Benefits of wearinga helmet poll

always_tyred

Jesus. And you had a go at me for being dismissive.

If a helmet were protection against a 60kg block of lead travelling at 30mph, the factor of 20 would be a really big issue. As it is, the body is not a resilient object and so the relevant issue is the "effective mass" transferred through the helmet, but there's still an issue there. Anyway, the point is that its a spurious comparison, although, yeah I for one wouldn't object to better safety standards. See my previous post.

I've had a crack in the past at convincing people that, since helmets are designed (perhaps not well enough) for moderate impacts and not for really serious accidents - which everyone seems to agree with - its really daft to look for evidence of helmet effectiveness in fatality data. However it is still interesting to debate what a given set of information actually supports.

As well, in regard to your belief that pro helmet people cycle around in the mistaken belief that helmets offer something they don't, the poll has a rather limited range of available responses.

A large number of posts at the beginning of the thread were proposing alternative statements.

You note that the only "pro" helmet statements begin with "Likely to save your life..."

Its almost as though someone who believed that is what other cyclists thought had set it up that way. What'dya reckon?

meanwhile

Always Tyred wrote:

.
If a helmet were protection against a 60kg block of lead travelling at 30mph, the factor of 20 would be a really big issue.

What mass of lead? We're talking about body weight.

As it is, the body is not a resilient object and so the relevant issue is the "effective mass" transferred through the helmet,

I think you mean "rigid", not "resilient". And the body is pretty rigid at most angles of impact, actually. The head is far from freely moving unless it is actually severed, in which a case helmet probably isn't that helpful. I don't even understand why you're making this argument, btw - it's only use would be to show that helmets can be useful in cycle-car collisions, and below you seem to say that no, you never thought that, only silly people (like 70% of pollees) do.

I've had a crack in the past at convincing people that, since helmets are designed (perhaps not well enough) for moderate impacts and not for really serious accidents - which everyone seems to agree with

Except about 70-80% of people who answered the poll before this debate: that's the point - people thought that helmets protect in exactly the sort of accidents were they don't. Actually, I think you did,, reading your earlier posts, and you're now "adjusting".

As well, in regard to your belief that pro helmet people cycle around in the mistaken belief that helmets offer something they don't, the poll has a rather limited range of available responses.

A large number of posts at the beginning of the thread were proposing alternative statements.

Yes, if "large" means "several" then, yes, a few people did say they'd like other options, but I was interested in testing a specific area of mis-information. Unsurprisingly, as helmet legislation and promotion is almost universally phrased in terms of the prevention of death and very serious injury.

always_tyred

Yes - rigid not resilient - wrong way round. One point to you.

I'm not changing my position. Take a look at MUCH earlier threads.

We'll have to agree to disagree about now much energy would be transferred through the helmet as a proportion of the total energy of any accident. Personally, I find that my arms and legs flap all over the place. However, you appear to have missed that I agree that there is an issue with the safety rating.

A factor of 20 is simplistic, as I am sure you will agree, were many of the simple scalings of data that we were looking at earlier in the thread. I think its fun to play around with them anyway, though.

Just in case you missed it - I agree with you that helmets are a bit crap. Again, look at earlier threads to see me make this point repeatedly.

In early threads, my "opponent" was of the opinion that even if helmets were some 100% effective magic force field, they still wouldn't be needed.

I think its really important that there is recognition from both sides that, in principle, there's something there to protect. I wonder if you will spot this part of my post? Or skim over it and foam at the mouth at another part of it?

For the record, here's some more sensible "poll options":

1. In an accident, likely to save your life, so I do
2. In an accident may save your life, so I do
3. In an accident may save your life, I don't expect to have an accident, but I wear one anyway
4. In an accident, likely to reduce extent of any head injury, so I do
5. In an accident may reduce extent of any head injury, so I do
6. In an accident may reduce extent of any head injury, I don't expect to have an accident, but I wear one anyway
6. In an accident may reduce extent of any head injury, I don't expect to have an accident, so I don't wear one


etc. etc. - there are other opinons , such as the negative perception of helmets, that should be in there also. And clearly I've predominantly only refined the "pro" options. There are equally refined "anti" opinions out there.

If you put up a poll with 10 or 12 options out there, you might have a chance of finding what people really think. Of course, if you put a poll that detailed, people would just skim read it and click at the first option that was nearly close. Or they may agree with more than one option.

You have to be careful in "research", Meanwhile, not to be too triumphant at getting the answer you thought you'd get until you've ruled out wether or not that was the ONLY answer you could have got.

In this instance, you have a forum populated by people the majority of which wear helmets. You wanted to know what the proportions were and why. Your poll has really only probed what the proportions are, but the "why" is what you thought in the first place. Don't get me wrong - its not a useless excersise, but in common with every bit of information we've talked about, and in common with every piece of data ever gathered, you have to understand how they were obtained in order to interpret them.

I don't think its worth having another poll though. You can clearly see which contributors fall into which of the more detailed positions of the sorts highlighted above. I'm #5 or #6, because to me, the distinction of "may" or "likely" accommodates that possibility that not all accidents will result in a significant blow to the head. "May" also implies to me "sometimes does" and not "hypothetically might". I think that there are exampled of the finer points that your fellow cyclists have been discussing.

I don't think the others on this forum are simpletons. Do you?

Cunobelin

But...................................

Wasn't there an allegation that the poll had been changed half way through with "bad" added in - if that is the case we need to either invalidate the poll and remove it or have two sets of results - pre and post change....

always_tyred

Mmm. Tricky.

Perhaps we should have a poll about which options should be available in a poll, in order that we can have a better poll.

dondare

Always Tyred wrote:

Mmm. Tricky.

Perhaps we should have a poll about which options should be available in a poll, in order that we can have a better poll.

I suggest that we put it to the vote.

biondino

The thought of taking safety advice from a cycle courier is the funniest thing I've heard all year!

And you're really saying bike failure is as uncommon as being struck by lightning? Please.

You're right in that half my accidents could have been avoided if I'd ridden better BUT LOTS OF PEOPLE CAN'T RIDE WELL. So either courier nazis like you need to petition for them to be taken off the road (though maybe that's what lots of you are trying to do when you ride like complete nobheads), or they ought to be offered protection for the kind of low-impact accidents they're likely to have.

Enough already. You're a sarcastic blinkered idiot who assumes that every bike accident is a juggernaut hitting your temple at 50mph.

Surf-Matt

People die falling over and hitting their heads on the ground.

So that concludes this thread for once and for all.

Wear a helmet.

always_tyred

Could I just have the last word?

That was it, thanks.

dondare

Surf-Matt wrote:

People die falling over and hitting their heads on the ground.

So that concludes this thread for once and for all.

Wear a helmet.

All the time.

Cunobelin

Surf-Matt wrote:

People die falling over and hitting their heads on the ground.

So that concludes this thread for once and for all.

Wear a helmet.

Which nicely brings us back to pedestrians...........

Surf-Matt

Okay, didn't make it obvious enough.

People die falling over and hitting their heads. That's a VERY low impact injury.

So the argument that helmets are only good for low impact hits there not worth having, is completely void.

MartinC1

I find it worrying that 73 people think that in a bad accident a helmet is likely to save your life. I'd like to see a reasoned explanation of how this is possible.

cjw

MartinC1 wrote:

I find it worrying that 73 people think that in a bad accident a helmet is likely to save your life. I'd like to see a reasoned explanation of how this is possible.

Not really... the only option you have to vote if you wear one is the first response. All others are variations of you don't wear a helmet.

MartinC1

CJW - don't really understand the reply. I do find it worrying and I really would like a reasoned explanation if anyone's got one. Can't understand your option logic - people can have many reasons for wearing a helmet. "the only option you have..............." - bit didactic!

chuckcork

Another voting option would be "possibly useless in the event of an accident, but I wear one just in case it isn't"?

robmanic1

chuckcork wrote:

Another voting option would be "possibly useless in the event of an accident, but I wear one just in case it isn't"?

Good point, perhaps we should start the "do you believe in god?" poll.

cjw

MartinC1 wrote:

CJW - don't really understand the reply. I do find it worrying and I really would like a reasoned explanation if anyone's got one. Can't understand your option logic - people can have many reasons for wearing a helmet. "the only option you have..............." - bit didactic!

I'll try again. If you wear a helmet, you can only select the first option as it is the ONLY option where you say you wear a helmet. ALL other options say that you do NOT wear a helmet for a variety of reasons. There is no option " I wear a helmet because it will reduce minor injuries" or something similar.

Therefore the voters who wear a helmet have to vote "It will save my life", not because they think that, but it is the only option.

MartinC1

CJW, yes you're right! Sorry, bit I was a slow there - within the constraints of the poll it's the only way.

MartinC1

Ah, not quite. "Probably useless" and "Probably wouldn't be useful........" don't include anything about wearing one. I often wear one but think they're probably useless.

cjw

I'd interpreted both of those to be "I don't wear one". After all if you thought they "Probably wouldn't be useful, and makes bad accidents more likely" you'd be a little strange to wear one... unless you like bad accidents

As the Probably useless doesn't qualify itself with "... but I wear one anyway" I take that as don't wear one, but I take your point.

MartinC1

So, are there people out there who actually think that wearing a helmet is likely to save their life in a bad accident?

baggsy

Had a bad accident in a helmet and despite it being a correct fit for my head it got pushed away and my forehead felt the full force of the road!

Might save some blood but I'm not convinced of their 'real' effectiveness. Life is a game of chance after all.

robmanic1

Suffice to say there are instances where wearing a helmet will save you some pain, maybe even severe injury, from my own experience and from that of my riding buddies (we've all had close calls where helmets have played their part).

That said, I don't always wear one, usually only if I'm riding in a group (maybe the shame of being seen helmetless?).

Which box do I tick???

Surf-Matt

MartinC1 wrote:

So, are there people out there who actually think that wearing a helmet is likely to save their life in a bad accident?

Yes - me who has had his life saved by a helmet, and two mates who have also had their lives saved in "bad accidents" by a helmet.

All three of us would be dead/brain injured (ahem - maybe it didn't save me after all... :oops: ) without a helmet. Direct high speed head strikes to a wall (me), a road (one mate) and a car (the other mate).

always_tyred

I suppose that the argument would be that you can never know if it would have saved your life.

But once you've made use of a helmet, as it were, you kind of don't care. I've found its enough to know that it could have been worse and that your greatest concern is the damage to your bike.

Interestingly, there is an article kicking around on defensive cycling on another thread;

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12573156

The guy makes the point that the great majority of his accidents took place in his early cycling career. This was the case for me also (although I suspect that it applies best to roadies).

I wonder if the "anti-helmet" people are often quite experienced, haven't had too many incidents for a number of years, and find it difficult to imagine how anyone could fail to get themselves out of trouble through good road craft.

You see, I agree that good road craft pretty effectively minimises risk. But the question is, how do you get to that point? Can you learn it in a book? No; there's no substitute for experience, and you are more vunerable as you learn.

hambones

I agree with what Always Tyred says there which is why my boys always wore a helmet between ages 3 and 4 when learning but generally haven't since!

chas67

Never worn a helmet .... and I do fall off ...... one time very narrowly missed going under the wheels of a bus .... picked myself up (head not having touched anything) only to be berated by some other cyclist for not wearing a helmet! You have to laugh! Bought a helmet recently (had some Halfords vouchers) but have not worn it - so that's probably the kiss of death!

MartinC1

Surf Matt. Not having a go at you at all but I'm really interested to understand how it is that you, and your mates, know that you would be dead or brain injured if you hadn't been wearing helmets.

always_tyred

hambones wrote:

I agree with what Always Tyred says there which is why my boys always wore a helmet between ages 3 and 4 when learning but generally haven't since!

Ha! Okay, so I think that's a bit extreme, because I was still asserting my rights to the road and being right and being on the tarmac well into my 20's (although I did only seriously commute and ride once I quit rowing in my mid 20's) but at least its a thought out position, which one can acknowledge and respect!!