No helmet today

always_tyred

cee wrote:

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!

Now that I didn't know. I guess his hair defied scientific understanding and he had to put it down to something.

"So who is this "God" person Anyway?" - as Douglas Adams put it.

hoathy

cee wrote:

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!

why would believing in god stop him from investigating a sub atomic non-newtonian theory? quantom theory is compatible with christianity! sorry fo going off topic...

always_tyred

Hoathy wrote:

cee wrote:

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!

why would believing in god stop him from investigating a sub atomic non-newtonian theory? quantom theory is compatible with christianity! sorry fo going off topic...

Its more interesting, don't worry about it.
I think, if anything, a scientific background will modify your interpretation of religion. From my time as a scientist (they've let me out now) I didn't observe that there were significantly fewer people who were religious than in the wider population.

Darwin's problem was that his conclusions went so squarely against mainstream doctorine of the time. Although there are still significant portions of the christian world that are in the "Darwinism is a theory not a fact" camp today (gravity is a theory as well, but I don't see many people floating around the Bible belt), its now possible to recognise evolution and not be excommunicated.

This sparks some interesting questions:
- Can the same be said of bike helmets?
- Have bikes evolved, or are they the result of Intelligent Design? I'm pretty sure that the inner tube isn't the result of intelligent design, for starters.

hoathy

i wasn't refering to darwin, just einstien.

As for your questions:
Did bikes evolve or were they the result of intelligent design? answer: possibly (thats not supposed to make sence
Can we apply this to helmets? answer: yes; perhaps people who don't believe in envolution are exempt from head injuries while on bicycles?

And as for innertubes: I haven't had a single pucture while communting in the last 2 and half years! touch wood.

cee

Hoathy wrote:

cee wrote:

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!

why would believing in god stop him from investigating a sub atomic non-newtonian theory? quantom theory is compatible with christianity! sorry fo going off topic...

For my mind, religious faith and the philosophy of science are at odds with each other.

On the opposite of what you are saying...Although his belief in god might not stop him investigating..his scientific reasoning might very well stop him from believing in god!

Einstein himself has written papers and addresses regarding the 'irreconsilable' differences between science and religion.

Quite interesting reading too if you like that sort of thing

Hoathy wrote:

And as for innertubes: I haven't had a single pucture while communting in the last 2 and half years! touch wood.

You've done it now! 8)

always_tyred

Hoathy wrote:

Can we apply this to helmets? answer: yes; perhaps people who don't believe in envolution are exempt from head injuries while on bicycles?

Oh No! This comment will provoke the wrath of God.

Captain Turok

Always Tyred wrote:

its now possible to recognise evolution and not be excommunicated.

Hi Always Tyred,

I like your post's.

But surely.. you can't believe that having a faith in a religion, or a belief in the existence of a "god" are in any way, shape or form compatable with Evolution?!

hoathy

Captain Turok wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

its now possible to recognise evolution and not be excommunicated.

Hi Always Tyred,

I like your post's.

But surely.. you can't believe that having a faith in a religion, or a belief in the existence of a "god" are in any way, shape or form compatable with Evolution?!

doesn't that really depend on how literally you take whats written in genesis? if its all more of a metaphor then it sorta works? maybe?

Captain Turok

Hoathy wrote:

doesn't that really depend on how literally you take whats written in genesis? if its all more of a metaphor then it sorta works? maybe?

I'd have thought you either believe or you don't, that what faith is?. All this modernising of religions is nonsense, and hopefully the death throws of a fairy tale ( )

always_tyred

Captain Turok wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

its now possible to recognise evolution and not be excommunicated.

Hi Always Tyred,

I like your post's.

But surely.. you can't believe that having a faith in a religion, or a belief in the existence of a "god" are in any way, shape or form compatable with Evolution?!

No - you got me. If there was a god, they'd have never made that movie.

I'd personally struggle to reconcile the two, yes, but plenty of scientists manage. Its hard to argue that they've not thought it through.

Captain Turok

Always Tyred wrote:

I'd personally struggle to reconcile the two, yes, but plenty of scientists manage. Its hard to argue that they've not thought it through.

It could be suggested that they manage it because its easier and more acceptable too?

I'm a funadamentalist Athiest on a Jihad?!

Captain Turok

Sorry back to helmets..

And yes I do wear one, mad not to!

hoathy

i think thats probably it, so: how does this affect your use of a helmet?

hambones

We could all simply learn to stay on the bike a bit better and then maybe it wouldn't be such an issue??

abbots_mike

i think i speak for a few of us when i say the last time my bike and i parted company, the decision was made by somebody else!

jcrofts

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.

Your ability to decree my 'ignorance' based on a meagre 90 words is quite astonishing... some might go so far as to say arrogant.

Also, that I admit to being new to this forum is hardly an admission to being ignorant. If that's how you read it I suggest that you are clutching at straws.

BentMikey wrote:

I suggest you change that to knowledgeable by going to read both the pro and anti helmet gen on cyclehelmets.org.

Well, you see I have a problem there... actually two,

Problem number one:

On first glance (and it was just a glance), that website would appear to be a little scant on the 'pro' helmet articles and, I suspect, those that are there are mere window dressing to give their devotees the ability to parrot their information with some defense against claims of bias.

Problem number two:

I merely recounted here a personal experience which has led me to personally choose to wear a helmet. It is you, not I, who insists that my personal experiences are not enough to allow me to form an opinion. Why, then, would I now spend my time researching your argument for you? Don't be so lazy. You made the claim, you justify it.

BentMikey wrote:

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.

Well, yes... if I were as ignorant as you seem to believe I might take that to be true (and you clearly have).

But seriously - just lining up walking fatalities alongside cycling fatalities tells you absolutely nothing except that this is how many walkers died and this is how many cyclists died. Surely you don't actually believe that this proves your point?

Again, I say to you that 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.

BentMikey wrote:

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.

Except that cycling, walking and driving are three very different activities which have very different risks.

I haven't ever walked faster than about 5mph (that I know of) and any time I've fallen I've done so in a fairly controlled manner. Reflex causes me to put my hands out to cushion my fall and to protect my head from impact as best I can by contorting my body during the fall.

I've reached considerably faster speeds on my bike. I haven't (touch wood) fallen from my bike since I was a kid but from what I remember you've a lot less control over your decent than if you just trip over your own feet. Sure, hands still come up to cushion the fall but, for one thing, you're moving faster and for another there's a chunk of metal between your legs hindering any evasive movement you might otherwise have made.

Again, driving a car is faster still. Which is why I have a seatbelt to stop me from needing to use my hands to break my fall. Moreover, to protect my head, if I do crash an airbag will inflate not only in front of me but across the window beside me too. Crumple zones in the body will lessen the forces exerted on me and help to reduce injury.

The three aren't comparable at all.

That said, I've weighed what I feel the risks to be of each and I take appropriate action. When I'm walking I tie my shoelaces, look both ways before crossing the road, walk on pavements instead of down the middle of the street and watch out for loose/raised paving slabs. When I'm driving I wear my seatbelt, drive within the speed limit, stick to the left side of the road, indicate, use my mirrors and drive defensively. When I cycle I wear a high-vis jacket, I use lights in poor visibility, I cycle defensively but confidently, I don't jump red lights, I watch out for potholes... and I wear a helmet.

If that offends you then, by all means, show me verifiable proof either that helmets cause more injuries than they prevent or that helmets make absolutely zero difference to injuries.

hambones

Nice response there jcrofts. I guess that BentMikey's ire stems from your comment, jokey or otherwise, that to ride without a helmet will lead to extinction.

Here's my take FWIW. Staunch advocates on both sides are just as prone to be dismissive, argumentative and spiteful in their rhetoric towards the other. You could argue that this is symptomatic of all beliefs that involve either blind faith or an irrevocable devotion to a new found cause.

The vast majority of global bike journeys are undertaken without a helmet. The same is probably true for motorcycles too (I am sure many wearers in this country would relish not wearing one). From personal experience it would seem that the majority in this country do not wear one - certainly amongst the young. I am an occasional helmet wearer. I always wear one when off-road because here you are far more likely to hit your head on low branches or rocks (not talking about bridleway and canal path riding of course), simply because you are far more likely to fall off!

Road riding is far safer and because of this I assess that I will only wear one now and again. This is usually on very wet or icy days, or when riding in a large bunch wheel to wheel. I don't wear one when riding alone or on my 8 mile commute. I have two boys, 5 and 7, and neither wears a helmet when riding around the street. They both did when learning (most of the time) but have grasped the risks involved and kids being kids they are fearless. Who knows, maybe when they are 9 or 10 they will be ahead of their peers when it comes to risk assessment! Neither wears any safety gear when climbing 25ft up trees either!

Cycling is a pretty safe activity. I don't wear a high-vis jacket, I drive with a seat belt, I never jump lights (either in car or on bike), and I do speed. Oh and I never cycle on the pavement - that really is a Darwin moment!

redddraggon

http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/viewartic ... ?id=831821

BentMikey

Always Tyred wrote:

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?

I think you have a point in that sometimes it's fair to compare cycling and walking by distance, and other times by hour of exposure, depending on the journey. In any event, they are quite similar in terms of how dangerous they are, whilst many people think that cycling is an extremely dangerous activity, which is patently not true.

Yes, the figures no doubt include children and old people cycling and walking, so again you can't favour one set of figures as some on here would like to.

BentMikey

jcrofts wrote:

Your ability to decree my 'ignorance' based on a meagre 90 words is quite astonishing... some might go so far as to say arrogant.

I've not called you ignorant, but only your comment, which was a classic prohelmet and ill-thought out throw-away. That's rather unlike the personally directed insults you've thrown in response.

You can argue that walking is safe all you like, but it's not credible given that the rate of injuries for both cycling and walking are similar.

I see you've also trotted out the usual excuse that ww.cyclehelmets.org is an anti-helmet site, and that it's "biased". I bet you didn't know that several of the people behind it are ardent helmet wearers. Oops!!!

BentMikey

hambones wrote:

Nice response there jcrofts. I guess that BentMikey's ire stems from your comment, jokey or otherwise, that to ride without a helmet will lead to extinction.

LOL, why would you assume I'm angry? I enjoy this stuff, it's jcrofts that doesn't seem happy about having his beliefs challenged, or having been called up on a comment that is probably far below his/her normal standards of thoughtfulness.

andrewc3142

I (briefly) thought about this yesterday when we were out with the kids (8 and 5) for a pleasant 20 mile cycle along the canal tow path. The kids were wearing helmets because they do crazy things and sometimes it goes wrong.

A lot of people out on their MTBs, which is great to see. However, it did make me wonder as we overtook them why they felt the need to wear helmets toodling along a tow path at about 6 mph. Not a criticism and each to their own, but it did make me wonder about their confidence on 2 wheels.

Anyway, I expect there'll be a similar debate soon about why on earth people don't wear elbow, knee and wrist protectors and proper, motorbike type helmets. And probably a few years later about a new breathable bubble suit that automatically inflates in the event of an accident.

I personally don't see helmets for normal road biking (or canal tow paths) as an advance, but rather as a part of our increasing risk aversion. Kids get told off when climbing trees, walking on the top of walls or trying out crazy stunts on their bikes. But this is all part of learning to manage your personal risk and to conquer fear. The same way I used to hear tuts and comments when free-climbing (also without a helmet unless there was a high risk of falling rocks), even though in my view it was perfectly within my limits (my aversion is those who drill bolts into the rock to give themselves bomb-proof protection through their vandalism).

I fear we are creating a culture where we no longer learn to manage risk and we wrap up our kids (and some want to legislate to wrap up consenting adults) in cotton wool, or the illusion of it.

TheFoolio888

andrewc3142 wrote:

A lot of people out on their MTBs, which is great to see. However, it did make me wonder as we overtook them why they felt the need to wear helmets toodling along a tow path at about 6 mph. Not a criticism and each to their own, but it did make me wonder about their confidence on 2 wheels.

Or maybe they were mitigating against things out of their control?

andrewc3142 wrote:

Anyway, I expect there'll be a similar debate soon about why on earth people don't wear elbow, knee and wrist protectors

I should imagine the that amount of people who have been seriously injuredafter a bang to the elbow are fairly small.

andrewc3142 wrote:

I personally don't see helmets for normal road biking (or canal tow paths) as an advance, but rather as a part of our increasing risk aversion.

I fear we are creating a culture where we no longer learn to manage risk and we wrap up our kids (and some want to legislate to wrap up consenting adults) in cotton wool, or the illusion of it.

Wearing a helmet an example of managing a risk. So is learning proper cyclecraft. So where is the difference? Not wearing a helmet is an example of making a calculated/informed descision about the risk or ignoring it.

Helmets should not be mandatory...but discussion is healthy...this IS a forum after all!

GraemeT

Erm, what exactly are the disadvantages of wearing a helmet?

Just thought i'd ask

Off to lunch now so feel free to comment

jcrofts

BentMikey wrote:

I've not called you ignorant, but only your comment

Quick Mikey... backpedal... backpedal for all you are worth...

You honestly think that you can distinguish between calling a person's thoughts ignorant and calling them ignorant? I thought you had the courage of your convictions, Mikey... oh dear.

BentMikey wrote:

You can argue that walking is safe all you like, but it's not credible given that the rate of injuries for both cycling and walking are similar.

My argument is that comparing the cycling and walking is meaningless and that simply looking at the total fatalities of each activity tells you absolutely nothing.

My argument is that the two activities carry different risks and, therefore, should be assessed differently.

My argument is not, and never has been, that ‘walking is safe’.

BentMikey wrote:

I see you've also trotted out the usual excuse that ww.cyclehelmets.org is an anti-helmet site, and that it's "biased". I bet you didn't know that several of the people behind it are ardent helmet wearers. Oops!!!

"I suspect, those that are there are mere window dressing to give their devotees the ability to parrot their information with some defense against claims of bias."
Devoted to the last?

Anyway… I see that you’ve managed to avoid the main point of my previous post. Allow me to remind you what it was.

I previously wrote:

Again, I say to you that 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.

Come on, Mikey. You are so adamant that the proof is out there… surely you must be able to provide some? If the site you keep mentioning offers the verifiable evidence you seem to believe it does then please, share the good news.

jcrofts

BentMikey wrote:

...or having been called up on a comment that is probably far below his/her normal standards of thoughtfulness.

Nope - I can honestly say that linking cycling without a helmet and Darwinism is, by and large, precisely my normal standard of thoughtfulness. :twisted:

andrewc3142

Indeed, discussion is healthy. And I think you are right that not wearing a helmet is the result of making a calculated/informed decision about the risk.

There is a risk when walking that one could fall and bang your head, but most don't regard it as that great and so don't wear a helmet.

Perhaps a better example is something like rock climbing (a subject dear to my heart). As a beginner, you second, you wear a helmet, etc. As you gain in confidence, you can start to lead (a significant increase in risk), and then to lead harder routes with more marginal protection. After a while, you'll feel comfortable free climbing short routes on outcrops. And some will start to enjoy the harder stuff, whether free climbing bigger routes, alpine climbing, routes where the protection is really just psychological, etc.

I think to a great extent that's true of any activity, cycling included. At the start, some will indeed want to mitigate against the risk of serious head injury cycling at little more than walking pace along a tow path. I'm sure that if you think hard about it there are lots of things out of their control that could happen. Although I struggle to find them in that situation, I'm not knocking it, just that I don't see an especially high risk, and nor do I normal road biking.

But I agree it can all go wrong in an unexpected way. Tom Patey was a brilliant climber, used minimal ropes and protection, taking what many would regard as outrageous risks. Died abseiling, an activity often included on school trips, management training courses and the like.

Peyote

ABBOTS MIKE wrote:

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.

Interestingly, I've found the exact opposite. Having been commuting by road for seven years, I've come off once. On a diesel spill. No other folk involved (thankfully). However off-road, I've probably injured myself half a dozen times generally through hitting the ground and similar stationary objects! I've always believed this is what helmets are designed to mitigate against.

For what it's worth I always wear a helmet (on and off road), I've seen bikehelmets.org and many other sources covering helmets and come to the conclusion that they offer very little protection for anything other than rain, branches and cuts/abrasions. I believe similar protection would be afforded by a woollen hat, cycling cap or any other type of headwear, but I prefer to wear a helmet.

Regarding the non helmet wearers/helmet wearers debate: I can see why non-helmet wearers could be offended by some of the posts in this thread. The implication that you are stupid for not wearing a helmet is quite offensive, even with a smiley.

The biggest issue I have with this debate is that the general public DO tend to view helmets as a universal panacea, which they are patently not. It's this view I take real issue with.

Mc Smiley

I have been brought up to wear a helmet, i have continued this despite messing up your hair, making you sweaty and looking like a fool as you arrive at school

I think the risks are too great not too wear one however. I don't see how i can way up vanity against death by brain damage. Because that is the extreme. You have no control on the road with the drivers around you, but the actual riding is less difficult than off road.

I would wear a helmet on a cyclepath, because i might wheelie and go over the back on my head or get knocked off by a small child.

But i am glad that if you don't wear helmets your kids don't have to, because you are setting an example. If the children wear one and the adults do not, it does not set a good example.

Also i see all the pros wearing helmets bar the minority.

jonginge

Mc Smiley wrote:

Also i see all the pros wearing helmets bar the minority.

The pros have to wear helmets if they want to race. It's the rules. They used to get some leeway on hot, mountainous stages of the grand tours but I'm not sure that is the case any more. It took a few deaths (Casartelli in particular) before the rules were hardened up.* The helmets quick;y got lighter and cooler after the rule changes

* This doesn't necessarily mean that helmet use would have prevented the fatalities in question but the UCI needed to be seen to be doing something