No helmet today
Comments
-
I agree with everyone who says that wearing a cycle helmet should be a choice and not compulsory.
I personally always wear a helmet when on or off road and thats a personal decision made by myself due to a bad off sans helmet that I had when I was very young.
I am however going to take a small exception to this quoteBentMikey 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.
Walking on a day to day basis is FAR safer than cycling. From a risk perception/assesment point of view any activity that is considered a natural ability registers WAY down on the risk meter. Absolutely everyone in the world (baring those with disabilities/infirmaties) is capable of walking, as this is a natural ability the chances of anyone having an incident is slim to a minute degree of probability and due to the fact that most accident that occur while walking happen at a speed of 4mph or less means that reaction times/slow speed of impact mean that the overwhelming majority of incidents would go by with the most minimal of damage.
Cycling is a "learned" ability and the fact that a bike is able to propel you at speeds the body is not naturally accustomed to puts in in a risk factor higher that walking. (this is ignoring all the other elements like amount of time spent on a road with other cars as opposed to on a pavement away from them etc...)
The PACTS 2001 facts you have put forwards do not take into consideration how many people are walking vs cycling nor does it take into consideration the circumstances of the accident e.g was the pedestrian/cyclist hit by some nutter in a car or did they slip and fall down the side of a cliff.
The best way to view those facts would have been as deaths per 1000 walkers/cyclists that way a clear percentage could have been shown rather than an arbitrary number (I know you didn't put these facts together but whoever did is a poor statistition).
All that is by the by. I agreed with you on another thread that a helmet is not likely to save someones life if they are hit at 30mph+ by a nutter in a car nor is it likely to save the cyclist if they lose control and slip down a cliff.
At the end of the day it's all about your own personal risk perception (and whether you have a loved one who feels more comfortable with you wearing a helmet).
I personally wear a helmet when cycling because when I commute I am in a far riskier position cycling on the road with motorists in their big steal boxes who may or may not see me and I also wear one when off road because that tree root I'm going over may be wetter and slippier than I expected (references accident when younger). Plus wearing a helmet makes my missus and kids feel a little more confident about my wellfare when I cycle the 12 miles to work and back everyday.0 -
Peyote wrote: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.
That's the only thing I disagree with - I think rather that the general public (by which I mean the concerned non cyclist) think of helmets as a "why wouldn't you wear one?" safety measure. Rather like seatbelts, if you wear one, hit another car and suffer whiplash, one can be sympathetic. If you don't wear one, hit another car and suffer a broken nose, its tempting to say, "Well, if you were wearing a seatbelt, all you would have got was a little whiplash."
This helmet debate is so much like the initial debate over seatbelts. Older seatbelts are crap. They offer some protection, but compared to the modern incarnation, they are crap. When they first came in, people said that they didn't do much, that they might trap you in the car, that you might suffer internal injuries etc.
However, if you had to drive a 1960's car with crap seatbelts, would you wear one?
I would. Its better than nothing.
I think, and hope, that today's helmets are like 1970's seatbelts (I think the soft foam things were 60's seatbelts). I predict that designs will improve and, in time, the preponderance of evidence will indicate that you are safer with a helmet than without one and that we will wonder what the debate was all about. By that time we will probably also be laughing at cyclists with those silly rim-brakes that took ages to slow you down.
In the mean time, I'd like to think that they are getting better, although at the moment they are simply getting lighter and more expensive with more vents - the style over substance that is cycling technology.
However: fact - helmets protect against certain types of impacts. Put one on and start headbutting things - door frames, house bricks, etc. and I defy anyone to contest this.
BUT - Do the types of impacts which the helmets that we have protect against, actually occur during cycling accidents?
I think they do, thankfully rarely.
Do they occur often enough to make wearing one worthwhile?
I think they do, just.
Do they offer enough protection to tip the balance from "fatal" to "bad" or from "bad" to "sore"?
That I'm less conviced about, but they are better than nothing.
We shouldn't be arguing about helmets or no helmets, we should be arguing about helmets or better helmets.0 -
Amen to that!Always Tyred wrote:We shouldn't be arguing about helmets or no helmets, we should be arguing about helmets or better helmets.
0 -
I have one of these (in plain black but also comes in more visible colours) and can recommend it. Could fit the bill in terms of protection and reasonable comfort:
http://www.shoei-europe.com/en/swf_products.php?name=X-Spirit0 -
I have one of these (in plain black but also comes in more visible colours) and can recommend it. Could fit the bill in terms of protection and reasonable comfort:
http://www.villagehatshop.com/viking_spike_helmet_hat.html
Truly a helmet to take us into the 11th century. It's what Bjarne Riis believed he was wearing when he thought he won the Tour de France."Consider the grebe..."0 -
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 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.
Anyone here who remembers John Doe and u.r.c? He used bubble wrap plus all the above for skating protection!!!0 -
I just think it's really funny the number of people on here who try to make cycling seem dangerous in comparison with walking, possibly just to justify their helmet decision. The facts are that far more people die whilst walking than whilst cycling, and more fairly, the rates of death aren't very dissimilar.
Overall, helmets are a complete red herring from a safety point of view. If you want to have a real effect on your own personal safety, helmets are far down on the list of effective strategies. That's the case even if you make the assumption that helmets actually work.0 -
A helmet has saved the life of two of my mates, and saved my own life.
So I wear one whenever I cycle, as do all our MTB club (they are compulsory).0 -
-
With you on that, BM.
I'm no fan of Boris, but at least his picture in the paper this week showed him riding without feeling the need for a helmet. A step in the direction of dissuading the "general public" (and some cyclists) that riding is dangerous and riding in Central London is pure lunacy.
If you like them and need one, fine. But accept that others don't and don't feel the risk justifies the discomfort, sweatiness and inconvenience.0 -
-
BentMikey wrote:
Okay then - my mate cycled at full pelt into the side of a car (it pulled out without looking), flew over the bonnet and landed directly on his head - his helmet cracked but he walked away with just an aching neck.
The other mate did similar but at higher speed - similar result.
I was doing about 35mph down a track, my front wheel slipped from under the bike (no idea why), I flipped and hit my head directly onto a large and very solid wall - and was briefly knocked out but otherwise okay (apart from a lump out of my knee and a shredded shoulder).
Now I'm sure you are about to launch into a tirade of abuse via misinformed information but IMO, in each case, the helmets saved us.
And this is from someone with a Materials Engineering degree who has done more impact tests than you've had hot dinners.
Hey, maybe motorbike riders should stop wearing them too? And horse riders as well?0 -
-
redddraggon wrote:Surf-Matt wrote:And this is from someone with a Materials Engineering degree who has done more impact tests than you've had hot dinners.
There does seem to be an extraordinary amount of Materials Scientists on this forum........are we really that common?
I call it the "surf degree" - when studied at Swansea Uni - close to many surf breaks!
I know four surfers who also studied the same course there 0 -
FatBurt wrote:Plus wearing a helmet makes my missus and kids feel a little more confident about my wellfare when I cycle the 12 miles to work and back everyday.
gotta agree with that, I get told off if I've not taken my helmet with me.Purveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
Surf-Matt wrote:redddraggon wrote:Surf-Matt wrote:And this is from someone with a Materials Engineering degree who has done more impact tests than you've had hot dinners.
There does seem to be an extraordinary amount of Materials Scientists on this forum........are we really that common?
I call it the "surf degree" - when studied at Swansea Uni - close to many surf breaks!
I know four surfers who also studied the same course there
I think I'm doubling you up, you used to post under a different username didn't you?0 -
Red - I did. I had to change it after some wierdo started posting all my personal details (company name, address, etc) all over the 'net.0
-
I'm not sure a materials scientist would really make the claim "a helmet saved my life" without the necessary evidence, which does seem to be lacking in your examples, unless you're holding back something?0
-
I tell you what Mikey, I'll re-enact all those crashes without a helmet. If I live to post again, then you've "won."
Helmets frequently save the lives of horseriders and motorcyclists - are cyclists somehow different and why the fuss anyway? Do they not look cool enough for you?0 -
BentMikey wrote:I'm not sure a materials scientist would really make the claim "a helmet saved my life" without the necessary evidence, which does seem to be lacking in your examples, unless you're holding back something?
Personally I'd think it's hard to say whether a helmet has "saved your life", because there's more than just materials considerations. You could be predisposed to a small knock to the head causing a more serious reaction.
A lot of the impacts that people say that "helmets saved their life", I think they were better off wearing the helmet, but whether it did actually save their life you'll never know.0 -
Helmets look just fine, some are dorky, and many are very cool. I couldn't debate horse rider and motorcycle helmets, because I don't know much about them. I suggest some reading on cyclehelmets.org, there are quite a few case control studies that predict helmet efficacy, and quite a few more that show no overall benefit in real life.
If helmets really did save as many lives as claimed, and really were as effective as the case control studies predict, then there would be no helmet argument because the evidence would be incontrovertible. Instead helmets don't show a safety benefit in the population level studies, and cycling is about as safe as walking anyway.0 -
redddraggon wrote:BentMikey wrote:I'm not sure a materials scientist would really make the claim "a helmet saved my life" without the necessary evidence, which does seem to be lacking in your examples, unless you're holding back something?
Personally I'd think it's hard to say whether a helmet has "saved your life", because there's more than just materials considerations. You could be predisposed to a small knock to the head causing a more serious reaction.
A lot of the impacts that people say that "helmets saved their life", I think they were better off wearing the helmet, but whether it did actually save their life you'll never know.
Yes, I also wouldn't call it either way. You may well be right in that they were better off wearing the helmet if we're talking about relatively minor injuries like road rash and cut scalps, but the debate is about serious head injuries, and that's where helmets can't be shown to work.0 -
The case for motorcycle helmets is clear - being hit by a large insect at 100mph+ is no fun. Although riding without one is kinda nice ....
As for horse-riding, I do in this country since I don't have my own horse and there are insurance requirements. In Poland, where I used to live, sometimes I did and sometimes not - riding fast through the forest it gives some protection against low branches - although there anything that vaguely looks like a helmet is considered one. If I were trail riding in the US I doubt I'd wear one. Again, all about risk and preceived risk.0 -
Hitting a wall at about 35mph - wouldn't like to try that without a helmet on. I probably would have split my head open.
Heads are rather important - I always wore headgear when kickbox sparring and competing, I wear a hardhat at all times when on a building site, and I wear a cycle helmet at all times when cycling.
It's simple physics - put a layer of shock absorbing material with a tough outer skin between you and a hard surface, then impact it hard and the barrier cushions the blow.
I can't see any doubt in that whatsoever and am slightly bemused as to why anyone would argue against cycle helmets.
Same with car airbags, crumple zones and ABS brakes.0 -
Surf-Matt wrote:Hitting a wall at about 35mph - wouldn't like to try that without a helmet on. I probably would have split my head open.
Heads are rather important - I always wore headgear when kickbox sparring and competing, I wear a hardhat at all times when on a building site, and I wear a cycle helmet at all times when cycling.
It's simple physics - put a layer of shock absorbing material with a tough outer skin between you and a hard surface, then impact it hard and the barrier cushions the blow.
I can't see any doubt in that whatsoever and am slightly bemused as to why anyone would argue against cycle helmets.
Same with car airbags, crumple zones and ABS brakes.
Oddly enough I wear a helmet on a bike, but as a former championship leading rally driver and as a relatively able mechanic I hate ABS A device that sacrifices a fair amount of braking distance \ stopping power to give a small degree of steerability to panic brakers. Proper technique stops faster and avoids obsticals better than ABS, of course anticipation and avoiding hazards int he first palce is better still 0 -
Surf-Matt wrote:Hitting a wall at about 35mph - wouldn't like to try that without a helmet on. I probably would have split my head open.
Oddly enough, 35 mph is far beyond the design spec of helmets here in the UK, which I believe are tested to only 12mph. There's rather a large difference in energy and momentum between the two speeds. I wouldn't want to crash either with or without a helmet at that speed.
Really, go read the studies, because there's plenty to show that over a population, helmets and mandatory helmet laws do not improve cyclist safety. Just because something seems like common sense to you doesn't make it right. To me common sense says that a little bit of polystyrene is not going to save my life, though it might prevent some cuts and scrapes.0 -
David - I did think of adding "except for use by good rally drivers" but thought it was a bit OTT!
99.9999% of drivers are better off with ABS and although cop and IAM trained (yes I know - IAM is hardly rallying!), I still prefer a good ABS set of brakes, although it is possible to stop very quickly with proper cadence braking and no ABS - my cop instructor preferred ABS equipped cars so that was good enough for me - it's helped me out a few times now.
Must be hard for you to find non ABS equipped modern cars? Caterham, maybe the Elise (some have ABS), Westfield and errrrmmmmm...?
Mikey - but to me, it's the high speed crashes that matter? I'm sure other factors influence the results - more cyclists? Less observation by other road users? Less rider skills (no cycling proficiency any more - it was basic but it helped young kids a bit)? Over confidence while wearing a helmet, etc?0 -
BentMikey wrote:To me common sense says that a little bit of polystyrene is not going to save my life, though it might prevent some cuts and scrapes.
I don't think that any (many?) people dispute that a cycle helmet isn't going to help with major impacts, however...
What is you stance on being knocked out by a minor bang to the head (which a helnmet probably would have helped with) and then drowing on your own vomit whilst unconscious?0 -
BentMikey wrote:Surf-Matt wrote:Hitting a wall at about 35mph - wouldn't like to try that without a helmet on. I probably would have split my head open.
Oddly enough, 35 mph is far beyond the design spec of helmets here in the UK, which I believe are tested to only 12mph. There's rather a large difference in energy and momentum between the two speeds. I wouldn't want to crash either with or without a helmet at that speed.
Really, go read the studies, because there's plenty to show that over a population, helmets and mandatory helmet laws do not improve cyclist safety. Just because something seems like common sense to you doesn't make it right. To me common sense says that a little bit of polystyrene is not going to save my life, though it might prevent some cuts and scrapes.
Well, you say that Mikey, but I did, came to the forum and tore it to shreds and asked you to comment on my reasoning. You instead ignored it and came up with some more figures.
If you recall - I'm the guy who was living in BC, Canada when the mandatory BC helmet laws came in. The "analysis" on your bikehelmets.org site was based on the assumption that helmet uptake increased most dramatically when the law came in. As such, they concluded that since there was no commensurate jump in the acident statistics, there was no effect.
I pointed out that, since the government was giving them out heavily discounted until, but not after, the law came in, the biggest jump occured before the law came in. The year before the law came in, there was a big jump in the accident stats, which the bikehelmets'org people attributed to "general safety improvements".
What these might have been, I don't know, and why they would not have been gradual, I also don't know. That makes me wonder about the impartiality of the site.
Anyhow. For me, therefore, at least one of the "cycle hemlets are useless" studies in fact demonstrate the opposite. My guess then and my guess now is that a number of other analyses are also flawed, once you are in posession of the full facts.0 -
Surf-Matt wrote:David - I did think of adding "except for use by good rally drivers" but thought it was a bit OTT!
99.9999% of drivers are better off with ABS and although cop and IAM trained (yes I know - IAM is hardly rallying!), I still prefer a good ABS set of brakes, although it is possible to stop very quickly with proper cadence braking and no ABS - my cop instructor preferred ABS equipped cars so that was good enough for me - it's helped me out a few times now.
Must be hard for you to find non ABS equipped modern cars? Caterham, maybe the Elise (some have ABS), Westfield and errrrmmmmm...?
Mikey - but to me, it's the high speed crashes that matter? I'm sure other factors influence the results - more cyclists? Less observation by other road users? Less rider skills (no cycling proficiency any more - it was basic but it helped young kids a bit)? Over confidence while wearing a helmet, etc?
99.99% of drivers arent better off with ABS, They still take longer to stop... Locked up sliding wheels will normally stop a car quicker than ABS! How often do people run into the back of a vehicle even with ABS and how often do they avoid collisions by sweving into the oncoming lane?
Most modern cars ABS is on a seperate fuse by itself which can have a switch placed in line most rally drivers dont bother with road going ABS systems at all and just disable them by removing the fuse, Ive done a driving course which did an interesting demonstration on modern car stopping distance and obstacle avoidance with abs enabled and disabled on the same car! In a modern ford mondeo you stop in a shorter distance on wet tarmac by slamming on the anchors and locking up than you do on the same road with ABS switched on by simply slamming on the anchors...
ABS is ONLY any good at all when attempting to steer whilst braking! Straightline emergency braking ABS even in the hands of an average driver is worse!
ABS is the same sort of braking safety idea as the 90-10 front rare ratio used on many cars. For fashion sakes they add rear disks to "sporty models" Adjusting the bias to 60-40 gives far better braking as it distributes the effort better across all 4 tyres, the reason for the 90-10 split is because of a couple of cases where manufacturers were sued due to cars spinning when cornering and braking hard, the result of which is further increased stopping distances...
You would be amazed how much braking potential a little tinkering with a car can unlock. Without turning it into a a specialist vehicle.
Its a bit like the modern First Aider course, its more about avoiding legal responsibility than saving lives.0
