Malham) I wasn't wearing a helmet. I thought I'd get a serious talking to in casualty, given the substantial gash in the back of my head. Fortunately, the doctor was also a climber, asked which route (he knew it) and we spent the time chatting about Yorkshire grit and limestone, the Lakes, Snowdonia ...0 -
jcrofts wrote:Anyway, there's not much point continuing the discussion. If you found my reference to Darwinism to be so insulting I dread to think how you'd react to any answer I could give to your suggestion that cycling is no more dangerous than walking... :roll:
It's a fact, not a suggestion, and it's probably why most people don't bother with helmets or hiviz in countries like the Netherlands.0 -
BentMikey wrote:jcrofts wrote:Anyway, there's not much point continuing the discussion. If you found my reference to Darwinism to be so insulting I dread to think how you'd react to any answer I could give to your suggestion that cycling is no more dangerous than walking... :roll:
It's a fact, not a suggestion, and it's probably why most people don't bother with helmets or hiviz in countries like the Netherlands.
Maybe its because their roads are more suitable for bikes, maybe it's because they have a proper cycle infrastructure, maybe it's because their drivers are more used to encountering cyclists and drive more considerately?
Where I cycle I have none of that...Personnaly I want to be as visible as possible...
Talking about the dangers of walking...I had an uncle who died when he cracked his head open when he fell over walking down the street. So I appreciate how dangerous it (anything) can be. However...I have yet to see ANYTHING conclusive which can convince me that cycling is no more dangerous than walking. And I don't mean numbers from a report...they can be interpreted in any way you chose.
I mean concrete reasons why there is no difference between walking and cycling danger-wise.0 -
Ah, I see... you were talking about cycling in countries like the Netherlands (where there are more bikes than people) and I was thinking about cycling in places like Glasgow (where I live) and London.BentMikey wrote:it's probably why most people don't bother with helmets or hiviz in countries like the Netherlands.
I suppose if I pretend that I'm cycling in a 'bicycle friendly' country like Holland the WVM and boy-racers will automatically give me that bit more room, I'll float over the potholes (a la E.T. in my imagination) and the nation will automatically take the time to look behind them before pushing open their car doors. :roll:0 -
No, I was talking about cycling in the UK being safe. Again, it's a fact that the risk is in the same ball park as many other activities we're happy to do daily, and not my opinion. Whilst cycling is certainly safer in the Netherlands, it's only a little bit safer than in the UK.
Why do you cycle if you think it's so dangerous? Are you into extreme sports as well?0 -
People, people, people. Does it really matter? I don't understand why some folks have to be so evangelical about stuff like this.
Usually, I do wear a helmet because I figure it won't do any harm and is pretty comfy anyway. I don't pretend that it will save my life every time though.
If I tour in a hot country I don't wear one beacuse then it is uncomfortable and the last few days I've commuted (in a city centre, in rush hour traffic, shock horror) without a lid because I've been working on site this week and ended up at home with my gear at work. It's no big deal and really it was quite nice to have a breeze on my head. I didn't feel vunerable because a) I'm not in the habit of falling off anyway and b) I'm not that pathetic.
The point is that it is my decision, my risk assessment, my head. I'm not going to tell anyone to wear one anymore than I'd expect them to tell me to.0 -
Why does Charles Darwin evoke such anger?0
-
Charles Darwin doesn't evoke any anger, instead it's jcrofts attitude towards non-helmet wearers that needs correcting. He/she implies that we've not thought about the issue, whereas his views are based in ignorance and not realising that many non-wearers have thought about the whole issue rather more than he has.
I think helmets and particularly mandatory helmet laws are a bad thing for cycling overall, they've helped contribute to this strange view that cycling is an extreme sport and dangerous, when it's neither[1]. That means less cyclists out there, and that really does have a measurable effect on safety.
[1] That's assuming you're talking ordinary cycling, rather than downhill MTB racing or bmx halfpipe or something. LOL!0 -
Yep, its fair to say that you've thought about the issue.
I have a question - honest question so don't bite my head off - when I talk to mountain bikers, as a roadie, they often say that they think road cycling is more dangerous because of the speed. Their perspective is that they (might) wear a helmet becuase they are more likely to fall off and hit a tree, by the very nature of the sport.
From that perspective, they see these guys with skinny tyres and big wheels going a good deal faster and regard that as less safe.
I'm getting there....
I'm no adrenalin junkie, but there are some short but steep hills littered around these isles, and its not unknown to hit 50+mph down them. They are often bumpy and potholed. They aren't necessarily straight. Occasionally heavy metal moving objects move erratically along them.
Is that more or less dangerous than going half the speed off road, and if someone said to you - go race down this tarmac hill on a bike, traffic or not - would you think to wear a helmet? Personally, I think its more dangerous than roller blading, but that you are far less likely to fall off, so I think I know what you wil say....
... I should know better and cycle in a safe manner. I know, but its sometimes FUN and I can't help myself.0 -
Always Tyred wrote:Why does Charles Darwin evoke such anger?
Darwin is often quoted, but with a complete misunderstanding of what he said.
The survival of the fittest quote is most misunderstood. Fittest really means 'most fit solution' in a population of unique/random solutions, and is not necessarily the strongest/quickest/most inteligent/best equipped etc.Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
Hmm, I'm not sure about the mountain biking issue, since I haven't done it and don't know much about the risks. My feeling is that MTB is more risky than road riding going by the number of broken limbs and other injuries I hear about. I know the consensus amongst quite a few riders who do both is that there's more chance of hitting your head whilst MTB. Some of these wear a helmet for MTB, but not for road riding, though I suspect that's more a case of hoping for protection from minor injuries, and not for serious head injuries/brain damage type stuff. It's the latter where helmet protection is controversial.
As for 50mph impact protection - I would be worried at that speed whether or not I wore a helmet. I'm not sure something designed for a 12mph impact would have any relevance in a crash at that speed. Same goes for motor vehicles - you do know that most cycle helmets come with a disclaimer saying they can't protect you in a crash with a motor vehicle? Both of these situations are far outside of helmet design spec.
Whilst skating, I do mostly wear a helmet. Most of that is because I feel forced to by the association I'm qualified with, and a little bit is because I might get some road rash protection in a crash. I quite often don't wear a helmet when skating for myself, having fun, and I'm not really very worried about some road rash, it'll heal. I'd also say that skating is probably more risky than cycling, even when not on the streets or at speed.0 -
Err... no, I don't.BentMikey wrote:He/she implies that we've not thought about the issue
I don't assume that people not wearing a helmet haven't thought about the issue. In fact, to do so would be to assume that you aren't aware of cycle helmets. You'd need to be complete moron (note - I'm not calling you a moron. Before you call me ignorant for the third time just take a breath and read what I'm saying) to be riding without one and not, at some point, to have made the conscious decision that they aren't for you.
Perhaps you anger toward me is misjudged and based on attitudes/thoughts you assume I have rather than reading what I'm actually typing? Whilst you may have had this discussion many, many times and feel confident that there are only two sides to the argument - yours and everybody else's - I am new here and this is my first time.
That's twice now that you've called me ignorant. You aren't making this personal at all, are you? :roll:BentMikey wrote:[...] his views are based in ignorance [...]
I, of course, in my ignorance, am completely unable to have thought about the issue (obviously... or else I'd be in absolute agreement with you) and am, therefore, quite ignorant.BentMikey wrote:not realising that many non-wearers have thought about the whole issue rather more than he has.
Sheesh... and to think you were the one who mentioned 'pro-choice'. Is that pro-choice so long as everybody chooses what you think they should?0 -
So because I wear a helmet I think that cycling is an extreme sport? I believe that's called a straw man.BentMikey wrote:Why do you cycle if you think it's so dangerous? Are you into extreme sports as well?
I cycle because I enjoy it. I don't find cycling to be terribly 'dangerous' or an 'extreme sport'. I wear a helmet because, should I come off my bike doing 20mph beside a brick wall, it may give me a little added protection to my head.
That doesn't seem to be a terribly outrageous concept and I truly don't understand why it earns me your contempt... then again, I get the feeling you're not the kind of person whose respect is particularly worth having so I can live with that contempt.0 -
LOL! I'm not the one who's angry and upset. Oh, and don't put words into my mouth about how I apparently conclude you think cycling is an extreme sport. That's not a straw man, that's me simply trying to find out more about your belief in helmets. It was you after all who doubted that cycling was roughly as safe as other normal daily activities. Let's see if you can step away from the insults and abuse that you started with, and move onto some constructive debate backed up by facts.
In fairness, I remember not being very happy at all when I came across the evidence of helmets, I was also very pro helmet just as you are.0 -
i advocate pro-choice and I understand BMs view that if helmets were made compulsory then it might by association imply cycling is inherently dangerous (although how do you feel about motorbike helmets then?), which in general the act itself - i.e. riding a bike down the road if you know what you're doing - isn't. Where the issues arise is in the real world experience of many cyclists of poor roads, even poorer drivers and the obvious temptation to push things, either speed or handling, beyond one's own capabilities.
As for the act of cycling being no more dangerous than walking - again i see the point if they are done in the same circumstances i.e. tootling down the road with all traffic bahving itself. However my own unscientific 'research' shows that almost every cyclist (who's had done the activity for a reasonable amount of time) I speak to has been offed by a car at some point, plus quite a few have come off their bikes on their own or in a group. I know many of these occasions have been minor and the intervention or otherwise of a helmet hasn't been called into question, but I don't recall the same people, or other non-cyclists, recounting the same number of incidents of hitting the deck whilst walking. My mate has certainly never gained 23 stitches in his head from walking down the road. Another friend who wiped out going downhill a few years back, gaining himself some interestingly reformed elbow and collarbones and a two-piece helmet is certainly glad the latter wasn't his skull as he quite likes being alive.
In summary, do what you want, probably best if people have the choice but personally whilst I know it may not do me much good in event of a serious incident I'll take the potential protection a helmet does provide if it means the difference between a minor or major wound.0 -
BentMikey wrote:In fairness, I remember not being very happy at all when I came across the evidence of helmets, I was also very pro helmet just as you are.
I came across the evidence of helmets once.....I didn't believe they existed, and still think its a black ops coverup Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
Cycling and walking are comparable in terms of risk across all of both activities throughout the UK, not just the ideal circumstances suggested by YorkshireRaw.
PACTS 2001 stats:
Deaths per billion kms PTW: 112
Deaths per billion kms walking: 48
Deaths per billion cycled: 33
Clearly cycling is pretty safe by these terms, and the position vs walking does of course reverse if you judge by hours of exposure, hence it's pretty close to suggest the risk is about the same for both.
Can't argue about motorcycle helmets, as I don't know much about this. It's certainly much more dangerous than both walking and cycling, and the helmets aren't compromised for weight and ventilation in the same way cycle helmets are.0 -
cee wrote:BentMikey wrote:In fairness, I remember not being very happy at all when I came across the evidence of helmets, I was also very pro helmet just as you are.
I came across the evidence of helmets once.....I didn't believe they existed, and still think its a black ops coverup
LOL! Sorry, badly worded. I suspect you knew what I meant though.0 -
BentMikey wrote:
LOL! Sorry, badly worded. I suspect you knew what I meant though. Of course, but as my old dad used to say....never pass up an opportunity to knock 'em down when someones set 'em up! Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
i understand the point you are making with your stats, i'd like to think you understand my point about the 2 serious incidents I have referenced - one where someone would have been far more seriously bu66ered than he was had he not had a lid, and one where he wouldnt have been had he had a lid. Having seen the outcome of both circumstances one can't help but feel if anything happened to me without a helmet that might have been reduced in seriousness should I have been wearing one then I'd be regretting it somewhat. As i said though each to their own.0
