Helmet, Yes or No?

soy_sauce

does anyone always have their lights switch on when they ride even though it really bright outside? i always have my rear light on but not the front light.

personally i rate the helmet higher, then hi-vis gears or the lights.

il_principe

I've had 1 car crash and 2 bike crashes. Car crash gave me whiplash that has had long term effects on my neck (ironically because of the seatbelt! ). Bike crash 1 resulted in plastic surgery on my lip, helmet made fcuk all difference, second crash - my head didn't even touch the ground - helmet made fcuk all difference. So I've made my decision not to wear a helmet from the perspective of someone who has had "offs." The day I start pootling around at 13mph all the time is the day I'll start wearing a helmet, until then I won't.

I've been commuting in London for a fair few years now - I don't worry about my safety and I don't find it frightening, at all. I'm sure that if I did I would wear a helmet, perhaps in the hope that it would make me feel safer. Rightly or wrongly, I don't think that a helmet is going to help in the event of a RTA, they're not designed to protect against collisions with other vehicles anyway, and not designed to protect at higher speeds. I'm happier without one. I can only go by my experiences and how I feel - there is no conclusive evidence that a helmet would (or would not) be of use to me, it certainly hasn't been in either of my 2 offs.

Not sure I have anything else to say on the subject.

wgwarburton

biondino wrote:

.... It's ridiculous to say cycling isn't dangerous, especially taking into account the vulnerability of the cyclist on the road....

No, it isn't.

Few people are killed cycling. Football, fishing, horse-riding, swimming and tennis are all more dangerous than cycling, and that doesn't take into account any adjustments you'd like to make for the percentage of KSI'd "cyclists" who were jumping red lights, riding on the pavement or otherwise generally acting more foolishly than you do.

Cheers,
W.

andy83

i wear a helmet because

1. makes me feel safer
2. if i had an accident and got hurt any claim may be reduced if not wearing one
3. makes people who care about me feel better im safer on bike so thats enough for me

everyone is their own person and as this thread shows people can argue til theyre blue in the face, but at the end of the day the workld would be boring if we all thought the same

Throlkim

WGWarburton wrote:

biondino wrote:

.... It's ridiculous to say cycling isn't dangerous, especially taking into account the vulnerability of the cyclist on the road....

No, it isn't.

Few people are killed cycling. Football, fishing, horse-riding, swimming and tennis are all more dangerous than cycling, and that doesn't take into account any adjustments you'd like to make for the percentage of KSI'd "cyclists" who were jumping red lights, riding on the pavement or otherwise generally acting more foolishly than you do.

Cheers,
W.

Tennis?

il_principe

WGWarburton wrote:

biondino wrote:

.... It's ridiculous to say cycling isn't dangerous, especially taking into account the vulnerability of the cyclist on the road....

No, it isn't.

Few people are killed cycling. Football, fishing, horse-riding, swimming and tennis are all more dangerous than cycling, and that doesn't take into account any adjustments you'd like to make for the percentage of KSI'd "cyclists" who were jumping red lights, riding on the pavement or otherwise generally acting more foolishly than you do.

Cheers,
W.

Well put. There does seem to be a general perception that cycling is dangerous, I'm seeing this with my missus at the moment - she's very keen to start riding to work but is worried it's dangerous.

I have no stats to hand but there is an excellent article in the Guardian's Bad Science Column about cycle safety:

http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/867/

As Ben Goldacre says:

Once again, there is nothing complicated here, and I will not be charging for courses, vitamin pills, or secret lifestyle programmes: eat fruit and veg, avoid excess alcohol and cigarettes, ride your bike to work, and ignore everything you see in the media.

biondino

1. makes me feel safer

And before anyone mentions risk compensation "it makes me feel safer" does not mean "I ride more recklessly". It could just as easily mean "I ride confidently, not scared" which we'd all agree is a good thing, and "I ride, rather than not ride", which is a no-brainer.

Buns - being on a road is dangerous. Driver, cyclist, pedestrian. Denying it is just bloodymindedness of the highest order!

biondino

I ride my bike. I choose to commute on it, and accept there will be risks. So I try and minimise those risks. Not sure you have an argument, guys.

FyPunK

Yes for two reasons, I am sure if there was a lowish speed hit to the head the risk of serious head injury would be reduced, and secondly after reading this article ( http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/c ... ists-20250 ) it is suggesting perhaps we could lose compo if not proctecting ourselves.

DonDaddyD

The Internet - allows everyone to express their opinions and refuse to accept that others think differently.

Sunday,

Jash rode his bike with deep rim wheels in gale force winds and decents so steep I didn't let go of the brakes and he didn't fall off. I think there was some 3000ft of climbing.

I rode up one hill going at 5mph, got cramp, fell off and hit the back of my helmet could have been my head.

Some do, some don't. Everyone has there reasons.

Can't we leave it at that?

Rich158

Aguila wrote:

s someone else put it even if it reduces the chances of a significant brain injury by 0.5% I'd pay £30 for that.

I agree totally, the consequences of even a slight brain injury can be so great that I'd pay for any chance to reduce them. However it is a matter of personal choice, how you perceive the risk and thereafter how you choose to deal with the risk. If I choose to wear a helmet because I perceive the benefits outweigh the risks then it doesn't make me a lesser cyclist or a fool, in the same way that deciding the risks are so minimal you don't need a helmet doesn't automatically mark you out as a serious or experienced cyclist and in some way superior.

Clever Pun

Throlkim wrote:

I'm not claiming that people are fools for not wearing helmets, I just don't understand the argument for not wearing them
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.

LARP'er eh? what if someone hits you with a foam sword or they get angry when you tell them they're dead but they're having none of it.. do you eah role 2D10 to see who wins?

I have nothing else to say

always_tyred

jashburnham wrote:

I've had 1 car crash and 2 bike crashes. Car crash gave me whiplash that has had long term effects on my neck (ironically because of the seatbelt! ). Bike crash 1 resulted in plastic surgery on my lip, helmet made fcuk all difference, second crash - my head didn't even touch the ground - helmet made fcuk all difference. So I've made my decision not to wear a helmet from the perspective of someone who has had "offs." The day I start pootling around at 13mph all the time is the day I'll start wearing a helmet, until then I won't.

I've been commuting in London for a fair few years now - I don't worry about my safety and I don't find it frightening, at all. I'm sure that if I did I would wear a helmet, perhaps in the hope that it would make me feel safer. Rightly or wrongly, I don't think that a helmet is going to help in the event of a RTA, they're not designed to protect against collisions with other vehicles anyway, and not designed to protect at higher speeds. I'm happier without one. I can only go by my experiences and how I feel - there is no conclusive evidence that a helmet would (or would not) be of use to me, it certainly hasn't been in either of my 2 offs.

Not sure I have anything else to say on the subject.

Jash, why do you persist in wearing a seat belt then? Is it just because of the law requiring you to do so?

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

Cycling is perceived to be more dangerous than it actually is; maybe that's why it's relatively safe?

But, but, but, I thought that perceptions of cycling as being dangerous reduced the numbers of cyclists, making cycling more dangerous. This is why wearing a helmet is selfish isn't it?
I don't understand the subtleties of these arguments. They must all be compatible somehow.

il_principe

Always Tyred wrote:

Jash, why do you persist in wearing a seat belt then? Is it just because of the law requiring you to do so?

I knew someone would make something of this! I wear a seatbelt because I have to by law and because there is pretty incontrovertible evidence that they work effectively.

salsajake

Yes for me, don't see why not. I'm not vain and my head doesn't boil (my helmet has vents in it, as most do) so its no hassle to wear one. I've split a helmet in a crash and my mate has completely smashed one into about 4 pieces. At best, I think I'd have been unconcious (I almost was even with a helmet on) and at best, well, my mate would probably be dead whatever.

Off road, I once forgot my helmet but I had a bit of a drive to get there, so I rode anyway. I rode like such a wuss that it was actually dull and very annoying. So I definitely ride 'full on' as a result of putting a helmet on off road, as for on-road, the risks are very different to off-road, so I don't think it makes any difference to how I ride. If I didn't wear a helmet, and I got knocked off (or hit some diesel like the bikeradar guy in the recent article) and smacked my head on the kerb and ended up paraplegic, would I be annoyed with myself - absolutely. Would my wife leave me in those circs for taking the gamble - I wouldn't blame her if she did.

Every 'proper' cyclist (decent bike, kit etc) I see on my commute (35 mile round trip) wears a lid, those that don't are the pootlers, jeans and trainers brigade, so if people are concerned about their cycling image, I would say better to wear one than not - its the helmet wearers I give a wave to and say hello/have a bit of banter, not the others.

steve-m

Greg66 wrote:

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.

Seatbelts are proven to be a help, they work same way as airbags and crumple zones, i.e, the bring you to a halt over a longer period of time reducing impact

(impact = change in momentum / time)

Exactly the thing helmets do not do as there is no travelling distance to slow you down - unless your helmet is several feet thick

salsajake

DonDaddyD wrote:

Let me get this out there I wear a helmet always! I no longer feel comfortable cycling without a helmet.

However, I organised a recent cycle ride and had two bike doctors prior to the start of the ride, both weren't wearing helmets and one told me that the average helmet only protects up to 12mph, a speed I nearly double cycling and especially if I'm commuter racing.

So I put it to the board, is the 'only protects the head from impacts of up to 12mph' valid?

Do you wear a helmet and if so or if not, why?

If you are doing 35 mph and fall off sideways, your head probably hits the ground at no more than 12mph laterally (because it is only falling about 4 feet as the wheels slide out from under you.

Bike speed is not really relevant, its how hard your head hits whatever it hits, and how hard the thing it hits is that is important.

If you rode head on into a low beam at 35 mph, that would be a different story, but that is completely unrealistic. If you head-butted a concrete pillar at 11mph you would smash your head in. If you slid into a kerb at 11mph without a helmet, you would smash your head in.

If people don't want to wear them, that is up to them, but to not wear one because they say it is no safer to wear one is utterly ridiculous.

Throlkim

Clever Pun wrote:

Throlkim wrote:

I'm not claiming that people are fools for not wearing helmets, I just don't understand the argument for not wearing them
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.

LARP'er eh? what if someone hits you with a foam sword or they get angry when you tell them they're dead but they're having none of it.. do you eah role 2D10 to see who wins?

I have nothing else to say

No no no! Proper re-enactor!
We do everything with steel weapons and we're manly and buff! I do both 14th and 17th Century.

On the helmet note; two of our guys were having a big knight fight. Shining armour, big weapons and all that. One of them took a big swing at the other's head, taking his helmet clean off (the buckle snapped). For a split second he thought he'd decapitated him.

I will, however, make no excuses about the fact that I am a huge nerd.

Rich158

jashburnham wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Jash, why do you persist in wearing a seat belt then? Is it just because of the law requiring you to do so?

I knew someone would make something of this! I wear a seatbelt because I have to by law and because there is pretty incontrovertible evidence that they work effectively.

I can remember the debates when they were making wearing seatbelts law. There were several lobby groups who were saying that not to wear them would be safer, ie if you were involved in an accident that involved fire, not having a seatbelt on would allow you to exit the vehicle quicker, and if the seatbelt got stuck you may well burn to death. However the evidence pointed to the fact that this was a minority of cases and that by making wearing them law, many more lives would be saved than put at risk. I can only assume that the evidence for wearing a cycle helmet is inconclusive as wearing one would surely be law by now if there was incontravertible evidence that they saved lives.

greg66_tri_v2.0

steve-m wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

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.

Seatbelts are proven to be a help, they work same way as airbags and crumple zones, i.e, the bring you to a halt over a longer period of time reducing impact

(impact = change in momentum / time)

Exactly the thing helmets do not do as there is no travelling distance to slow you down - unless your helmet is several feet thick

Well, that's a different point. The point in issue was that the danger comes not from the activity (driving/cycling), but from an event (crashing), and that the safety measure (seatbelt/helmet) is there to protect against the event, not the activity.

Anyhow.

Whether your point is a good one is a separate matter. I don't know how your seatbelts work, but mine work like this. In the event of a crash, they tighten in response to my inertia pushing me forward and therefore hold me in place. They bring to me a halt in a shorter time that would be the case if I were not wearing one. Without one, I'd keep moving forward and mash myself into the dashboard and windscreen, bringing me to a halt over a longer time than if I were not wearing a seatbelt.

Helmets work more like crumple zones, converting kinetic energy into deformation of a solid structure.

How the safety measure works mechanically isn't relevant to the point in issue though.

carlessbrit

sometimes in local neighborhood, park or greenway I leave helmet off, but when on roads seems obvious thing to do, wearing a helmet. But it took me a while to get used to helmet wearing, kinda felt a fool for a while with a helmet on!

Underscore

Aguila wrote:

Here is some simple physics for the morons who do not wear helmets:

[... yada yada ...]

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

[... more yada yada ...]

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.

OK, I tried to avoid piling back in but, being an eternal optimist, there comes a point where I can't help myself but try to correct someone's ignorance.

These threads always reduce to whether wearing a helmet should be compulsory - either in law or merely to avoid being called names, like in the above post. While I do wear a helmet, I will make a statement, justify it and welcome any considered responses.

Requiring people to wear cycle helmets would make cycling more dangerous

On what basis do I make such an assertion? Two studies: The first was a study of bike accident statistics from before and after cycle helmet use was made compulsory in Australia. The second is the study that shows that the more of the populous cycles, the safer cycling becomes.

The first study showed that making it compulsory to wear a helmet had no effect on the incidence of serious head injuries per km cycled (though there was a reduction in superficial head injuries); however, there was a reduction of about 30% (IIRC) in the total number of km cycled.

So, if making helmet use compulsory doesn't improve safety (as measured by KSIs) but reduces the amount of cycling, and reducing the amount of cycling reduces the safety of cycling, making helmet use compulsory would make cycling more dangerous. Discuss...

Personally, I'll take the reduction in superficial head injuries as a reason to wear one but, if you think that your £30 will "reduce the chances of a significant brain injury by 0.5%", the current evidence does not support your viewpoint.

_

Underscore

dupe

Underscore

another dupe

andy83

biondino wrote:

1. makes me feel safer

And before anyone mentions risk compensation "it makes me feel safer" does not mean "I ride more recklessly". It could just as easily mean "I ride confidently, not scared" which we'd all agree is a good thing, and "I ride, rather than not ride", which is a no-brainer.

Buns - being on a road is dangerous. Driver, cyclist, pedestrian. Denying it is just bloodymindedness of the highest order!

thats exactly what i meant, just one less thing to worry about with the endless amount of stupid inconsiderate drivers

the_hundredth_idiot

steve-m wrote:

Seatbelts are proven to be a help, they work same way as airbags and crumple zones, i.e, the bring you to a halt over a longer period of time reducing impact

(impact = change in momentum / time)

Exactly the thing helmets do not do as there is no travelling distance to slow you down - unless your helmet is several feet thick

I'm not sure that's true. Surely the helmet does mean that your head comes to a halt more slowly? Very simply, helmet hits ground/windscreen/back of car in front and the impact shatters the helmet but also absorbs some of the momentum of the impact. Once the helmet has shattered, the head continues on to hit the object but at a reduced momentum.

Even in a smaller bump where the helmet doesn't (visibly) break, the foam padding inside must surely slow down the speed at which the head inside comes to a halt.

Isn't it exactly the same idea as a crumple zone on a car, just on a much smaller scale?

dylthedog2

Yes its better than a brain injury!!

wgwarburton

biondino wrote:

1. makes me feel safer
Buns - being on a road is dangerous. Driver, cyclist, pedestrian. Denying it is just bloodymindedness of the highest order!

What are you basing that on? Do you feel at-risk? Is it just because there are cars & trucks around? Is it "common-sense"?

You have a perception of danger, that's clear.. but why...? Statistically, your exposure is pretty small (though you can obviously increase it by acting foolishly).

Is it just cycling that causes this, or do you find other activities make you feel the same way?

Cheers,
W.

jonginge

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

steve-m wrote:

Seatbelts are proven to be a help, they work same way as airbags and crumple zones, i.e, the bring you to a halt over a longer period of time reducing impact

(impact = change in momentum / time)

Exactly the thing helmets do not do as there is no travelling distance to slow you down - unless your helmet is several feet thick

I'm not sure that's true. Surely the helmet does mean that your head comes to a halt more slowly? Very simply, helmet hits ground/windscreen/back of car in front and the impact shatters the helmet but also absorbs some of the momentum of the impact. Once the helmet has shattered, the head continues on to hit the object but at a reduced momentum.

Even in a smaller bump where the helmet doesn't (visibly) break, the foam padding inside must surely slow down the speed at which the head inside comes to a halt.

Isn't it exactly the same idea as a crumple zone on a car, just on a much smaller scale?

Almost, but no. A helmet that shatters is one that has failed. Crack propagation is very fast and most of the impact will be passed onto the head. Helmets are designed to work by deforming, reducing impact (as defined above) as a result.