Helmet, Yes or No?

1…78101213…22

Comments

  • il_principe
    il_principe Posts: 9,155
    unclemalc wrote:
    dilemna wrote:
    Coriander wrote:
    WGWarburton wrote:
    All those people who are cyclists and oppose cycle helmets haven't had a serious injury or narrow brush with death on a bike. They are talking out of their b**ks*d*s. No a cycling helmet might not prevent you being killed but it might just save your life. You are a long time dead. Cars are large heavy objects, windscreens leave large splinters of glass in your head, rocks by the side of trails are hard and immovable. I choose to wear a helmet as to me it makes sense especially having already been knocked off and injured. One is pretty vulnerable on a bike. For those who decide not to wear a helmet then it's their choice. A deluded choice but none the less their choice. Only legislation will compel them as in motorcycle helmets and car seat belts. I like to think I can do something without the Government compelling me to do so.

    Having been had off by careless driving three times now in the past 5 years, each time getting a sizeable dent in the helmet where my head would have been is enough proof (if I ever needed it) that the bit of polystyrene on top IS a life saver.
    Wear one BEFORE it's too late...

    Yawn. That's not proof. Just 'cos some polystyrene was dented doesn't mean your head would be.

    Not getting sucked in though.

    Yawn.
  • alfablue
    alfablue Posts: 8,497
    biondino wrote:
    Though, windscreen glass shatters, rather than splinters. Though there's plenty of other glass on or near roads so fair enough.
    Modern laminated windscreens (99% of cars today?) crack (and maybe splinter) but generally stay intact on impact, older toughened glass screens shatter into hundreds of small pieces.
  • biondino
    biondino Posts: 5,990
    I must be thinking of bus stops! Cheers alfablue :)

    Jash, it's okay, if you put your fingers in your ears and sing at the top of your voice these nasty nagging doubts will go away...
    My Focus / My Bob Jackson
    Blog (incl. bikes)
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    And you join us on day 73 of the hostage crisis. The captors were seen at a window this morning, leaning out and shouting "Nyah, nyah, nyah, we can't hear you."

    And now, back to the studio.


    Make it stop :cry:
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • lost_in_thought
    lost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    Blimey, way to bump an old thread!

    All of you, settle down. We'll have a judean people's front and a people's front of judea before long! :wink:
    FCN 7/1
    Viner Maxima, Tifosi CK7, Giant Bowery, Old commuter.
  • Throlkim
    Throlkim Posts: 94
    I just can't see why you wouldn't want to wear a helmet. I mean, I overheat very easily, have hair halfway down my back, and yet I don't overheat or even sweat particularly while wearing my helmet because they're so well ventilated these days.
    It doesn't take a hard knock to your head to kill you. There was a case in my local town a few years back where someone died after a single punch to the back of his head.

    If a helmet only lowered your chances of dying by 0.5%; I'd still pay £30 for that.

    Plus, if I didn't wear one my girlfriend would kill me.
  • schlafsack
    schlafsack Posts: 26
    unclemalc wrote:
    ...each time getting a sizeable dent in the helmet where my head would have been is enough proof (if I ever needed it) that the bit of polystyrene on top IS a life saver.

    I keep out of helmet debates, each to their own and all that, although I quite often wear one. However this argument always riles me.

    Damage to a helmet is NOT a sign that it has worked. Eggshells strapped to your head would crack, shatter, dent, deform, whatever...but you wouldn't dream of claiming that they protect your head. A helmet may have become damaged in the act of sucessfully protecting your head, but alone the damage is not a sign that it's performed it's job.
  • the_hundredth_idiot
    the_hundredth_idiot Posts: 813
    Holy, crapoly! Where did this thread reappear from?

    I always wear a helmet. And helmets really don't suit me. At all.
    Never be tempted to race against a Barclays Cycle Hire bike. If you do, there are only two outcomes. Of these, by far the better is that you now have the scalp of a Boris Bike.
  • Aguila
    Aguila Posts: 622
    Here is some simple physics for the morons who do not wear helmets:

    A helmet absorbs a certain amount of energy in the event of an impact (lets call that X). This is often quoted as up to 15mph, this is often cited as a reason not to wear one as we are often going faster than that.

    If the total energy of the impact is Y then you have a choice of allowing your head to absorb Y-X wearing a helmet or all the energy without.

    The chance of a significant brain injury is proportional to the energy absorbed so the helmet can only reduce this chance as conversely the chance can only be increased by not wearing one.

    As for the usual "thats not proof" retort to anecdotes and "there's no evidence" consider this:

    The only way this could be proved would be to crash a given number of cyclists into things with equal force who had been randomly assigned to either wear or not wear a helmet beforehand and subsequently compare their injuries. As this trial will never take place there will never be "proof".

    I have spent enough time working on an intensive care unit seeing the hopeless outcomes from head injuries to grasp whatever reduction in risk I can. I do not want to spend the rest of my life fed through a tube wearing a nappy.

    As someone else put it even if it reduces the chances of a significant brain injury by 0.5% I'd pay £30 for that.
    www.bikehike.co.uk/mapview.php?id=6277
  • schlafsack
    schlafsack Posts: 26
    Aguila wrote:
    I have spent enough time working on an intensive care unit seeing the hopeless outcomes from head injuries to grasp whatever reduction in risk I can. I do not want to spend the rest of my life fed through a tube wearing a nappy.

    In which case, and in all honesty, why do you not wear a motor cycle helmet?
  • biondino
    biondino Posts: 5,990
    On a bike without mirrors that usually travels at well under ambient speed you couldn't wear a motorbike helmet because peripheral visibility would be dramatically reduced.
    My Focus / My Bob Jackson
    Blog (incl. bikes)
  • Throlkim
    Throlkim Posts: 94
    Plus you would steam your head, causing lobsters everywhere to revel in us tasting our own medicine.
  • schlafsack
    schlafsack Posts: 26
    biondino wrote:
    On a bike without mirrors that usually travels at well under ambient speed you couldn't wear a motorbike helmet because peripheral visibility would be dramatically reduced.

    Cursory 10min search on the internet seems to suggest that this is a myth, particularly with modern helmets. However, accepting that it's the case, there are many other types of helmet that will offer superior protection e.g. open faced motorcycle helmet, hockey helmet, MK-6
  • biondino
    biondino Posts: 5,990
    schlafsack wrote:
    biondino wrote:
    On a bike without mirrors that usually travels at well under ambient speed you couldn't wear a motorbike helmet because peripheral visibility would be dramatically reduced.

    Cursory 10min search on the internet seems to suggest that this is a myth, particularly with modern helmets. However, accepting that it's the case, there are many other types of helmet that will offer superior protection e.g. open faced motorcycle helmet, hockey helmet, MK-6

    I dunno, Schlafsack, I've ridden both and a motorbike helmet would be an impediment to both your view and your hearing, I promise you. I'd rather have neither remotely impeded.

    But you do have a point. Bike helmets are largely sold on how light, ventilated and comfortable they are. If there WAS a kind of intermediate helmet style between bike and motorcycle that DID offer a definitive safety improvement, but at the cost of these qualities, I wonder how many people would choose to wear one?
    My Focus / My Bob Jackson
    Blog (incl. bikes)
  • dilemna
    dilemna Posts: 2,187
    biondino wrote:
    Though, windscreen glass shatters, rather than splinters. Though there's plenty of other glass on or near roads so fair enough.

    Some years ago (1999) I worked on a case where a cyclist was cycling along a road in the Fens near Cambridge late at night and was knocked down by a speeding car. It was a hit and run. The car was then abandoned and the owner subsequently reported it stolen. The car was recovered into the lab and muggins me was tasked with examining the car and windscreen. The windscreen had shattered where the cyclist's head had struck it about half way up on the passenger side. The screen had partially shattered into tiny pieces as modern screens do around the area of impact. The whole screen was pushed inward but did not collapse. However the impact of the cyclist's head had created a perfect indentation as if a bowling ball had hit the screen. Within the indentation was flesh, hair and blood mixed with broken pieces and splinters of the windscreen. The post mortem pictures of the deceased cyclist showed his head massively split across his skull and one could clearly observe splinters and pieces of glass that had become imbedded in his skull. It was believed the cyclist died instantly when his head struck the windscreen. Yes windscreens do shatter into tiny cuboid pieces but they also produce small splinters as well. It was a very distressing and sobering case. Whilst wearing a helmet might not have saved this cyclist as the vehilce was estimated to be travellling so quickly at the point of impact. The speed of the car was estimated as between 72 and 76mph. The collision occurred on a rural road. If hit by a vehilce travelling more slowly or a vehicle where the driver has braked massively before impact a helmet might be a very desirable piece or protective equipment to be wearing. Why stop at just a helmet - elbow and knee pads, a full face helmet, jacket/jersey with kevlar back protectors as downhill racers wear. Cycling is risky.

    The vehilce owner was charged and convicted with causing death by dangerous driving. He was also found to be over the blood alcohol limit whilst driving his vehicle, leaving the scene and trying to pervert the cause of justice.

    Very few people solely cycle with their young family along a tree lined forest trail with the late afternoon sun coming through the trees without a care in the world as in the Centre Parcs ads.

    Wear a helmet.
    Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
    Think how stupid the average person is.......
    half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.
  • _Brun_
    _Brun_ Posts: 1,740
    dilemna wrote:
    Whilst wearing a helmet might not have saved this cyclist as the vehilce was estimated to be travellling so quickly at the point of impact. The speed of the car was estimated as between 72 and 76mph.
    :roll:
  • wgwarburton
    wgwarburton Posts: 1,863
    unclemalc wrote:
    WGWarburton wrote:
    All those people who are cyclists and oppose cycle helmets haven't had a serious injury or narrow brush with death on a bike. They are talking out of their b**ks*d*s. No a cycling helmet might not prevent you being killed but it might just save your life. You are a long time dead. Cars are large heavy objects, windscreens leave large splinters of glass in your head, rocks by the side of trails are hard and immovable. I choose to wear a helmet as to me it makes sense especially having already been knocked off and injured. One is pretty vulnerable on a bike. For those who decide not to wear a helmet then it's their choice. A deluded choice but none the less their choice. Only legislation will compel them as in motorcycle helmets and car seat belts. I like to think I can do something without the Government compelling me to do so.

    No, he bloody didn't. Please make the effort to get your attributions & quotations right.
    Having been had off by careless driving three times now in the past 5 years, each time getting a sizeable dent in the helmet where my head would have been is enough proof (if I ever needed it) that the bit of polystyrene on top IS a life saver.
    Wear one BEFORE it's too late...

    Maybe you should be more careful. If you're relying on a bike helmet to save your skull you will be disappointed soon enough...
    I take it you are familiar with the thinking behind risk compensation. I wonder if you'd ride more carefully (and hence be safer) if you didn't wear a helmet!

    Cheers,
    W.
  • il_principe
    il_principe Posts: 9,155
    edited March 2009
    biondino wrote:
    I must be thinking of bus stops! Cheers alfablue :)

    Jash, it's okay, if you put your fingers in your ears and sing at the top of your voice these nasty nagging doubts will go away...

    I have no doubts, you might wrestle with a nagging fear of getting injured, I don't. Rode in gale force winds on Sunday, sans helmet. The fact that I wasn't wearing one didn't cross my mind once. If I was concerned, or I thought it would do any good, then I'd wear a helmet. I'm neither concerned nor worried and will continue to enjoy my cycling helmet free!
  • Throlkim
    Throlkim Posts: 94
    WGWarburton wrote:
    Maybe you should be more careful. If you're relying on a bike helmet to save your skull you will be disappointed soon enough...
    I take it you are familiar with the thinking behind risk compensation. I wonder if you'd ride more carefully (and hence be safer) if you didn't wear a helmet!

    Cheers,
    W.

    Nope, I ride safely all the time. You'd have to be pretty bloody thick to think it's ok to take risks just because you've got a helmet.
    I don't even get why people are trying to argue the fact that they add a little bit of safety to what is already a reasonably dangerous way to travel. It's like a bunch of evangelicals declaring that atheism can't possibly be right because they have no evidence that God doesn't exist.

    I just don't understand the fuss. Do all you non-helmet wearers have £100 hair cuts that you just couldn't live with if it were slightly flat when you got to work? :roll:
  • wgwarburton
    wgwarburton Posts: 1,863
    Hi,
    Once again we seem to be losing sight of a key point underlying the choice whether or not to wear a helmet:

    Cycling isn't dangerous.

    Cheers,
    W.
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    WGWarburton wrote:
    Hi,
    Once again we seem to be losing sight of a key point underlying the choice whether or not to wear a helmet:

    Cycling isn't dangerous.

    Cheers,
    W.

    Nor's driving. It's the crashing that's dangerous. That's why you wear a seatbelt in a car.

    I have no problems with people exercising a choice whether to wear or not wear a helmet. But that point doesn't seem to me to advance the debate very far.
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • greg66_tri_v2.0
    greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    Bollox.

    I swore I wouldn't allowed myself to get dragged back into this thread.

    Now see what you've made me do? :x
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • Throlkim
    Throlkim Posts: 94
    edited March 2009
    WGWarburton wrote:
    Hi,
    Once again we seem to be losing sight of a key point underlying the choice whether or not to wear a helmet:

    Cycling isn't dangerous.

    Cheers,
    W.

    ...what magical roads do you ride on? :|
    On my commute, which is only 6 miles, there are at least 20 buses along the way (including bendy buses), cycle lanes that are completely unusable due to people parking in them, articulated lorries taking short cuts, idiots in saxos or novas driving deliberately close to you, countless pedestrians that don't see cyclists, junctions where you have to stop in the middle while lorries whiz past etc etc etc.

    Sure, my helmet won't save me if I'm dragged under a lorry. But maybe it will save my life if some arse drives a little to close and I conk my head on the kerb. Frankly, I'd rather just look like a dork and wear one than take that risk.
  • il_principe
    il_principe Posts: 9,155
    Throlkim wrote:
    WGWarburton wrote:
    Maybe you should be more careful. If you're relying on a bike helmet to save your skull you will be disappointed soon enough...
    I take it you are familiar with the thinking behind risk compensation. I wonder if you'd ride more carefully (and hence be safer) if you didn't wear a helmet!

    Cheers,
    W.

    Nope, I ride safely all the time. You'd have to be pretty bloody thick to think it's ok to take risks just because you've got a helmet.
    I don't even get why people are trying to argue the fact that they add a little bit of safety to what is already a reasonably dangerous way to travel. It's like a bunch of evangelicals declaring that atheism can't possibly be right because they have no evidence that God doesn't exist.

    I just don't understand the fuss. Do all you non-helmet wearers have £100 hair cuts that you just couldn't live with if it were slightly flat when you got to work? :roll:

    Since when is cycling a reasonably dangerous way to travel? I've always understood it to be pretty safe.

    I wish people would stop making such a fuss about helmet use, there are more serious safety concerns to get het up about. I cycled from Pimlico to Willesden last night, it was dark and I encountered 7 cyclists without any lights at all (an mazing number really, was it moron Monday?), 2 of these on Park Lane and 3 on Edgware road, both of which are extremely busy roads. Helmetless cyclists don't present a risk to other road users, lightless ones do, I nearly went into the back of one in Hyde Park the other day, she was all but invisible in the dark - a danger to herself and other people.
  • Throlkim
    Throlkim Posts: 94
    jashburnham wrote:
    Throlkim wrote:
    WGWarburton wrote:
    Maybe you should be more careful. If you're relying on a bike helmet to save your skull you will be disappointed soon enough...
    I take it you are familiar with the thinking behind risk compensation. I wonder if you'd ride more carefully (and hence be safer) if you didn't wear a helmet!

    Cheers,
    W.

    Nope, I ride safely all the time. You'd have to be pretty bloody thick to think it's ok to take risks just because you've got a helmet.
    I don't even get why people are trying to argue the fact that they add a little bit of safety to what is already a reasonably dangerous way to travel. It's like a bunch of evangelicals declaring that atheism can't possibly be right because they have no evidence that God doesn't exist.

    I just don't understand the fuss. Do all you non-helmet wearers have £100 hair cuts that you just couldn't live with if it were slightly flat when you got to work? :roll:

    Since when is cycling a reasonably dangerous way to travel? I've always understood it to be pretty safe.

    I wish people would stop making such a fuss about helmet use, there are more serious safety concerns to get het up about. I cycled from Pimlico to Willesden last night, it was dark and I encountered 7 cyclists without any lights at all (an mazing number really, was it moron Monday?), 2 of these on Park Lane and 3 on Edgware road, both of which are extremely busy roads. Helmetless cyclists don't present a risk to other road users, lightless ones do, I nearly went into the back of one in Hyde Park the other day, she was all but invisible in the dark - a danger to herself and other people.

    I think everyone here will agree that lights are definitely a necessity. :)
    And I wouldn't say that cycling itself is dangerous. It's the other people on the road that cause the danger.
  • il_principe
    il_principe Posts: 9,155
    Throlkim wrote:
    jashburnham wrote:
    Throlkim wrote:
    WGWarburton wrote:
    Maybe you should be more careful. If you're relying on a bike helmet to save your skull you will be disappointed soon enough...
    I take it you are familiar with the thinking behind risk compensation. I wonder if you'd ride more carefully (and hence be safer) if you didn't wear a helmet!

    Cheers,
    W.

    Nope, I ride safely all the time. You'd have to be pretty bloody thick to think it's ok to take risks just because you've got a helmet.
    I don't even get why people are trying to argue the fact that they add a little bit of safety to what is already a reasonably dangerous way to travel. It's like a bunch of evangelicals declaring that atheism can't possibly be right because they have no evidence that God doesn't exist.

    I just don't understand the fuss. Do all you non-helmet wearers have £100 hair cuts that you just couldn't live with if it were slightly flat when you got to work? :roll:

    Since when is cycling a reasonably dangerous way to travel? I've always understood it to be pretty safe.

    I wish people would stop making such a fuss about helmet use, there are more serious safety concerns to get het up about. I cycled from Pimlico to Willesden last night, it was dark and I encountered 7 cyclists without any lights at all (an mazing number really, was it moron Monday?), 2 of these on Park Lane and 3 on Edgware road, both of which are extremely busy roads. Helmetless cyclists don't present a risk to other road users, lightless ones do, I nearly went into the back of one in Hyde Park the other day, she was all but invisible in the dark - a danger to herself and other people.

    I think everyone here will agree that lights are definitely a necessity. :)
    And I wouldn't say that cycling itself is dangerous. It's the other people on the road that cause the danger.

    Funny that i regularly see helmeted cyclists without lights and reflectives then. So much effort has been put into helmet wearing campaigns - some people seem to think a helmet is all that matters. Of lights, reflectives and helmets, the helmet is the least useful in my book.
  • Throlkim
    Throlkim Posts: 94
    jashburnham wrote:
    Funny that i regularly see helmeted cyclists without lights and reflectives then. So much effort has been put into helmet wearing campaigns - some people seem to think a helmet is all that matters. Of lights, reflectives and helmets, the helmet is the least useful in my book.

    I agree, though that doesn't mean that helmets don't have a use. :)
  • wgwarburton
    wgwarburton Posts: 1,863
    Throlkim wrote:
    WGWarburton wrote:
    Cycling isn't dangerous.
    ...what magical roads do you ride on? :|

    Probably pretty much the same ones as you do. Only with perspective!
    Throlkim wrote:
    On my commute, which is only 6 miles, there are at least 20 buses along the way (including bendy buses), cycle lanes that are completely unusable due to people parking in them, articulated lorries taking short cuts, idiots in saxos or novas driving deliberately close to you, countless pedestrians that don't see cyclists, junctions where you have to stop in the middle while lorries whiz past etc etc etc.
    Yes, and you need to exercise a certain degree of care. However, you are statistically unlikely to be Killed or Seriously Injured whilst doing so. Other activities that you partake in are likely to be significantly more dangerous, unless you live a very sheltered life.
    Cycling is perceived to be more dangerous than it actually is; maybe that's why it's relatively safe?
    Sure, my helmet won't save me if I'm dragged under a lorry. But maybe it will save my life if some ars* drives a little to close and I conk my head on the kerb. Frankly, I'd rather just look like a dork and wear one than take that risk.

    Yes, that's fine, feel free to do so. Just, please, don't claim that anyone who doesn't is a fool, OK? :-)

    Cheers,
    W.
  • biondino
    biondino Posts: 5,990
    jashburnham wrote:
    I wish people would stop making such a fuss about helmet use, there are more serious safety concerns to get het up about. I cycled from Pimlico to Willesden last night, it was dark and I encountered 7 cyclists without any lights at all (an mazing number really, was it moron Monday?), 2 of these on Park Lane and 3 on Edgware road, both of which are extremely busy roads. Helmetless cyclists don't present a risk to other road users, lightless ones do, I nearly went into the back of one in Hyde Park the other day, she was all but invisible in the dark - a danger to herself and other people.

    I say this every time - because one thing is patently more unsafe than the other (not wearing lights vs not wearing a helmet) doesn't make not wearing a helmet safe! Real life doesn't take such comparisons into account. can we please stop making them? (and this also counts for the inane "well why don't pedestrians wear helmets" - fine, go argue that case on a pedestrian forum, it's utterly irrelevant here).

    To date, I have travelled maybe 25 times more miles in a car than on a bike. I have had 3 small car accidents, only one of which actually hurt - minor whiplash and bruising. I have had 3 bike accidents where I've broken bones and two others where I've also been injured. And I'm a good cyclist (by and large - clearly I can't blame anyone but myself for my last injury, for example, but that doesn't stop it being a meaningful statistic). It's ridiculous to say cycling isn't dangerous, especially taking into account the vulnerability of the cyclist on the road.
    My Focus / My Bob Jackson
    Blog (incl. bikes)
  • Throlkim
    Throlkim Posts: 94
    WGWarburton wrote:
    Throlkim wrote:
    WGWarburton wrote:
    Cycling isn't dangerous.
    ...what magical roads do you ride on? :|

    Probably pretty much the same ones as you do. Only with perspective!
    Throlkim wrote:
    On my commute, which is only 6 miles, there are at least 20 buses along the way (including bendy buses), cycle lanes that are completely unusable due to people parking in them, articulated lorries taking short cuts, idiots in saxos or novas driving deliberately close to you, countless pedestrians that don't see cyclists, junctions where you have to stop in the middle while lorries whiz past etc etc etc.
    Yes, and you need to exercise a certain degree of care. However, you are statistically unlikely to be Killed or Seriously Injured whilst doing so. Other activities that you partake in are likely to be significantly more dangerous, unless you live a very sheltered life.
    Cycling is perceived to be more dangerous than it actually is; maybe that's why it's relatively safe?
    Sure, my helmet won't save me if I'm dragged under a lorry. But maybe it will save my life if some ars* drives a little to close and I conk my head on the kerb. Frankly, I'd rather just look like a dork and wear one than take that risk.

    Yes, that's fine, feel free to do so. Just, please, don't claim that anyone who doesn't is a fool, OK? :-)

    Cheers,
    W.

    I'm not claiming that people are fools for not wearing helmets, I just don't understand the argument for not wearing them :D
    And I'm not sure if my other hobbies are a good benchmark for danger. I'm an archer and historical re-enactor - and I feel significantly safer shooting a 60lb compound bow, standing next to someone shooting a fully functional musket, or being in an unarmoured close-combat sword fight, than I do riding through the streets of Cardiff. But that's because I have control over those situations - I can't stop people being morons on the road. :)

Categories