Helmet, Yes or No?

salsajake

WGWarburton wrote:

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.

Cycling is dangerous - I ride defensively but have still had people overtake me and turn left immediately forcing me to turn, and on occasion to hit them. That is not a safe situation. I have had buses pull into the kerb at bus stops whilst I am still alongside them. That is not safe. I have had a car pull out from a cross road and have ridden straight into him. That is not safe. Statistics are irrelevant, its the real world that counts and the real world of cycling on urban roads is that it is not safe.

wgwarburton

salsajake wrote:

Cycling is dangerous - I ride defensively but have still had people overtake me and turn left immediately forcing me to turn, and on occasion to hit them. That is not a safe situation. I have had buses pull into the kerb at bus stops whilst I am still alongside them. That is not safe. I have had a car pull out from a cross road and have ridden straight into him. That is not safe. Statistics are irrelevant, its the real world that counts and the real world of cycling on urban roads is that it is not safe.

*sigh*

You are missing the point. Deliberately?

Being hit by a car is something to avoid. The outcome of an accident is potentially serious and a few people (Couple of hundred? Less? Out of a population of millions) die every year as a result.

If this counts as "dangerous", then cycling could be said to be "dangerous". In my book that's a pretty strange definition of the word, but if you insist on using it that way then I won't get into a semantic discussion.

In the real world of cycling on urban roads, cycling can be considered "safe" if lots of people do it often and few of them get hurt. That seems to be a pretty fair description of the situation we share, so I would categorise it as a "safe" activity.

Interestingly, whether or not you wear a helmet seems to make little difference to this outcome, for whatever reason.

Cheers,
W.

Clever Pun

salsajake wrote:

Cycling is dangerous - I ride defensively but have still had people overtake me and turn left immediately forcing me to turn, and on occasion to hit them. That is not a safe situation. I have had buses pull into the kerb at bus stops whilst I am still alongside them. That is not safe. I have had a car pull out from a cross road and have ridden straight into him. That is not safe. Statistics are irrelevant, its the real world that counts and the real world of cycling on urban roads is that it is not safe.

that's a fair list has that happened in a week or over a year?

how far have you traveled to accumulate such misfortune??

il_principe

Clever Pun wrote:

salsajake wrote:

Cycling is dangerous - I ride defensively but have still had people overtake me and turn left immediately forcing me to turn, and on occasion to hit them. That is not a safe situation. I have had buses pull into the kerb at bus stops whilst I am still alongside them. That is not safe. I have had a car pull out from a cross road and have ridden straight into him. That is not safe. Statistics are irrelevant, its the real world that counts and the real world of cycling on urban roads is that it is not safe.

that's a fair list has that happened in a week or over a year?

how far have you traveled to accumulate such misfortune??

Mr Salsa needs to stop borrowing Harry's invisibility cape!

Statistics are irrelevant, its the real world that counts and the real world of cycling on urban roads is that it is not safe.

Erm, no they're not. Anyway, in your "real world" cycling is clearly dangerous, in my "real world" it isn't! You wear a helmet and have lots of accidents, I don't wear one and have had only 2, in 5/6 years or so.

biondino

WGWarburton wrote:

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"?

If I had time, and was some kind of autistic savant, I would round up all the threads in this forum that mention bad drivers. bad weather, bad roads, bad pedestrian, and good old fashioned bad riding, and compile them as one enormous mass of (anecdotal, but substantial) evidence for why riding on roads is dangerous. I credit you with rather more intelligence than the average fingers-in-ears Daily-Mail-reading naysayer, so I'll assume I don't have to do this.

In order to ride on the road, you need a) to know what you're doing and b) to hope that other people know what they're doing. In the best of all scenarios you can only control a). As long as b) continues to be unpredictable and perhaps deadly, I will consider the roads dangerous.

salsajake

It wasn't a deliberate missing of the point, I think it is more that I don't accept the point.

I don't care about statistics or about what happens to others, my helmet is to protect MY head, and from MY experiences, the chances of me taking a knock to the head on-road or off-road are worth the ten seconds or so it takes to lift it and clip it to my head.

That then leads to the question of will the helmet help in the event of a knock to the head. Again, ignoring science and statistics, If someone was going to kick me in the head and offered me to wear a helmet or not, I think I would take the helmet thank you, whatever the science might say. If someone said I'm going to smack you in the forehead with this baseball bat, would you like me to wrap 3cm of high density foam around it first, I would say yes every time.

If you have never felt vulnerable on your roads, I want to commute there, but it seems a little irresponsible to suggest that helmets aren't necessary because the roads are statistically 'safe'. As the bike radar article (he's crashed, he's crashed, he's crashed) says, here you have what must be an experienced guy coming off on diesel and mashing his face up and putting a split in his helmet. These kind of things must be happening daily. I came off on the ice twice this winter, and as a result have stopped riding if there is a frost (probably a no-brainer anyway, but I was being stubborn!) but it could just as easily have been diesel on a wet downhill roundabout approach.

It is an interesting debate, for example, I don't wear body armour, even off road, but there is something about protecting your noggin that is fundamentally more important than say risking a broken arm or wrist.

Its a personal choice, so should be made on personal reasons, looking at broader, conceptual/.theoretical/statistical approaches shouldn't make your mind up for you. I can imagine how horrible it would be if something bad happened and the opinion was that the outcome could have been better if a helmet was worn.

Incidentally, speaking of impact risk, are there any lenses out there (maybe laminated or something) that can resist stone chips being kicked up?

salsajake

Clever Pun wrote:

salsajake wrote:

Cycling is dangerous - I ride defensively but have still had people overtake me and turn left immediately forcing me to turn, and on occasion to hit them. That is not a safe situation. I have had buses pull into the kerb at bus stops whilst I am still alongside them. That is not safe. I have had a car pull out from a cross road and have ridden straight into him. That is not safe. Statistics are irrelevant, its the real world that counts and the real world of cycling on urban roads is that it is not safe.

that's a fair list has that happened in a week or over a year?

how far have you traveled to accumulate such misfortune??

Ha! If that was a week I would have hung up my helmet and bike by now! I

My 'cloak' is a fluoro Pearl Izumi gilet - far from invisible!

ts in about 15 months since I have been commuting, probably 5,000 to 6,000 miles. Its only a cross-section of what happens to me though! Lots of 'nearly' things don't happen because I pre-empt them, like never riding alongside the guy who is at the front of the lights when there is a left turn (no signal), watching people approaching junctions quickly to see if they are looking at me or beyond me for the next car and so on. The guy who drove out in front of me when I hit him said "you could see I was pulling out, the van behind you was flashing me out". With morons like that, I can't accept that what I do is safe and I wouldn't argue that it was.

biondino

These threads always reduce to whether wearing a helmet should be compulsory

What an odd thing to say! I may disagree with my worthy adversaries but the one thing EVERYONE agrees with is that for adults, helmets should NOT be compulsory.

il_principe

biondino wrote:

These threads always reduce to whether wearing a helmet should be compulsory

What an odd thing to say! I may disagree with my worthy adversaries but the one thing EVERYONE agrees with is that for adults, helmets should NOT be compulsory.

+1

DonDaddyD

I'll be honest with you all...

Yes, I accepted the whole safety jargon surrounding helmets and why I should wear one. BUT those safety concerns were met within the first £45, I spent an additional £30-40 on my helmet, a Specialized Propero, because:

(i) It's red and matches the colour of my bike

(ii) I figured the shape looked cool and thus on my head would make me look cool.

To all you helmet wearers, did you have any fashion, image concious reasons when buying your helmet or did you base you purchase on which offers the most protect for your money?

I'd argue that like sunglasses helmets are mostly fashion items with some additional practicality.

The safety and protection needs are easily met within the first £45 of its costs (i.e. you can get the same level of safety and protection from a similar product costing less or the amount I stated) the rest is design, brand name and image.

I know i started this thread but to the helmet wearers stop preaching. Practicality and safety was thrown out the moment you spent over £45 on your helmet.

Clever Pun

salsajake wrote:

<snip>Again, ignoring science and statistics<\snip>

out of context and no real point other than...

I read this and it just screamed "Creationist" at me

Edit: My helmet matches my colour scheme shall we say, plus I spend about £100 on one as if you're going to wear a helmet get a good one, spending £30 to save your bonce is false economy surely given the pro arguments in this thread akin to motorcycle helmets.

wgwarburton

Clever Pun wrote:

salsajake wrote:

<snip>Again, ignoring science and statistics<\snip>

out of context and no real point other than...

I read this and it just screamed "Creationist" at me

Yeah.. it doesn't seem like a good basis for a sensible discussion, does it?

Cheers,
W.

DonDaddyD

Clever Pun wrote:

Edit: My helmet matches my colour scheme shall we say, plus I spend about £100 on one as if you're going to wear a helmet get a good one, spending £30 to save your bonce is false economy surely given the pro arguments in this thread akin to motorcycle helmets.

It's not false economy. The pro arguments cannot dispute that £45 can buy you a helmet that has passed all (or most of) standard safety testings (hence there 12mph argument) and thus has been certified as such. So why not stop there?

Too my understanding with cycling helmets there is only a correlation between cost and safety up to a certain price point. This price point is where production costs (with profit) in regards to helmet safety requirements are met. £30 - £45

Beyond that price point weight and aerodynamics take precedent when manufacturing a helmet. Safety has little to do with that. Most commuters don't ride fast enough for a slightly lighter, wind tunnel tested helmet to make a difference. Nor does the additional use of carbon fibre add anything to safety. So purchasing such a helmet is, ironically, false economy because it's most likely the person won't benefit from the technology poured into said helmets development.

All I'm saying is that if safety was the biggest issue we'd all be wearing bucket lids or the best £30 helmets. Same as sunglasses. UV protection and antifog/glare glasses can be found at £20 - £50 yet many will wear glasses costing in excess of £100.

Fashion items, the both of them.

salsajake

I disagree with the last warburton post, and I don't know what a 'creationist' is, so not sure what the point was there.

Not when we are talking about PERSONAL choices as to why we do/don't wear helmets, I think it is eminently sensible.

The basis for what I do is MY experiences. I don't care if the chances of me having an accident are said BY 'THEM' to be 0.000067%. That means very little to me as some numpty ploughs out of a junction and I sail over his bonnet gazing down at the approaching tarmac.

Besides, if you look at what I was saying, it was ignoring science in the context of putting it to one side and seeing if you would rather be hit in the head with a baseball bat with foam on it or not, or if you were going to be hit in the head, would you rather wear a helmet first. Surely you don't reject those arguments?

Rich158

If it was purely a safety driven issue I would have stopped at £25. However weight, cooling, colour, shape etc all played their part and I ended up paying more than three times that. Not for any discernible improvements in safety but mainly due to being a tart, and believing the marketing hype :shock:

In fact all my bike purchases are driven by my own internal tart meter, and none more so than something so conspicuous as the helmet.

alfablue

salsajake wrote:

Besides, if you look at what I was saying, it was ignoring science in the context of putting it to one side and seeing if you would rather be hit in the head with a baseball bat with foam on it or not, or if you were going to be hit in the head, would you rather wear a helmet first. Surely you don't reject those arguments?

I think their arguments might be (apologies if misunderstanding) that 1) you are more likely to be hit on the head if the baseball bat has foam on it, and 2) if baseball bats had to have foam on them, fewer people would take up baseball, thus making baseball more dangerous.

DonDaddyD

salsajake wrote:

I disagree with the last warburton post, and I don't know what a 'creationist' is, so not sure what the point was there.

Not when we are talking about PERSONAL choices as to why we do/don't wear helmets, I think it is eminently sensible.

The basis for what I do is MY experiences. I don't care if the chances of me having an accident are said BY 'THEM' to be 0.000067%. That means very little to me as some numpty ploughs out of a junction and I sail over his bonnet gazing down at the approaching tarmac.

Besides, if you look at what I was saying, it was ignoring science in the context of putting it to one side and seeing if you would rather be hit in the head with a baseball bat with foam on it or not, or if you were going to be hit in the head, would you rather wear a helmet first. Surely you don't reject those arguments?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but as you said your reasons for wearing a helmet are YOUR reasons, your rationale born out of your experiences. Subjective to yourself and so your theories/questions and answers (foam bat or baseball bat) cannot be applied to anyone else. They are abstract points relating and subjective to your own personal preference.

Incidentally what helmet do you have? How much did it cost if you don't mind me asking?

salsajake

I may have missed some subleties in arguments - but my view is:

helmets should not be compulsory

I will always wear one based on my own experience and perception of risk

I won't be swayed by anyone else's statistics or perceptions.

I don't think I am more likely to crash because I wear one.

I paid about £70 because I trust the brand (Giro), it fits securely and easily, breathes well, is lighter than a £30 one, but, principally, because it has flames on it.

Mithras

Bloody useless things helmets. Went over the bars at about 15-20 mph the other day. Didn't stop me breaking my ribs.....bloody useless things. And I have had to replace it due to the large dent/crack on the outside of it! Waste of sodding time if you ask me.

alfablue

Mithras wrote:

Bloody useless things helmets. Went over the bars at about 15-20 mph the other day. Didn't stop me breaking my ribs.....bloody useless things. And I have had to replace it due to the large dent/crack on the outside of it! Waste of sodding time if you ask me.

See! If you didn't wear one you would have saved the replacement cost (albeit probably half price). You'll learn

salsajake

DonDaddyD wrote:

salsajake wrote:

I disagree with the last warburton post, and I don't know what a 'creationist' is, so not sure what the point was there.

Not when we are talking about PERSONAL choices as to why we do/don't wear helmets, I think it is eminently sensible.

The basis for what I do is MY experiences. I don't care if the chances of me having an accident are said BY 'THEM' to be 0.000067%. That means very little to me as some numpty ploughs out of a junction and I sail over his bonnet gazing down at the approaching tarmac.

Besides, if you look at what I was saying, it was ignoring science in the context of putting it to one side and seeing if you would rather be hit in the head with a baseball bat with foam on it or not, or if you were going to be hit in the head, would you rather wear a helmet first. Surely you don't reject those arguments?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but as you said your reasons for wearing a helmet are YOUR reasons, your rationale born out of your experiences. Subjective to yourself and so your theories/questions and answers (foam bat or baseball bat) cannot be applied to anyone else. They are abstract points relating to your own personal preference.

Incidentally what helmet do you have?

My Qs & As are surely applicable to anyone? If someone agrees with science and that the helmet offers no head protection and there is no proof and then someone else says to them "I am going to hit you over the head with a baseball bat (Jackass style). Would you like to wear a helmet or not?" I think the person who says that there is no evidence that the helmet will help them would still choose to wear the helmet, the question is out there to see if anyone disagrees!

always_tyred

biondino wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

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"?

If I had time, and was some kind of autistic savant, I would round up all the threads in this forum that mention bad drivers. bad weather, bad roads, bad pedestrian, and good old fashioned bad riding, and compile them as one enormous mass of (anecdotal, but substantial) evidence for why riding on roads is dangerous. I credit you with rather more intelligence than the average fingers-in-ears Daily-Mail-reading naysayer, so I'll assume I don't have to do this.

In order to ride on the road, you need a) to know what you're doing and b) to hope that other people know what they're doing. In the best of all scenarios you can only control a). As long as b) continues to be unpredictable and perhaps deadly, I will consider the roads dangerous.

Isn't the point that the statistics indicate how many of these actually turn into accidents? I don't agree with WG necessarily, but I'd like to see the point made and discussed. Of all of the threads meantioning such incidents, how many document accidents and what proportion of cycling trips made by posters on the forum does this represent? I do appreciate that actual risks are not, in fact, that much different from other activities (a few multiples, rather than an order of magnitude). Which is reassuring, but the twice as high risk, or five times as high risk, or whatever it is, is enough for me personally to decide to wear a helmet for this activity and not for the others (such as walking down the street).

(I was going to draw analogy to my risk of falling and fatally humiliating myself whilst skiing, but on the basis of recent experience, I calculated that this risk was actually quite severe).

DonDaddyD

I'm also not buying this £30 helmet is heavier than a £70 helmet. Yes they are but if my neck was so weak that it could tell the difference between a £30 helmet and a £70 one, I'd have to permanently wear a neck brace.

I do accept the point that more expensive helmets breath better. But if safety was the absolute issue when buying a helmet, breathability/vents wouldn't be a huge factor (motorcycle helmet).

If bicycle helmets were primarily about safety then the pricing would be representative of this. It isn't.

robmanic1

I'm pretty sure I was saved by mine when ploughing head first into a tree a while back, so.......

I bought another one after the previous one was trashed (replacement policy type-thing), spent a bit more (£70) and bought a nice snakeskin design jobby. BUT I only wear it when riding in a group and hardly ever when riding on my own, not sure of my point in this but interested what it says about me. I do think I'm a bit of a fatalist though, if your number's up and all that...

Are helmets likely to save you from serious head injuries? On balance I think you'd be a fool not to say yes.
Will I wear one at all times? No, see above.

wgwarburton

biondino wrote:

As long as b) continues to be unpredictable and perhaps deadly, I will consider the roads dangerous.

I refer you to my post above, replying to salsajake.

I had a quick look at a dictionary. Dangerous means "..could harm you". By that reckoning, cycling is indeed dangerous, though I have to say I don't feel it's a very useful definition!

the same dictionary says safe can be defined as "not likely to cause harm".

It would appear that cycling is both safe and dangerous, since it can harm you but isn't likely to do so.

So everybody is right!

Cheers,
W.

DonDaddyD

salsajake wrote:

My Qs & As are surely applicable to anyone? If someone agrees with science and that the helmet offers no head protection and there is no proof and then someone else says to them "I am going to hit you over the head with a baseball bat (Jackass style). Would you like to wear a helmet or not?" I think the person who says that there is no evidence that the helmet will help them would still choose to wear the helmet, the question is out there to see if anyone disagrees!

Your baseball example is not applicable to cyclists or cycling though. (for one I can conciously angle my head to reduce/direct the impact of the oncoming baseball bat.

If you are asking would you prefer to crash wearing a helmet or not wearing a helmet then that is applicable.

In that instance, even I'd have to ask 'what kind of accident?'

salsajake

true on the weight thing, its going to be marginal, but then in a world where you can spend £150 on a carbon fibre bottle holder...

Maybe we need a Steve-O NCAP safety rating for helmets - see how hard you have to hit him before it knocks him out with different models and award them accordingly!

Joking aside, thats the only way people could buy based on safety, with some kind of meaningful rating. Until then, those of us who want helmets will look at what is available, in my case see one with flames (Giro Animas) and that will be that!

always_tyred

salsajake wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

salsajake wrote:

I disagree with the last warburton post, and I don't know what a 'creationist' is, so not sure what the point was there.

Not when we are talking about PERSONAL choices as to why we do/don't wear helmets, I think it is eminently sensible.

The basis for what I do is MY experiences. I don't care if the chances of me having an accident are said BY 'THEM' to be 0.000067%. That means very little to me as some numpty ploughs out of a junction and I sail over his bonnet gazing down at the approaching tarmac.

Besides, if you look at what I was saying, it was ignoring science in the context of putting it to one side and seeing if you would rather be hit in the head with a baseball bat with foam on it or not, or if you were going to be hit in the head, would you rather wear a helmet first. Surely you don't reject those arguments?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but as you said your reasons for wearing a helmet are YOUR reasons, your rationale born out of your experiences. Subjective to yourself and so your theories/questions and answers (foam bat or baseball bat) cannot be applied to anyone else. They are abstract points relating to your own personal preference.

Incidentally what helmet do you have?

My Qs & As are surely applicable to anyone? If someone agrees with science and that the helmet offers no head protection and there is no proof and then someone else says to them "I am going to hit you over the head with a baseball bat (Jackass style). Would you like to wear a helmet or not?" I think the person who says that there is no evidence that the helmet will help them would still choose to wear the helmet, the question is out there to see if anyone disagrees!

This is rather like saying, look, if you ram a head shaped anvil weighing roughly 4kg into a variety of surfaces with and without an encompassing deformable foam structure, at, say 12 mph, in which events would the anvil be subjected to the highest peak forces?

That's objective and quantitative, unless your head isn't head shaped, in which case your personal experience may differ.

What a rediculous scenario.

salsajake

DonDaddyD wrote:

salsajake wrote:

In that instance, even I'd have to ask 'what kind of accident?'

OK, I'll take the bait! Assuming from your answer that it depends on the type of accident, so in some cases you would rather wear a helmet, and in others not, can I just ask what type of accident would you prefer NOT to wear a helmet in?

I agree that everyone is right, provided that they have thought it through and the decision they arrive at is right for them, but I don't agree that relying purely on statistics to decide whether or not to wear a helmet is a sensible course of action.

Good debate guys, but I'm off to don my helmet and brave the traffic...

DonDaddyD

salsajake wrote:

Joking aside, thats the only way people could buy based on safety, with some kind of meaningful rating. Until then, those of us who want helmets will look at what is available, in my case see one with flames (Giro Animas) and that will be that!

But that is my point, safety is almost a secondary issue when buying a helmet. You know its going to protect to a point but it doesn't justify spending over £45 which most of us do...