Helmet, Yes or No?

number9

boybiker wrote:

There has to be a reason why BC rules state that if you want to compete in a race then you wear a helmet which meets certain clearly defined specifications,there is no reason to think that they are there because they make racing more dangerous and the organizers like to see people getting hurt.

they've probably read the misleading, dishionest pro-helmet garbage quoted above.

wgwarburton

Hi,
cjw writes:

> Best summary I have seen so far that weighs up just about all of the evidence for and against is this;
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/re ... 26?page=13 From the Dft...

Interestingly, this is critiqued at cyclehelmets.org:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1067.html

(there are links to two seperate critiques from that page, including one from John Franklin, author of "Cyclecraft", for those who are skeptical of that site's independence).

Cheers,
W.

Brixtonbiker

buy the way, we dont seem to have heard from a real life person who has landed on there head and was not wearing a helmet?

Clever Pun

number9 wrote:

anti-helmet twisty brain brigade
I'm not anti helmet and my brain's fine thanks.

Attack the argument, not the man, please.

he's not having a go at you.... twisty brain brigade refers to the potential risks the anti helmet lot flout

*gets back on fence as he doesn't care*

number9

twisty brain brigade refers to the potential risks the anti helmet lot flout
I.

am.

not.

anti.

helmet.

Coriander

You're giving a damned good impression of being so.

biondino

number9 wrote:

The fact is that the benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers by at least twenty-to-one, and regular cyclists live longer.

Ooh I like this one. What units are we measuring twenty-to-one in?

Regarding Mr 3 inches - as our statistically minded opponents will surely confirm, a sample size of one means nothing, even if we did know whether he continued to ride as close to the kerb (which we don't, and as our honorable foes will concede, this invalidates the veracity of the test even if 10,000 people had been taking it)

I don't think one single person on either side of the debate is pushing for compulsory wearing of helmets for adults.

number9

What units are we measuring twenty-to-one in?


The risks of cycling versus the benefits- that's a BMA quote.

Clever Pun

Brixtonbiker wrote:

buy the way, we dont seem to have heard from a real life person who has landed on there head and was not wearing a helmet?

it's their head btw

I have got a bruise and everything

I was cycling home and a u turned right infront of me from a parked state on the left of the road I went straight over the bonnet and landed on me shoulder and head I got road rash on my shoulder through my tshirt and twatted my head on the tarmac and scratched my watch damnit. I was shaken up and had a lump on my head. My brompton wheel was buckled from the force of the impact

A helmet would have saved my li...oh

Coriander

biondino wrote:

I don't think one single person on either side of the debate is pushing for compulsory wearing of helmets for adults.

Exactly, so why do we keep having this quite vigorous, boringly repetitive and sometimes quite offensive debate about what is essentially a personal decision? I choose to wear a helmet. That should not be taken as a criticism, affront or denial of personal freedom to those who choose not to wear one. Nor does my wearing a helmet imply in anyway whatsoever that I think it everyone else should wear one or that wearing one should be compulsory.

And as to the argument that my wearing a helmet might deter others from cycling. Well, tough. I have obviously decided that my safety requires one. Other people will look at the environment and make their own decisions about their safety and if they conclude that they'd rather not cycle then so be it.

wgwarburton

Brixtonbiker writes:

> buy the way, we dont seem to have heard from a real life person who has landed on there head and was not wearing a helmet?

I take it you're discounting my reports of striking a wall (injured shoulder, bump on head) and car surfing (similar bump on head)?

Don't discount the possibility that those who don't wear helmets hit their heads less. That's certainly been my experience- as I stated earlier, you instinctively protect it in a fall. There's a lot of evolutionary pressure to protect the brain and spinal cord, so your body is naturally good at it.
What it may well be less good at is compensating for your head being several centimetres bigger than usual and ?5-10% heavier.

Here's a thought- go for a walk in the woods with your helmet on and see whether you hit your "head" more often on low branches. It's not evidence but...

Cheers,
W.

Clever Pun

number9 wrote:

twisty brain brigade refers to the potential risks the anti helmet lot flout
I.

am.

not.

anti.

helmet.

go back and read what I actually wrote

number9

Clever Pun wrote:

number9 wrote:

twisty brain brigade refers to the potential risks the anti helmet lot flout
I.

am.

not.

anti.

helmet.

go back and read what I actually wrote

Who are you referring to, exactly?

Clever Pun

number9 wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

number9 wrote:

twisty brain brigade refers to the potential risks the anti helmet lot flout
I.

am.

not.

anti.

helmet.

go back and read what I actually wrote

Who are you referring to, exactly?

My post immediately before yours

Clever Pun wrote:

number9 wrote:

anti-helmet twisty brain brigade
I'm not anti helmet and my brain's fine thanks.

Attack the argument, not the man, please.

he's not having a go at you.... twisty brain brigade refers to the potential risks the anti helmet lot flout

*gets back on fence as he doesn't care*

number9

How do you flout a risk?

No idea what you're on about.

wgwarburton

Coriander wrote:

> And as to the argument that my wearing a helmet might deter others from cycling. Well, tough. I have obviously decided that my safety requires one. Other people will look at the environment and make their own decisions about their safety and if they conclude that they'd rather not cycle then so be it.

Their decision not to cycle affects your safety. If, as I believe, it's based on a misconception then it's in your interests to counter it.

Cheers,
W.

Brixtonbiker

WGWarburton wrote:

Brixtonbiker writes:

> buy the way, we dont seem to have heard from a real life person who has landed on there head and was not wearing a helmet?

I take it you're discounting my reports of striking a wall (injured shoulder, bump on head) and car surfing (similar bump on head)?

Don't discount the possibility that those who don't wear helmets hit their heads less. That's certainly been my experience- as I stated earlier, you instinctively protect it in a fall. There's a lot of evolutionary pressure to protect the brain and spinal cord, so your body is naturally good at it.
What it may well be less good at is compensating for your head being several centimetres bigger than usual and ?5-10% heavier.

Here's a thought- go for a walk in the woods with your helmet on and see whether you hit your "head" more often on low branches. It's not evidence but...

Cheers,
W.

#

Thats just not logical. And you wouldnt get hit on the head from the branches with a helmet on you would hit the helmet!

number9

Their decision not to cycle affects your safety.

That's true actually - the more cyclists there are the safer the roads are.

biondino

In much the same way as voting makes a difference - we all know it does but one less vote isn't actually going to change anything. Because, unlike some people, Coriander doesn't have an increasingly raucous agenda she feels the need to shout at people who may feel otherwise.

wgwarburton

BrixtonBiker:

> Thats just not logical. And you wouldnt get hit on the head from the branches with a helmet on you would hit the helmet!

<whoosh>

..and at the end of the walk you can come back and point out how the helmet prevented serious head injuries from all those low branches...

Cheers,
W.

always_tyred

Especially given that a helmet sticks out so far.

Come in Number9, start addressing responses to your posts!!

1. How far was he from the kerb?
2. Why does his data NOT have bias resulting from the fact that he designed and conducted the study himself, on himself?

The other interesting thing you've not spotted is that he appears to be a relative novice, since he managed to have a couple of accidents in the short time of the study. Not that conducting experiments whilst cycling is in any way distracting. (for example, a man dressed in women's clothing might be somewhat distrating to said man, assuming this not to be his normal attire).

This is pub science, alright? Someone should write to him saying that they are so taken with his reaseach that they have stopped wearing a helmet and are telling their friends to do the same.

macondo01

You don't believe in a china teapot going around the sun because no one has disproved it isnt there.

Why on earth would wearing a helmet be bad thing? I can only think a) damage to the ego as in not 'cool' b) damage to the bank account or c) damage to the sensible way you used to cycle - as in I am invulnerable now with my cycle helmet it doesnt matter how I ride.

If we can overcome c) where's the real danger? Living longer and healthier?

Coriander

WGWarburton wrote:

Their decision not to cycle affects your safety.

Actually, I feel that the cyclists jumping red lights, riding on the pavements and generally riding like w**kers (like the one I had a row with this morning) do much more to compromise my safety than people who don't cycle.

always_tyred

Indeed.

Offensively rawkoussly yours,
AT

Offensively rawkously and repetitively yours,
AT

wgwarburton

coriander:
> Actually, I feel that the cyclists jumping red lights, riding on the pavements and generally riding like w**kers (like the one I had a row with this morning) do much more to compromise my safety than people who don't cycle.

No argument with that at all!

Cheers,
W.

Brixtonbiker

WGWarburton wrote:

coriander:
> Actually, I feel that the cyclists jumping red lights, riding on the pavements and generally riding like w**kers (like the one I had a row with this morning) do much more to compromise my safety than people who don't cycle.

No argument with that at all!

Cheers,
W.

Its sometimes safer to jump the lights.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... article.do

need copy and paste the link.

boybiker

Coriander wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

Their decision not to cycle affects your safety.

Actually, I feel that the cyclists jumping red lights, riding on the pavements and generally riding like w**kers (like the one I had a row with this morning) do much more to compromise my safety than people who don't cycle.

Plus the fact the the red light jumpers and pavement riders are very often the very same people who don't wear a helmet so what does that tell us about the way that they regard the safety of themselves or others?

biondino

Macondo01 wrote:

You don't believe in a china teapot going around the sun because no one has disproved it isnt there.

Why on earth would wearing a helmet be bad thing? I can only think a) damage to the ego as in not 'cool' b) damage to the bank account or c) damage to the sensible way you used to cycle - as in I am invulnerable now with my cycle helmet it doesnt matter how I ride.

If we can overcome c) where's the real danger? Living longer and healthier?

You forgot d) - are offended that their civil liberties are being infringed by the politically correct sheep-minded government and media. I'll wager any money that if Number9 is old enough, he was just as anti car seatbelts 20 years ago.

always_tyred

Oh for god's sake its not safer to jump a red light unless you are about to be run down by a bus with leaky air brakes. Thats as twisted as saying that you are safer by putting yourself at greater risk.

cjw

number9 wrote:

cjw wrote:

Best summary I have seen so far that weighs up just about all of the evidence for and against is this;

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/bicyclehelmetsreviewofeffect4726?page=13 From the Dft...

And in conclusion states;

Section 9: Conclusions
What relevance does the evidence reviewed have for bicycle helmet promotion in Britain?

Unwin (1996), when considering the context of the British legislative system, has put forward four criteria which must be met before bicycle helmet wearing is enforced. These criteria are:

(1) There must be a high level of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets are effective in reducing the rate of head injury to bicyclists.

(2) The benefits to society and others of mandatory bicycle helmets must be convincingly demonstrated, mandatory bicycle helmets cannot be justified simply to protect individual adult bicyclists.

(3) There must be widespread agreement, ideally by a large majority, that the potential benefits of compulsory bicycle helmets outweigh the infringement of personal liberty and other disbenefits.

(4) There must be good evidence to suggest that compulsory helmet wearing would not make the public health benefits of increased levels of bicycling significantly harder to obtain.

Unwin has also suggested that mandatory bicycle helmets for children may be justified for their own protection.

The first of these criteria has been met. There is now a considerable amount of scientific evidence that bicycle helmets have been found to be effective at reducing head, brain and upper facial injury in bicyclists. Such health gains are apparent for all ages, though particularly for child populations (Section 3). Criterion 2 is less easy to demonstrate and must relate to a broader debate about the whole bicycling environment: bicycle helmet promotion and legislation needs to be seen as one part of a broader package of measures which enhances bicycling safety. The experience of countries such as Australia and New Zealand suggests that this process takes time. Barriers to helmet use can be overcome (Criterion 3). An infrastructure which promotes bicycling and provision for bicycle helmet is needed (for example employers, schools providing facilities for bicycle helmet storage).

In relation to Criterion 4 there is some evidence that legislation may have resulted in decreased levels of bicycling (for example in Victoria, Australia) but there are confounding factors and no clear long-term trends. Attention needs to be paid to enhancing the bicycling environment generally rather than concentrating solely on the individual approach of wearing helmets.

The no helmet lobby constantly state there is no evidence... There is and it is listed in the report. Simply to keep stating there is none is bollocks. But off courese... the Dft is involved in a conspiracy :roll:

I've already covered Unwin's dishonesty and flawed research.

read, absorb, understand:


http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/De ... _Report_30

You read, absorb and understand.... That article is not a good critique of the report.

1. "RR30 concludes that criterion 1 is now met, but this conclusion is undermined by credible peer-reviewed evidence which suggests the exact opposite." The critique - as usual presents no evidence... merely re-asserts that evidence exists... it doesn't!

(IF EVIDENCE EXISTS PLEASE POST THE LINK)

2. "The key word is "rate:" evidence of numerical reduction in head injuries, where present, is generally accompanied by equal or greater reduction in cyclist numbers, thus the rate is not improved,and the overall situation is worsened." The author clearly has not the slightest comprehension of stastical analysis and confuses rates with absolute numbers.

3. "In fact the measured (not estimated) level of adult cycling declined by nearly 30%" The level of cycling is ALWAYS an ESTIMATE and not a MEASURE. Once again shows the author has no understanding. A measure of cycling would be for EVERY cyclist to register (eg by passing though a control point). In this way one can say there were x cyclists (and even then only at that point in time). The reason it is an estimate will be because it comes from samples (either through survey or observation) which are then extrpolated to represent an estimate (with error bars) for the population.

The critique is the usual rather poorly informed assertations.

Please note the above and make some attempt to understand the points :roll:

KEY POINT THOUGH - PLEASE POST LINKS TO EVIDENCE THAT HELMETS DON'T WORK OR DO HARM.