Helmet, Yes or No?

salsajake

where is the padlock?

meanredspider

EKE_38BPM wrote:

salsajake wrote:

Totally pointless discussing it on an internet forum because no-one will change their mind from anything they read.

This

I don't actually subscribe to that opinion. There are those with entrenched views - unlikely to change their actions - but the discussion is interesting (else these threads wouldn't be so popular) and I think the debate does sway some people. Or do we want the sort of thread that goes

Q. What thread is such and such?
A. M6

End

?

jds_1981

Last time I fell off my road bike my helmet didn't help me at all. Body armour might have been useful though. The time before that my helmet didn't help at all either.

Kieran_Burns

meanredspider wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

salsajake wrote:

Totally pointless discussing it on an internet forum because no-one will change their mind from anything they read.

This

I don't actually subscribe to that opinion. There are those with entrenched views - unlikely to change their actions - but the discussion is interesting (else these threads wouldn't be so popular) and I think the debate does sway some people. Or do we want the sort of thread that goes

Q. What thread is such and such?
A. M6

End

?

We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty

I demand that I may or may not be Kieran Burns

shouldbeinbed

Kieran_Burns wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

salsajake wrote:

Totally pointless discussing it on an internet forum because no-one will change their mind from anything they read.

This

I don't actually subscribe to that opinion. There are those with entrenched views - unlikely to change their actions - but the discussion is interesting (else these threads wouldn't be so popular) and I think the debate does sway some people. Or do we want the sort of thread that goes

Q. What thread is such and such?
A. M6

End

?

We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty

I demand that I may or may not be Kieran Burns

well with all the cycling I'm quite proud of my majikthise

cambs

Hmm, Easter time, resurrection, maybe AlwaysTyred has made a comeback?

Just who is joesmigger?

wgwarburton

EKE_38BPM wrote:

salsajake wrote:

Totally pointless discussing it on an internet forum because no-one will change their mind from anything they read.

This

Two points:

1) I've seen several posts from people who've stated that they wore a helmet because they assumed it was a good idea until they did some actual investigation and came to understand how ineffective they are.

2) Regardless of whether people choose to wear a helmet, I think it's very important to challenge any suggestion that cycling is dangerous enough for them to be necessary, since that discourages cycling (Bad Thing: more cyclists = safer roads).
For example: salsajakes comment:

everyone knows the risks, some people don't care

There's a clear implication that cycling is dangerous and that ignoring the implied risks is reckless. It isn't true and discourages cycling.

Cheers,
W.

shouldbeinbed

WGWarburton wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

salsajake wrote:

Totally pointless discussing it on an internet forum because no-one will change their mind from anything they read.

This

Two points:

1) I've seen several posts from people who've stated that they wore a helmet because they assumed it was a good idea until they did some actual investigation and came to understand how ineffective they are.

2) Regardless of whether people choose to wear a helmet, I think it's very important to challenge any suggestion that cycling is dangerous enough for them to be necessary, since that discourages cycling (Bad Thing: more cyclists = safer roads).
For example: salsajakes comment:

everyone knows the risks, some people don't care

There's a clear implication that cycling is dangerous and that ignoring the implied risks is reckless. It isn't true and discourages cycling.

Cheers,
W.

Tell the AA and their perjorative giveaways

meanredspider

WGWarburton wrote:

There's a clear implication that cycling is dangerous and that ignoring the implied risks is reckless. It isn't true and discourages cycling.
.

Except that there ARE risks and helmets do protect you in certain circumstances

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... highlight=

They aren't a universal panacea but the downsides are small.

And I simply don't agree that it discourages cycling. Mandatory helmet wearing might discourage some but I'd like to see the data that suggests the mere encouragement to wear helmets has any effect. I actually think that injury to individuals is what puts people off and helmets provide more protection than potential harm to the user - so potentially reinforce the perception that cycling is safe.

For every 10 anecdotal stories on here of people being protected by their helmet, I'd like to see just 1 of someone saying their helmet caused them harm, please.

shm_uk

I always wear a helmet and I've not been killed to death, so obviously it's totally saved my life and everything.

wgwarburton

meanredspider wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

There's a clear implication that cycling is dangerous and that ignoring the implied risks is reckless. It isn't true and discourages cycling.
.

Except that there ARE risks and helmets do protect you in certain circumstances...

I started to compose a reasoned and eloquent response to this post, tackling each of your points in turn and explaining the fallacies behind them. Then I realised that it would add credibility to your posting and make me look daft for taking it seriously!

Have a nice weekend.

Cheers,
W.

meanredspider

WGWarburton wrote:

I started to compose a reasoned and eloquent response to this post, tackling each of your points in turn and explaining the fallacies behind them. Then I realised that it would add credibility to your posting and make me look daft for taking it seriously!

.

Yeah - right :roll:

You have a good weekend too

Agent57

I haven't worn my helmet today. The sun is out, and that's how I roll, man.

shm_uk

I just realised I could bump my head really hard if I fell down my stairs.
Should I put a helmet on each morning before I come down for breakfast?

I believe helmets do offer protection in certain circumstances.
And there ARE risks associated with descending staircases.

(Would people stop using stairs if helmets were made compulsory?)

antikythera

Yawn; Do, Don't..... Meh!

nation

Cycling is one of those few activities where taking disproportionate precautions doesn't make you look like a bit of a prat. However the reason that this is the case is because people popularly believe that cycling is more dangerous than it is. They believe this, in part, because of the popularity of helmet wearing.

It's the ciiiiiiiiiiirrcle, the ciiircle of liiiiiifffe...

tailwindhome

A couple of of points regarding kids and helmets

I've insisted the kids wear helmets when on their bikes. Not because I believe they are at risk of serious injury but because they are at risk from minor injuries due to frequency of falling off etc etc. I'd prefer they wore a helmets to safeguard against these minor knocks.

This has howver led to 2 unintended consequences which are making me re-evaluate the situation.

Firstly the boy (6) doesn't take off the helmet when he gets off the bike to do other things like play football or use the swing set. I'm starting to think that the risk of strangulation, particulary on the swing set is higher than the risk of 'major' injury on the bike.

Secondly my wife now believes that our 2 year old twins need a helmet when playing on their ride on tractors.

That said the boy (6) crashed last night while racing in the street, he touched a wheel in the sprint. Road rash to knee and arm and a sore head. He now needs a new helmet.

Wallace1492

I was cycling through the woods just the other night,
Wearing my helmet with a big bright light,
It was dark and scarey and my heart did pound,
Till a branch caught the light and and I hit the ground,
It hurt like hell,
it made me yell.

So it goes to show sometimes down a lane,
wearing a helment can end in pain.

Agent57

My kids (12 and 8) don't wear helmets*, nor does my wife. I usually do on longer rides, but not on a trip to the shops.

* well, the 8-year-old does when he comes to the Go-Ride club I coach at, but that's due to club rules.

londonrunner

Went through a car windscreen last summer at somewhere between 20 and 24 mph (incidentally double that 12mph helmet safety thing). WAS wearing a helmet.


- Top of head was absolutely fine. Protected by helmet.
- Neck was absolutely fine (minus a bit of soreness for a couple of days), impact absorbed by helmet.

Absolutely certain id have a broken neck had I not worn a helmet, so for me it is always a yes.


P.S As a point of reference the unprotected parts of my face recived 31 stitches around my nose as well plastic surgery to restore my dashing good looks.

desweller

No no no NO NO NO!

Stop fekkin' talkin about fekkin' helmets!!! For feck's sake.

This is a non-thread. Buns, leave the helmet threads alone. You're like a child with a scab, you can't help picking at it.

And to everyone else. Please step away from the keyboard. I wish I had let Joe's post go unreplied.

I simply cannot afford the popcorn any more, it's playing havoc with my salt intake.

EKE_38BPM

Sweet popcorn?

Nik Cube

Popcorn is bad sit down with a nice glass of water and put your helmet on (in case you fall off your chair)

All this talk of helmet wearing has made me think of elbow/knee pads maybe a cycling box, after all in the last spill I had my bloody helmet did nothing to protect my elbow.

meanredspider

Why are the anti-helmet wearers so vociferous? As far as I can tell, it's no skin of your nose if other people (trying to keep the skin on their own noses) wear a helmet. I take various safety precautions (eye protection when drilling, axle stands when working under my car, heavy gloves & face protection when angle grinding) and no-one berates me for it. None of these are totally effective. And yet, in wearing a lid, which clearly provide some protection (see above) it causes people to get all hot under the collar. The vast majority of helmet wearers don't give a stuff about whether the unhelmeted do so or not - it's their watchout so why the big deal in the other direction? If you think the risks are low, so what? Me wearing a helmet doesn't slow you down or cost you anything so what's the motivation?

So we'll undoubtedly get to the argument about making cycling appear more dangerous than it is. Well here's some thoughts about that:

1. The genie is already out of the bottle. Live with it. Show me an activity - pretty much any activity - where safety precautions have diminished over the years. For each one you can think of, I'll be able to list 100 where they've become tighter.

2. Given that's the case, the availability and use of helmets is going to encourage people to ride not discourage it. People who'd overwise feel embarrassed or "uncool" at wearing the safety equipment will see it as the norm and feel comfortable doing so. Compulsion is a different argument - I'm not in favour - choice is important. Let's not confuse the compulsion data with helmet wearing by choice - they are very different.

So where's the issue? Unless you are arguing that helmets are, on balance, dangerous (good luck) what's your beef? I don't understand it.

Agent57

meanredspider wrote:

Why are the anti-helmet wearers so vociferous? As far as I can tell, it's no skin of your nose if other people (trying to keep the skin on their own noses) wear a helmet.

As far as I'm concerned, I voice the opinion that cycling isn't dangerous and helmets aren't a prerequisite because I'm worried about the prospect that helmets could be made compulsory, rather than personal choice, or that those who choose not to wear one could find injury or compensation claims reduced due to "contributory negligence", even if there's no evidence that wearing a helmet would have mitigated their injuries or damage in any way.

I'm also in the camp of people who think that calls for helmet wearing make cycling appear more dangerous than it really is, which in turn might put some people off getting on a bike, and for that reason, whenever I hear someone advocating helmet use, I like to offer the alternative view.

I don't claim there's no risk - that would be silly. There's always a risk that on a ride where I'm helmetless (I do often wear one), I might have an accident and hit my head. I just believe that overall that risk is very small, and it's one I'm prepared to accept; and I think the risks are exaggerated and over-estimated by people in the helmet debate.

meanredspider

Agent57 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Why are the anti-helmet wearers so vociferous? As far as I can tell, it's no skin of your nose if other people (trying to keep the skin on their own noses) wear a helmet.

As far as I'm concerned, I voice the opinion that cycling isn't dangerous and helmets aren't a prerequisite because I'm worried about the prospect that helmets could be made compulsory, rather than personal choice, or that those who choose not to wear one could find injury or compensation claims reduced due to "contributory negligence", even if there's no evidence that wearing a helmet would have mitigated their injuries or damage in any way.

I'm also in the camp of people who think that calls for helmet wearing make cycling appear more dangerous than it really is, which in turn might put some people off getting on a bike, and for that reason, whenever I hear someone advocating helmet use, I like to offer the alternative view.

I don't claim there's no risk - that would be silly. There's always a risk that on a ride where I'm helmetless (I do often wear one), I might have an accident and hit my head. I just believe that overall that risk is very small, and it's one I'm prepared to accept; and I think the risks are exaggerated and over-estimated by people in the helmet debate.

Thanks - good balanced view.

I do think, however, that it's too late to put the "cycling has some danger" genie back in the bottle. High-profile cases like James Cracknell have seen to that as well as mandatory helmet wearing on the Tour etc. Society gets less and less tolerant of risk so it's an inevitable state of affairs, I'm afraid.

Agent57

The Tour is a different matter, as far as I'm concerned. High-speed and bunch racing carries a higher risk of an incident. It's completely different from utility or recreational cycling, and I don't think the implication is reasonable. If it were, I'd expect everyday car drivers to wear crash helmets and fire suits, because that's what touring car and Formula 1 drivers do.

Cracknell's collision was one of those unlikely incidents, and it'd be wrong to overstate the probability of the same happening to you or I when we're out on our bikes. If we accept it made a difference, his wife said he wore an "Alpina bike helmet that sits lower on the back of the head. It took the blow far more effectively than a normal helmet" (source), so that story may not really transpose well to the normal cyclist's helmet in any case.

Besides, only the other day he himself was out on a bike without a lid:


(source).

(Although the story does say he went home to get it once he realised.)

Maybe over the course of time it is inevitable. I'll settle for helping delay it so it doesn't happen in my lifetime.

meanredspider

I'm not saying it's rational but these are the images and stories that are in the public's awareness - along with a load of people (the majority now?) wearing lids on a daily basis on the roads around Britain. Delaying tactics aside, it's inevitable that people will perceive that wearing a lid is the sensible thing to do (whether you believe it or not).

Putting the same energy as arguing against lids into promoting the health benefits of cycling (with or without a lid) would get us all a lot further than the King Canute approach. Agreeing on this and stopping squabbling about the pros and cons of lids would probably unite the cycling community more, ironically, in the anti-compulsion argument too.

Just IMO

Agent57

I don't argue against helmets instead of promoting cycling. I do them both. When I'm at the Go-Ride club I coach at, I promote helmet use (for sports cycling).

I often extol the virtues of cycling, for health, leisure, and utility. I cite, for example, the fact that I can cycle from home to the city centre in 10 minutes at 8:30am - a journey that would take a car user 30 minutes due to traffic. But when I get the response "it's too dangerous, I'd have to buy a helmet and wear special clothes," I say "No it isn't, and no you won't, unless you want to."

phillipjohnson

Good to see Cracknell riding a Brompton on the post above :-)

I have the same bag on the front of my Brompton and carry my helmet in it. If I'm going to the bus stop two streets away to catch the bus I wouldn't bother putting my helmet on and just leave it in the bag.

When I get off at the other end I normally cycle 7 miles so I always put it on at that end.

I generally try to wear a helmet unless I'm only going a few hundred meters.

Cracknell might be doing something similar on his journey?