No helmet today

BentMikey

But you can't draw such a conclusion from a specific crash - not without high speed camera work, accelerometers, etc, all being analysed by crash experts. That's not going to happen in real life, and it didn't for your examples, so it's not possible to conclude either way.

If everyone who claimed a helmet saved my life really did have their lives saved, then the evidence showing helmets work would be blatently obvious. It isn't, and the evidence is that helmets are not helping public health. Check out www.cyclehelmets.org for more on this.

yorkshireraw

indeed, as I said all my thoughts are very unscientific but having seen the two piece helmet after hitting the rock it would take a bold claimant to think that some level of damage wouldnt have occured to the owner's skull if it hadn't been present. Maybe he wouldnt have been dead, but he'd have certainly had more head damage than he did (which was none).

BentMikey

Oh, I'm sure it saved him cuts and scrapes, and perhaps that's a worthwhile reason all on it's own. The ability of helmets to protect against some minor stuff in limited circumstances isn't in doubt, it's more serious head injuries that worry me, and this is where the evidence is not good for helmets actually working.

TheFoolio888

BentMikey wrote:

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

As I said before...I don't like stats because you can make them say what you want...what about serious injuries? What about minor injuries? What about no injuries?

I can hand on heart say that I am a careful cyclist...I am also a fairly careful walker. Since being old enough to remember my actions I have never actually fallen over when walking (except when drunk :oops: ). I have fallen off a bike twice.

I don't measure danger solely by likelyhood of death...

always_tyred

BentMikey wrote:

PACTS 2001 stats:
Deaths per billion kms PTW: 112
Deaths per billion kms walking: 48
Deaths per billion cycled: 33

Well, thanks for answering my question in relation to mtb and suicidal descending. You are quite right, at those speeds I'm more concerned with the ventelation of my helmet than its protective qualitities.

Interestingly, the two most energetic discussions you've had (firstly with me, and now with JCROFTS) have both been with people who've been cycling in Glasgow!!

Could this be coincidence?

I have an interesting spin on your stats - try converting them to "hours" rather than km. I'm not sure what PTW is - I'm assuming motor vehicles. Lets say that the average speed of a cyclist is 16kph, and of a pedestrian 4kph, and the average speed of a car is 40kph. Means that the figures would be roughtly:

Deaths per billion hours PTW: 4200
Deaths per billion hours walking: 192
Deaths per billion hours: 528

I guess that's why we wear a seat belt and have air bags!

(can anyone enlighten me and/or correct my mathematics?)

always_tyred

cee wrote:

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.

I think, as intended, it was applied correctly. i.e. the "non-helmet wearing gene" will eventually be weeded out as a result of greater than average death rate, itself resulting in lower than average propogation of the gene within the population.

I think the offence is a result of the implication that the non-helmet wearing activity is a result of the "stupidity" and/or "ignorant" gene. Whereas, ironically, the offence itself is a result of the "over sensitive" gene.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is an interpretation of the available facts only, and does not represent the opinions of the author.

Did you know that Darwin was a devout Catholic, by the way? Its really hard to draw conclusions on face value isn't it.

For example, legal disclaimers on helmets might be considered about as informative as "may contrain traces of nuts" or "the object in the mirror may be closer than it appears". As such, they shouldn't be over interpreted. If a helmet isn't rated "above 12mph" it doesn't mean that it offers no protection at 13mph. Similarly, if a helmet manufacturer cannot claim protection against collision with a motor vehicle, it doens't follow that the helmet will not provide protection in the event of collision with a motor vehicle. As we all know, especially those who live in Edinburgh this week, there are circumstances in which not even a bear-suit would help. But there are others in which it (bear suit, or helmet, take your pick) might.

Be careful when reading what a lawyer has written, because they sure as hell will have been careful writing it.

Captain Turok

Always Tyred wrote:

Did you know that Darwin was a devout Catholic, by the way?[/quote

:shock: :?

el_presidente

Belv wrote:

Now i am well aware of the debate and i'm not trying to re-open that.

jcrofts

BentMikey wrote:

Let's see if you can step away from the insults and abuse that you started with

Okay - let's get to the bottom of this. I may be new to this message board but I'm not new to them altogether and I'm not new to people like you. You need to be able to attack and insult somebody (anybody) in order to be able to make your point seem more valid (whilst scaring away most disagreement) and, on this occasion, you’ve chosen me. Great. No problem with that. Attack away... but please try to at least stick to reality. Here's my first post in this thread:

jcrofts wrote:

When I was a kid a friend of the family came off his bike and hit his head on the kerb. He had no helmet on. He died.

Consequently, I've never (ever) been out on a bike without a lid. To me it's like sitting in a car without a seatbelt on. Just can't do it - I feel naked.

That said, if you don't want to wear one that's your choice. I may silently wonder if you have a death wish... but there's something to be said for Darwin's ramblings

Here's how you reacted:

BentMikey wrote:

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.

Read those two as a impartially as you can and then tell me - honestly - who started this. Me by - with full use of a winking little smiley and without singling you out in any way - jokingly linking not wearing a helmet and Darwinism. Or you, when you called me (directly) insulting, ignorant and nasty.

BentMikey wrote:

move onto some constructive debate backed up by facts.

What, you mean like 'constructively' calling the person you are debating with 'ignorant'? :roll:

Anyway - moving on...

BentMikey wrote:

PACTS 2001 stats:
Deaths per billion kms PTW: 112
Deaths per billion kms walking: 48
Deaths per billion cycled: 33

Interesting numbers. Meaningless, but interesting.

There are two ways (at least) of looking at these figures. Either we all raise our hands in the air and praise you for showing us that cycling is safer than walking... or we ask a simple question:

Were helmets banned in 2001?

I don't remember them having been and (my own opinion, granted) I'd say that more kilometers are covered by cyclists wearing helmets than cyclists without. So, how many of these fatalities were with/without lids? How many of them involved head injuries? In how many incidents involving cyclists wearing helmets were injuries considered lessened due to the helmet? How many worsened?

Looking only at the 'cycling is more dangerous than walking' question - what's the breakdown of these fatalities? How many walkers were killed if you take out those hit by cars? How many cyclists? How many pedestrians were seriously injured and how many cyclists?

If you can show me verifiable proof either that helmets cause more injuries than they prevent or that helmets make absolutely zero difference to injuries then I'll accept that you have a point. But even if helmets offer only some protection in some situations then wearing one is a no brainer for me.

It's the same as wearing a bright jacket. Sure, most drivers don't need the bright jacket to tell them there's a cyclist ahead... but if it might save me from being clipped by the one in ten thousand who isn't paying attention then I'd rather have it than not.

always_tyred

jcrofts wrote:

If you can show me verifiable proof either that helmets cause more injuries than they prevent or that helmets make absolutely zero difference to injuries then I'll accept that you have a point. But even if helmets offer only some protection in some situations then wearing one is a no brainer for me.

Nooooooooooo!!!!! Its a Traaaaapppppp! (dives across screen in slow motion)

jcrofts

Always Tyred wrote:

jcrofts wrote:

If you can show me verifiable proof either that helmets cause more injuries than they prevent or that helmets make absolutely zero difference to injuries then I'll accept that you have a point. But even if helmets offer only some protection in some situations then wearing one is a no brainer for me.

Nooooooooooo!!!!! Its a Traaaaapppppp! (dives across screen in slow motion)

I figured... :twisted:

abbots_mike

2 points.

1 is with regard to the stats. there is a speed camera on one of the busier roads near me (not sure which one) that has a speed camera on it. one of the accidents that put that speed camera there was someone who jumped off a bridge running over the road. applying the same logics, half of you pedestrians killed could have been involved in drive by shootings. unrealistic, but possible and therefore meaningless.

the other thing is mtb vs road and a helmet. i own one bike, an MTB, and i ride it off and on road for the simple reason that it does both better than a road bike. i have had more serious injuries on raod than off, becuase there are other people on the roads. off road, i am more i control as there are no cars, and i don't make a habit of falling off. it is also safer to bail off road if things go really bad.

in case anyone asks, bailing is when you realise you are screwed and jump off before you are thrown off. usually done when i hit a steep descent that i know i cant stop on

andrewc3142

I really can't see why people who wear a helmet are so intent on trying to get those who don't to wear one when they clearly have decided not to.

Equally, I can't see the point in those don't wear a helmet trying to persuade those who do that they shouldn't when clearly they have decided that for whatever reason they feel safer with a helmet.

I started cycling when I got my first bike at 9 years old. I didn't wear a helmet then and still don't, nearly 40 years later. I do have one (a fancy ventilated model) but find it hot, uncomfortable and impossible to stuff into the back pocket of my jersey so gave up after a few attempts. Retaining a slightly counter-culture streak I also didn't like feeling I was following the London fashion in wanting to look the part by wearing one. My choice, for better or worse. If there is yet another law passed to make it complusory I guess I'll have a few tickets since I don't regard it as any business of the government. They could pass a law saying cyclists must wear hi-viz clothing and I'd ignore that as well. It's my risk and after 40 years of cycling without an accident and 30 years of driving with only one small accident (a dent on sheet ice in Poland) I don't think the risk is particularly high.

But I have no desire to persuade those who wish to go down the helmet/hi-viz route if they feel somehow more secure that way. The key thing is getting out cycling and having fun; whether you dress up like a Christmas tree or not is your business.

abbots_mike

that christmas tree outfit could cause a fair bit of drag

andrewc3142

Sartorially, for sure.

redddraggon

jcrofts - You found Mikey's favourite subject and he will defend his opinion to the bitter end.

hoathy

I always wear a helmet because of some reasons i don't think anyone has covered yet:

1. My girlfriend nags me endlessly if i don't (even if its just for a 5 second ride)

2. When I am walking arounf Uni I keep my Giro ON with the straps undone because it looks cool.... well i think so. no one else does, but people always recognise my a mile off (maybe a bad thing). Also having a helmet with me implies i am super fit beacuse the campus is on such a ridiculous hill...

3. If i fell and got myself one of them there sub-dural heatmatomas or a DA brain injury, and I wasn't wearing one then people would say: "what a silly sod". Where as if I was wearing one people would say: "ooo, and he must have been such a careful cyclist aswell... damn cars!"

A Spokesperson

As ever - there are pros and cons. As long as we are not forced to wear a helmet like in Australia then I am happy[/i]

Hear, Hear! I think it should be rider's choice...

Many years ago the son of a cycling friend of mine was knocked off his bike and killed by an inattentive car driver; He WAS wearing a helmet but struck the lower back of his head, (under the back rim of his helmet) on the kerb proving that the current cycling helmet is NOT the "be all and end all"

I do wear a helmet now most of the time and feel safer doing so on the roads, but I would object hugely if it were made compulsory by our nanny state!

hoathy

A Spokesperson wrote:

As ever - there are pros and cons. As long as we are not forced to wear a helmet like in Australia then I am happy[/i]

Hear, Hear! I think it should be rider's choice...

Many years ago the son of a cycling friend of mine was knocked off his bike and killed by an inattentive car driver; He WAS wearing a helmet but struck the lower back of his head, (under the back rim of his helmet) on the kerb proving that the current cycling helmet is NOT the "be all and end all"

I do wear a helmet now most of the time and feel safer doing so on the roads, but I would object hugely if it were made compulsory by our nanny state!

yeah. forcing people is just insane. they are too easily broken or lost... (especially if you're me!)

Mc Smiley

Agreed people should be allowed to choose, but all this about commuting and not wearing a helmet is silly. I have had quite a few crashes on the way to school (usually due to trying something on a bike that should be put in a museum)
But i have completely split my helmet at Afan falling going over the handlebars at about 4mph.

Could have been disgusting

I also have been brought up to wear seatbelts and helmets by my parents so its instinct

always_tyred

From what I've observed (and experienced) the thing that really inflames this debate is people getting dismissive.

For example, "I wear a helmet because [insert traumatic experience]"
is often met with the response, "that's anecdotal, back to the facts" or words to that effect (which of course pre-supposes that the facts may be taken at face value).

Firstly, that's rude and unsympathetic and if it elicits a blunt response, its a deserved one.

Secondly, its testamonial, rather than anecdotal, by which I mean its first hand. As such, dismissing it out of hand is tantamount to telling said traumatised person that it didn't happen. Again, unnecessarily unsympathetic.

Pointing no fingers.

As a cyclist I feel contantly opressed by a disapproving society. The very least I feel that I can expect is a sympathetic response from fellow cyclists. Even more astonishing is when the "debate" degenerates into finger pointing that somehow helmet wearing is selfish becuase it discourages cycling.

So - by all means, lets have an entertaining chat about statistics, their flaws and how to interpret them. But lets be measured and not take pot shots at each other. Apart from anything else, it completely obscures the discussion of the very issues at hand.

hoathy

sounds like a killer plan always tyred, but i also think some sort of melon with/without helmet droping off a building might help? lol

always_tyred

Hoathy wrote:

sounds like a killer plan always tyred, but i also think some sort of melon with/without helmet droping off a building might help? lol

Kind of like those old tennis ball adverts?

hoathy

Yeah, possibly, all i know is dropping a melon fram a building definately reults in a mess. Am I the only one who remebers the whole 'melon' thing?

always_tyred

Possibly. I mean, I know that Vinnie Jones used one for the head smashing scene in Snatch, but I fear that this is a far too contemporary piece of popular culture.

BentMikey

Ignorant was a valid fact about your comment given your posts on the matter, you even came close to admitting that with your new on here comment. I suggest you change that to knowledgeable by going to read both the pro and anti helmet gen on cyclehelmets.org.

As for the walking vs cycling injuries. Come on, we're looking at the danger of each, nothing more, nothing less. Trying to exclude some deaths in either mode of transportation is irrelevant, they are still deaths that show how cycling isn't a dangerous activity given the comparison with deaths during other safe activities.

If you really felt that a helmet might save your life in even the smallest chance, you'd wear one all the time, including whilst walking and whilst driving your car. Keeping it for the bicycle shows that it's no more than a safety rabbit's foot for you.

I'm surprised someone hasn't yet trotted out the "Those who don't wear helmets don't have anything to protect" line. This sort of unthinking comment is quite common from the pro-helmet brigade.

hoathy

I like this topic because everyone is taking it to seriously... Pro-choice, live and let live!

BentMikey

It is serious, but it's also fun!!!

cee

Captain Turok wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Did you know that Darwin was a devout Catholic, by the way?

:shock: :?

Yip.....and einstein also had christian faith.....didn't stop him either!

always_tyred

BentMikey wrote:

Ignorant was a valid fact about your comment given your posts on the matter, you even came close to admitting that with your new on here comment. I suggest you change that to knowledgeable by going to read both the pro and anti helmet gen on cyclehelmets.org.

Wasn't me.

Besides, didn't I calculate that cycling was 3 times more dangerous than walking? I think the per hour stat is far more pertinent than the per kilometre stat.

The figures are somewhat comparable if they are all road traffic figures. There's potentially lots of other factors lost in there, such as; people walk between the ages of 4 and 16. How more likely are you be run over as a child than as an adult? We still don't have complete information, in any case.

PTW is "powered two wheelers" by the way. So, motorbikes are about 8 or 9 times more dangerous, per hour, than cycles. I could see how that might be. But not, as I had surmised, all motorised vehicles.

What's the equivalent number for cars? Does anyone know?