Helmet, Yes or No?

wgwarburton

MonkeyMonster wrote:

.... I personally don't understand your viewpoint to not wear one ....

That's not really building your case, is it? It's a pretty straightforward point of view that's been presented many times by various people in different ways... that you still don't understand it does not portray you in a particularly good light.

Cheers,
W.

dhope

WGWarburton wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

...What I would like to see is some real evidence a helmet actually reduces risk of serious head injury in event of an accident. I would like to think that a helmet doesn’t increase risk, so it should be....

There is none.

Strange, don't you think... How could that be?

Cheers,
W.

Seems there are studies that suit every viewpoint, even just from glancing through Wikipedia. Exclude weather conditions, include traffic calming measures, exclude improvements in healthcare, include drink driving stats in the area...
73% of statistics are rubbish of course.

sketchley

Ok i'll make it easy.

Car right hooks a cyclist who is travelling at 12mph, cyclist goes over bonnet and lands on head on other side of car.

Helmet a good thing or bad thing in this circumstance?

CiB

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Thought you might popup but not in this manner. I'm replying to the ops original post. Why or not wear them. That somewhere in the middle of the 26 pages in between 1st page and last it morphed into a mandatory arguement then sorry I didn't read them all [thought we had the mandatory arguement in a different thread tbh]. Wasn't replying to that at all and I've stated before (I think) it should be the choice of the individual so back off (please). I'd have likely posted something to do with the mandatory arguement if I were to be commenting on it.
That you know of so few crash victims is fortunate, that I were you in this regard i'd be a happier person, one of brothers is still recovering from a broken arm after being knocked off couple of months back by a left turning smidsy winker.
There was more but I can't be arsed now. I personally don't understand your viewpoint to not wear one but I won't and can't demand you do nor would I vote to enforce that either.

Ok. Sorry for that - I reckon that was a bit over the mark what I said about hats so I withdraw it. You might not understand my desire not to bother with one; fair do's on that. FWIW I can't understand why so many people can't accept that if someone they've never met complies fully with the law but doesn't find it necessary to go the extra mile and balance a bit of TV packing on his bonce during an amble across countryside or a detour to Morrisons to buy a lottery ticket, that makes that person a waste of space and deserving of a pile of opprobrium just for seeing cycling as a pretty safe activity, as proven by my one bad off in 40 years or so. What's the worse that can happen if I get it wrong and bang my head on the kerb and conk out tonight? Someone on here might vaguely recgonise my initials & location and make the connection but that'd be it. I'd be like a million other nutters who post on a forum for a bit then disappear without trace. The only difference here is that stats might disappear next year when the bill's not paid for the hosting / DB package, but that'd be the extent of your losses here. I could live with (or without) that.

Would it be overly trite of me to point out that your brother's broken arm would probably not have been mitigated either way by the wearing of a helmet? It probably would, so I won't.

MonkeyMonster

WGWarburton wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

.... I personally don't understand your viewpoint to not wear one ....

That's not really building your case, is it? It's a pretty straightforward point of view that's been presented many times by various people in different ways... that you still don't understand it does not portray you in a particularly good light.

Cheers,
W.

Just because there are "official" stats that seemingly say there is no difference i'd have thought my personal annecdotal evidence alone would explain perfectly cleanly why I don't understand why he doesn't want to wear one. He has access to the same data as I have (probably more, having been around longer) yet has come to a totally different conclusion from myself - I can accept that but as said I don't understand why. My impression from previous posts shows he is not a stupid man and thus to me this diversion from my percievement of his normal way of thinking is confusing. I can only assume by your last sentence you are therefore implying I am a dumbass of sorts and that I need to re-evaluate my thoughts is very lovely of you and thanks. I shall go back into my cave and beat two sticks together again, perhaps i'll get lucky and make fire...

MonkeyMonster

CiB wrote:

Would it be overly trite of me to point out that your brother's broken arm would probably not have been mitigated either way by the wearing of a helmet? It probably would, so I won't.

CiB

MonkeyMonster wrote:

...i'd have thought my personal annecdotal evidence alone would explain perfectly cleanly why I don't understand why he doesn't want to wear one. He has access to the same data as I have (probably more, having been around longer) yet has come to a totally different conclusion from myself - I can accept that but as said I don't understand why.

Mainly because my anecdotal and personal evidence is that I don't need one. I do 20-odd miles to work across countryside; hardly any vehicles bother me on the various routes and as most accidents occur at junctions and I only have three quiet rural junctions to deal with, I don't see them as a problem. I also fall back on the aforementioned 40-odd years of being on bikes, rarely fall off and have no reason to think that I'll suddenly lose my ability to balance the thing. So a quiet set of roads to commute on, very few junctions, 40 years of not falling off leads me to the conclusion that whatever risk is there is pretty small and I can live with it thanks.

If I were charging around London, scalping DDDDD and all the others whilst RLJing, pansying along the pavements and not paying road tax I might take a different view. But here in Sticksville, I reckon it's pretty safe.

Off to play squash soon anyway. Let's hope I don't bang my head against the glass there, or crash & die on the way there in the car eh?

sketchley

hhhhhhmmmmmm

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1081.html

graham.

Been commuting into town and back in the rush hour for ooh, fifteen years now. In that time Iv'e never had an accident (caused a few! ) and never wore a helmet.
Then for no reason that I can determine, about two months ago, I started to feel vulnerable and bought a helmet.
Feels very odd without it now. A bit like when we were told we had to wear seat belts, would'nt dream of driving without one now.
But compulsory hemets? Hell no!
Graham.

MonkeyMonster

CiB wrote:

Off to play squash soon anyway.

make sure you wear safety specs now - wouldn't want a ball in yer socket...

sketchley

double hhhmmmmmmm

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html

More reading for me tomorrow......

Aguila

dhope wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

...What I would like to see is some real evidence a helmet actually reduces risk of serious head injury in event of an accident. I would like to think that a helmet doesn’t increase risk, so it should be....

There is none.

Strange, don't you think... How could that be?

Cheers,
W.

Seems there are studies that suit every viewpoint, even just from glancing through Wikipedia. Exclude weather conditions, include traffic calming measures, exclude improvements in healthcare, include drink driving stats in the area...
73% of statistics are rubbish of course.

The only way to get conclusive evidence either way would be to perform a randomised trial where people were crashed into things under identical conditions, or a range of identical conditions, whilst wearing a helmet or not. Compare the injuries in each group and there's your answer. This study will of course never happen so we are left with indirect evidence which unsurprisingly leads to different conclusions due to its inherant unreliability.

It may also interest you to know that there is no proper evidence that parachutes work:

http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459.abstract

This is a slightly tongue in cheek article but is making the serious point that for some questions there will never be definitive evidence and we will always be left with a degree of opinion/common sense to decide.

CiB

Aguila wrote:

The only way to get conclusive evidence either way would be to perform a randomised trial where people were crashed into things under identical conditions, or a range of identical conditions, whilst wearing a helmet or not.

No need. Your view of cycling is that helmets are a necessity as riders are always crashing into things, ergo helmets are a vital addition to prevent injuries that would otherwise occur. Same with the idea a bit further up, that we do a controlled test where you slam into a car and land on the kerb, and then announce whether that would have been nicer with or without a helmet. Point = missed.

Cycling isn't dangerous per se. Sure there are incidents and people get hurt, but not at a rate significantly higher than a load of other activities and for which there is no clamour to force those involved to wear safety equipment. Me trundling around the quiet back lanes of Bucks & Oxon doesn't warrant me wearing a helmet anymore than it warrants me carrying a gun in case a tiger leaps out of a hedge and tries to eat me. It probably ain't gonna happen, and taking steps to prevent it is overkill. If you live in area where a helmet or an elephant gun is justified, go ahead. Your choice. All we're asking is that because you believe that your situation warrants an additional level of safety, please don't assume that everybody is in a similar position and that protection must be a legal requirement. Easy, isn't it?

wgwarburton

Hi,
...and to add to CiB's point above... bear in mind that the issue is perception of risk, not risk itself. Cycling isn't dangerous, people just assume that it is. An assumption reinforced by over-reporting of incidents and the prevalence of helmets, hi-vis etc

In my view we, as regular cyclists, should be seeking to counter this, since there is strong evidence that more cyclists makes cycling safer.

Cheers,
W.

shm_uk

I find that simply owning a helmet grants eternal life, and actually wearing it gives many super powers

DonDaddyD

When I was riding in Wiltshire (which is the sticks to me) I fell off my bike. Landing on my back my head fell backwards and was protected from the cold unforgiving concrete by my helemt...

Just saying.

I also realised that in that position my helmet actually acts as a support to keep my neck straight.

Just saying.

Seeing that in an accident wearing a helmet may not do any more damage and may, in fact, reduce potential injury without being a hindrence, then I don't mind wearing one. As I see the potential benefits as outweighing the negatives as with my little off in Wiltshire.

Just saying.

AndyManc

I own 6 helmets.

The main reasons why I wear one ,

1. To hang lights and camera's on it.
2. During winter it keeps me warm and dry.
3. Unfortunately our pathetic judiciary believes that cyclists that don't wear helmets are negligent and deserve everything they get resulting in derisory compensation claims following an accident.


I don't believe they add significantly to safety and I certainly don't believe they should be compulsory.

Society should be tackling the problem at source, removing the dangers from our roads so it shouldn't be necessary to wear helmets and where all cyclists of all ages can cycle safely.



.

Wallace1492

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi,
...and to add to CiB's point above... bear in mind that the issue is perception of risk, not risk itself. Cycling isn't dangerous, people just assume that it is. An assumption reinforced by over-reporting of incidents and the prevalence of helmets, hi-vis etc

In my view we, as regular cyclists, should be seeking to counter this, since there is strong evidence that more cyclists makes cycling safer.

Cheers,
W.

^ This. Perfect. Cycling is normally safe. Cycling on roads is safe, it is the behavior of other vehicles, where they are reckless, thoughtless or downright illegal that gives the danger.

We do not/should not need to modify the cyclists behaviour to be safe, but rather alter the motorists behaviour to ensure a safe environment for cyclists. For me this includes helmet, visbility etc.

bigmat

There seem to be two anti-helmet arguments here:

1) Cycling isn't inherently dangerous so they aren't necessary. I can see that. I don't agree, but that's an individual choice. I have smashed a helmet up once and know several others who have done the same - none of whom have suffered head injuries. My view is that wearing a helmet helped, but I guess its a risk-benefit analysis for the individual;

2) "There is no evidence that helmets work". This is, frankly, boll***s. They work. They protect your head. Definitely not in all cases, but certainly in a lot of cases.

I'd oppose their use being mandatory, but I always wear one - life's too short and if I'm honest, if I'm going to have an accident chances are it'll be on my bike... :?

AndyManc

Helmets will provide some protection in some cases but they could also cause further complications.

More motorists would benefit from wearing helmets, so why don't they wear them.

Helmets give the illusion that cycling is an extreme sport that is dangerous, this is a negative perspective that will not promote cycling to society as a whole.

As I keep saying .............

REMOVE THE (perceived) RISK FACTOR AT SOURCE

Legislation and enforcement against motorists and design the infrastructure in favour of the cyclists and cycling.

(and in favour of pedestrians)


.

CRAIGO5000

Did anyone see that guy fall in the tour of California last night? His bike swung around 180 degrees leaving him to fall on his arse backwards. The resulting momentum effectively whip-lashed his upper body backwards and his head cracked the tarmac with a fair bit of force. I'll bet he was glad of wearing a helmet.

My limited opinion would suggest that it's probably safer to wear one than not.

I wear one because I ride in a busy city centre and on busy roads. Just saying like

millimole

I use the standard risk assessment approach. What are the risks, what is the likelihood of them happening, and what are the consequences if they do happen.
In 40+ years of cycling I've had 4 major 'off's, in one of them I hit my head - likelihood - very, very small. The consequences of hitting my head, in the type of 'off' I've had would at best have been 'moderate' in my judgement - but even if we move that up to 'major' - so even "very very small" likelihood (1) multiplied by consequence (4) still gives a very low risk score (1x4=4).
The biggest risk score comes from the risk of mandatory helmet wearing as a result of increasing helmet wearing. (likelihood = 3, consequence = 4 3x4=12 in my judgement).
I do own one, I have worn it a few times.
My own risk assessment says I don't need to because cycling per-se is not dangerous.
And, I don't want to - which is probably the bottom line!

bails87

CRAIGO5000 wrote:

My limited opinion would suggest that it's probably safer to wear one than not.

In the same way that it's safer to wear full firefighters protective kit whenever you go near your oven....

bigmat

AndyManc wrote:

Helmets will provide some protection in some cases but they could also cause further complications.

More motorists would benefit from wearing helmets, so why don't they wear them.

Helmets give the illusion that cycling is an extreme sport that is dangerous, this is a negative perspective that will not promote cycling to society as a whole.

As I keep saying .............

REMOVE THE (perceived) RISK FACTOR AT SOURCE

Legislation and enforcement against motorists and design the infrastructure in favour of the cyclists and cycling.

(and in favour of pedestrians)


.

So you're saying that I should not wear a piece of protective equipment, to remove the illusion that cycling is dangerous?! You'll be suggesting that I do high speed descents wearing nothing more than lycra shorts and a t-shirt next. Oh... :oops:

notsoblue

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi,
...and to add to CiB's point above... bear in mind that the issue is perception of risk, not risk itself. Cycling isn't dangerous, people just assume that it is. An assumption reinforced by over-reporting of incidents and the prevalence of helmets, hi-vis etc

In my view we, as regular cyclists, should be seeking to counter this, since there is strong evidence that more cyclists makes cycling safer.

Cheers,
W.

Absolutely, its the perception of risk. I have a friend who has has skied most of her life, and will fling herself off of black runs, and through some crazy rocky off piste. She has never worn a helmet while doing this. Yet she wouldn't get on a boris bike for a pootle round Mayfair without wearing a helmet because cycling is dangerous...

AndyManc

BigMat wrote:

So you're saying that I should not wear a piece of protective equipment, to remove the illusion that cycling is dangerous?! You'll be suggesting that I do high speed descents wearing nothing more than lycra shorts and a t-shirt next. Oh... :oops:

No, you're just paraphrasing to suit your own needs .

That out of context quote you submitted was an overall view on a wider scale.


.

jonny_trousers

AndyManc wrote:

Helmets will provide some protection in some cases but they could also cause further complications.

Really?

mil0oz

Depends. I ride BMX, MTB D/H and road.

I always wear a pisspot helmet on my BMX. Because of the nature of what I am doing on it, I spend A LOT of time coming off it.

I wouldn't dream of riding D/H without my full face. High speeds, high risk of falling, lots of rocks/trees/tree stumps.

I rarely wear a helmet on the road. I mostly commute; the likelihood of me falling by my own devices I'd estimate at 1:1bn. I am far more likely to be hit by one of the knobheads steaming along at 80 on the A road. It will take a bit more than a 1/2" of polystyrene to save me from a tonne of metal moving at greater than a mile a minute.

Again, risk management.

dugliss

It`s just personal choice, I choose to and many others choose not to, doesn`t make any of us right or wrong

bigmat

AndyManc wrote:

BigMat wrote:

So you're saying that I should not wear a piece of protective equipment, to remove the illusion that cycling is dangerous?! You'll be suggesting that I do high speed descents wearing nothing more than lycra shorts and a t-shirt next. Oh... :oops:

No, you're just paraphrasing to suit your own needs .

That out of context quote you submitted was an overall view on a wider scale.


.

Fortunately for you, my needs were just a bit of a joke!