Helmet or no helmet?

boybiker

singlespeedexplosif wrote:

Why is there even a debate on this?

because some people have the sort of attitude you've just displayed..

Eh?
I am all for free will but but it does seem odd that people make such a song and dance about wearing a helmet and will quite happily drive a car wearing a seat belt.

gkerr4

boybiker wrote:

singlespeedexplosif wrote:

Why is there even a debate on this?

because some people have the sort of attitude you've just displayed..

Eh?
I am all for free will but but it does seem odd that people make such a song and dance about wearing a helmet and will quite happily drive a car wearing a seat belt.

it's a bit different - seat belt is a legal requirement

(- although if I am honest i still often don't bother.)

ConsciousPilot

Interesting debate. I tend to wear a helmet all the time on the bike and would feel somewhat ambivalent towards compulsion. Seat belt wearing in cars and helmet wearing for motorcyclists was enforced due to statistical evidence that doing so reduced the number of deaths in the event of an accident. I guess at present, there is no similar evidence relating to cyclists.

I find the idea that car drivers give cyclists less room because they wear a helmet (and other cycling gear) somewhat sceptical. I find most cars will give sufficient room unless they see oncoming traffic, in which case they will try to squeeze past you if you are not in the recommended road position.

Cunobelin

rally200 wrote:

If they want to. I don't think anyone should be compelled. but we might as well as

1. we all love spending cash on cycling kit
2. we already look wierd mincing about in lycra
3. surely you're not really arguing that you (as in you personally) are just as likely to bang your head when walking at 3-4 mph as when riding? WHo are you Mr Blobby or Frank Spencer?

Who I am is unimportant - the fact is that any "Cohort" based study on hea injuries has shown that cyclists do not even enter the "major league"!

Cycle related head injuries are way behind falls and assaults.

The argument is that cyclists wearing helmets appears to be acceptable, but saving ten times as many head injuries with pedestrians wearing them is somehow a ridiculous concept!


The real question is whether you really wish to reduce head injuries or whether or stick your fingers in your ears and sing "Lalalalala" when something you on't like comes up.

Simple example of "claims" (to quote other posters) that are valid to both pedestrian and cyclists

f you ride with others then IMO you should be wearing a helmet (if they do anyway), last thing I want to be doing is picking up bits of skull from the road.

But is apparently happy to pick up pedestrian skulls!

There is a financial argument of course. Wearing a helmet will save you money: you will be less likely to need time off work if you are involved in a crash and if you want to take it from the government's point of view, you will be less of a burden on the healthcare industry and therefore less of a burden on taxpayers.

Again pedestrian head injuries are more frequent and cost more - yet the social and financial cost of pedestrian head injuries is "acceptable"?

If you don't... then there is no point wearing one! I guess you are beyond reaching, or perhaps too arrogant to acknowledge that something could happen to you.

Yet a pedestrian choosing not to wear a helmet is not arrogant?

What is your familys attitude to helmet wearing and the potential of looking after a vegetable (extreme case I know but not unknown).

... an a "vegetable" produced by a pedestrian head injury is "easier" to care for and somehow less traumatic?

oldgit

Can someone please point me at the evidence that conclusively shows wearing a road style cycle helmet saves lives or prevents serious injury?

Can someone please point me at the evidence that conclusively shows not wearing a road style cycle helmet makes no difference to death or serious injury?

Nope, thought not.

jordan 121

i wear a helmet when ridding i don't care what people think at the end of the day when i fall of im not going to be the one with brain damage

doyler78

jordan 121 wrote:

i wear a helmet when ridding i don't care what people think at the end of the day when i fall of im not going to be the one with brain damage

A little over optimistic that. All you can hope is that wearing a helmet may prevent or reduce the severity of any head injury however your comment would suggest that wearing a helmet and falling off means you cannot possibly get brain damage. Perhaps you are an example to those that believe helmet wearing may in fact make riders take more risks You see things aren't just black and white.

Cunobelin

oldgit wrote:

Can someone please point me at the evidence that conclusively shows wearing a road style cycle helmet saves lives or prevents serious injury?

Can someone please point me at the evidence that conclusively shows not wearing a road style cycle helmet makes no difference to death or serious injury?

Nope, thought not.

Which is why the pedestrian helmet is so important..... It shows just how hypocritical the arguments can be....

Barrie_G

I used to wear a helmet when I was riding my mtb but since getting rid of the mountain bike and getting a road bike the Giro Xen just doesn't look right when I'm on the road bike(cheap unmarked Xen anyone )

So at present when out on the bike I'm helmetless, though I am planning on getting one when I get round to it (eventually)

I don't really know why to be honest as I don't believe that they offer any great amount of protection, I guess that it's just a case of I'm wearing the rest of the gear so I might as well stick the helmet on the top just to finish off the look as it were as I don't wear it if I'm not wearing the lycra etc.

Anyway if I was to wear a helmet to protect myself then I should use one at work. I work as an auto-dismantler and often walk into forklilft forks, I've had axels dropped on my head as well as tailgates and car bonnets without any obvious side effects so I guess my skull is doing it's job ok up to now.

simon_e

I have been wearing a cycle helmet daily for six months now. I was badgered into doing so by family. I had previously not been convinced of its effectiveness in the event of a fall, but I have seen quite a number of reports on these forums where the poster has stated their helmet hit the floor hard and in some cases it was obviously damaged. This is the potential scenario for which I wear mine most of the time. I do not expect it to help me if I'm hit by a car. I anticipate the probability of me falling off is greater than that of being hit by a car so wearing it is worthwhile.

I have read Dr Walker's overview of his research (PDF) and wouldn't want to draw any firm conclusions from it. Results could vary according to the width of the road, average traffic speed and other factors, so I would be hesitant about applying it in all circumstances. An update on his page states that he "found there were 23% more vehicles coming within 1m of the bicycle when a helmet was being worn". Hmmm.

As well as the helmet data his research showed that cycling further out in the road means vehicles pass closer. Should riders then reconsider riding in Primary or Secondary position? In my experience if the cyclist is further our drivers are more likely to wait until there is room for them to pass. Conversely, if you ride near the kerb there is technically more room in the lane but more drivers will go for the gap, raising the number of close passes.

gkerr4

i actually wore my helmet tonight!

It was reading this thread made me think about it - I have a posh S-Works 2D helmet that I got for free which has barely been worn. thought I'd give it a try.

it wasn't as uncomfortable as I remember - although i'm sure all those vents cooled my head more than if `i wasn't wearing anything.

i still looked a proper dick in it though - and this is the main argument imo for not wearing one

you may think that with your super new met stradivarius or giro lonos or S-Works 2D that you look like some racing god in it - but actually you look a dick.

alfablue

Barrie_G wrote:

Anyway if I was to wear a helmet to protect myself then I should use one at work. I work as an auto-dismantler and often walk into forklilft forks, I've had axels dropped on my head as well as tailgates and car bonnets without any obvious side effects so I guess my skull is doing it's job ok up to now.

No, I think you have already suffered from brain damage! In the workplace such as this you should most certainly be wearing a hard hat (not a cycle helmet!), your employer is probably being negligent and in breach of H&S regulations. Sounds like utter stupidity.

boybiker

Anyway to answer the original question it is entirely a personal choice but most normal people would rather have some protection should they crash than have none.There are some very odd people who see riding as some kind of demonstration of how hard they are and wear shorts and vest though the winter, and see helmets as detracting from their 'hard' image, they are prone to making up silly excuses such as helmets don't work but it is best to ignore them as they are clearly insane.
They probably smoke a pipe as they are riding as well

Barrie_G

alfablue wrote:

Barrie_G wrote:

Anyway if I was to wear a helmet to protect myself then I should use one at work. I work as an auto-dismantler and often walk into forklilft forks, I've had axels dropped on my head as well as tailgates and car bonnets without any obvious side effects so I guess my skull is doing it's job ok up to now.

No, I think you have already suffered from brain damage! In the workplace such as this you should most certainly be wearing a hard hat (not a cycle helmet!), your employer is probably being negligent and in breach of H&S regulations. Sounds like utter stupidity.

Quite possibly, though at the present time I'd rather be employed, though I'm looking for other employment on a daily basis and as soon as something else comes up I'm off

Grimone

Just wear one. The pro's outweigh the con's.

Cunobelin

Grimone wrote:

Just wear one. The pro's outweigh the con's.

For pedestrians as well or just cyclists?

rally200

Cunobelin wrote:

Grimone wrote:

Just wear one. The pro's outweigh the con's.

For pedestrians as well or just cyclists?

Yes a full suit of armour for the pedestrian.

All this pedestrian stuff just feels like it must be way off mark - you can make anything out of statistics - all these pedestrian injuries are they happening to the fit, alert, skilful, young (or young at heart) riders such as we - or are the figures being skewed by the injuries to vulnerable groups of pedestrians such as juveniles and the elderly - before I get my head bitten off, I am asking if anyone knows, not stating an opinion of fact.

Eau Rouge

What have pedestrians got to do with any of this?
Whats the logic here? That because drivers don't wear Nomex race suits and full frame helmets you're not going to bother doing something otherwise unrelated?

"But pedestrians don't have to wear them, it's sooooo unfair"
You sound like a bunch of 5 year old's.

Wear one if you want to, don't bother if you don't. You don't have to justify it to anyone other than yourself.

Stormy

Ever since I bounced (glancing blow) off the front of a Bedford 30 seat bus on my Honda 250 (he was turning right, that’s right in front of me), and ended up in a bloody heap on the side of the road, I’ve always thought head protection helpful.

Back in the day and on that particular day it was a lid called a Griffin Clubman which took a fair old knock but protected its valuable contents beautifully, ok motorbikes aren’t bicycles and the speeds involved, and the style and design of the helmet are very different blah blah etc etc

Anything that has the potential to help in an off and reduce or eliminate injury is something you just do isn’t it? If you ever do (and I sincerely hope you don’t) smack your skull against something hard following an off, will be the unforgettable shock and disorientation that follows. Lying down with a broken head, when you were happily doing your thing a few brief moments ago focuses the mind, assuming you still have one to focus – just a thought and long may we all have ‘em

rally200

Cunobelin wrote:

rally200 wrote:

"Who I am is unimportant -

don't be so hard on yourself - I'm sure someone thinks who you are is important.

doyler78

Eau Rouge wrote:

What have pedestrians got to do with any of this?
Whats the logic here? That because drivers don't wear Nomex race suits and full frame helmets you're not going to bother doing something otherwise unrelated?

"But pedestrians don't have to wear them, it's sooooo unfair"
You sound like a bunch of 5 year old's.

Wear one if you want to, don't bother if you don't. You don't have to justify it to anyone other than yourself.

It is agreed that it is about personal choice however you get many people on here who make statements as though they were facts

ie if you don't wear a helmet you will get brain damage - not true

It is they who judge others and try to force their view on those that don't wish to wear them and it is they're rather vocal campaigns which are seeking to force a change in law to compel its use.

It is not like any 5 year old argument if you are compelled by law to do something which you don't wish to do and where there is little evidence that helmet use actually has a significant impact on either the severity injury or where a helmet would have saved someone's life.

We all know how ridiculous it is that pedestrians should be forced to wear helmets yet there are significantly more deaths every year to this group than there are to cyclists therefore if the concern which promotes the argument about helmet use if about concern over the lives of cyclists then you have to ask why that concern doesn't exist to other, seemingly more vulnerable, groups. That is a proper basis for the debate.

As to rally200 comments:

All this pedestrian stuff just feels like it must be way off mark - you can make anything out of statistics - all these pedestrian injuries are they happening to the fit, alert, skilful, young (or young at heart) riders such as we - or are the figures being skewed by the injuries to vulnerable groups of pedestrians such as juveniles and the elderly - before I get my head bitten off, I am asking if anyone knows, not stating an opinion of fact.

Do people who cycle not die because of inattention, poor bike handling skills or who are young? Why try to separate these groups from one set of stats without doing the same to the other groups.

My view is that the helmet debate is the wrong debate for cycling. Our focus should be on making the roads themselves safer and toughening and/or replacing the current rules with ones which seek to allow the efficient flow of traffic whilst protecting the interests of all road users such as giving cyclists priority at junctions or reducing speed limits in urban areas to 20mph, a level at which the chance of a cyclist dying in an accident is greatly reduced. The rules of our road are biased towards motorised transport and this leads to cyclist deaths.

I think the more important statistic would be to know what percentage of all cyclist deaths involve another motorised vehicle as compared to those that die with no other vehicle involved. I don't know the answer but I suspect it is greatly skewed to the former and that's the reason why cycle helmet compulsion has little impact on the stats because they are only useful in very limited circumstances and compelling people to wear helmets when there is little evidence that it does any good whilst reducing the number of people who cycle because they will not wear a helmet seems perverse to me.

Felix-da-house-mouse

if you buy a helmet (and i would recommend it 100%, i think your mad if you dont but hey thats me) i would spend that extra bit of cash and get a good helmet like a giro atmos that when its first worn its fairly uncomfortable but it molds it's self to the shape of your head and you never know your wearing one and i think it installs that extra bit of confidence you need as a beginner.

Felix-da-house-mouse

the sooner they make it law the better!!!!

madandybell

Looks ok does the Giro Atmos but its far too much cash for my liking, think I'd let the NHS foot the bill rather than smash the helmet up!!

Can anyone reccomend a good cheapish helmet?

simon_e

Felix-da-house-mouse wrote:

if you buy a helmet (and i would recommend it 100%, i think your mad if you dont but hey thats me) i would spend that extra bit of cash and get a good helmet like a giro atmos that when its first worn its fairly uncomfortable but it molds it's self to the shape of your head and you never know your wearing one and i think it installs that extra bit of confidence you need as a beginner.

A good helmet is one that fits your head straight away. They don't change shape over time. I found a Bell to be just right while Met and Giro didn't sit as I'd liked.

Spending more doesn't buy better protection, it buys more holes / funky graphics or design. All must meet CE regulations. Correct fit (including strap tightness) matters more than anything if you're going to wear one.

I find the pedestrian comments irrelevant. Despite having ridden for over 30 years without one I'm comfortable wearing mine now. I'd rather not fall off but if I do the helmet might help. It's like insurance - you buy it hoping you'll never need it.

gkerr4 wrote:

actually you look a dick.

Thanks. My self-esteem can live with that, after all it's only your (rather condescening) opinion. I have no problem with you choosing not to wear a helmet but I don't think that's a fair argument to dissuade others. Were you bullied as a child?

Eau Rouge

doyler78 wrote:

It is they who judge others and try to force their view on those that don't wish to wear them and it is they're rather vocal campaigns which are seeking to force a change in law to compel its use.

Remember, they are just justifying to themselves too.

doyler78 wrote:

It is not like any 5 year old argument if you are compelled by law to do something which you don't wish to do and where there is little evidence that helmet use actually has a significant impact on either the severity injury or where a helmet would have saved someone's life.

Here I agree with you, there is no justification for making them compulsory, but the counter argument to that isn't that pedestrians should be wearing them too or misinterpreting a dodgy report on how much room cars give you. It's to point out the obvious, if your going to make bike helmets compulsory, you could only justify making the hard, solid horse-riding ones compulsory, since they offer far more protection than the "style over substance" ones everyone actually uses. Not the SoS ones don't help, they do, but you're not going to find too many people advocating wearing hard hats to cycle.

doyler78 wrote:

We all know how ridiculous it is that pedestrians should be forced to wear helmets yet there are significantly more deaths every year to this group than there are to cyclists therefore if the concern which promotes the argument about helmet use if about concern over the lives of cyclists then you have to ask why that concern doesn't exist to other, seemingly more vulnerable, groups. That is a proper basis for the debate.

significantly more deaths? In absolute numbers maybe, but there are also significantly more pedestrians, and I have to believe the ratio's for cyclists are going to be far worse than for peds. A pedestrian tripping on some badly maintained footpath (just when they would need a helmet) isn't a road traffic accident. A cyclist falling off on a badly maintained pothole is, and this is always going to be a road safety issue.

Cunobelin

Eau Rouge wrote:

What have pedestrians got to do with any of this?
Whats the logic here? That because drivers don't wear Nomex race suits and full frame helmets you're not going to bother doing something otherwise unrelated?

"But pedestrians don't have to wear them, it's sooooo unfair"
You sound like a bunch of 5 year old's.

Wear one if you want to, don't bother if you don't. You don't have to justify it to anyone other than yourself.

You have read this wrongly, it is not a case of being unfair or not - it is the simple fact that every single one of the "wear a helmet or die" lobby's arguments applies equally to pedestrian helmets. In fact as helmet design is limited and better designed for pedestrian speeds than cyclist speeds so the benefit could be even greater. The pedestrian helmet is a simple tool that shows the hypocrisy of some of the arguments.

When you look at "Cohort studies" of head injuries you find that pedestrians, car drivers and car passengers all present more frequently than cyclists.

Yet despite this there is a mad rush to emotionally blackmail or bully cyclists into helmets.

The poster who suggested that not wearing a helmet would lead to your family looking after a "vegetable" is a valid point and wishes to "save" everyone, yet could save ten times as many by promoting pedestrian helmets as well! The implication is that the trauma and impact on the family is less or even insignificant for non-cyclists!

Another poster complains about the "cost" of head injuries- again cyclists are a small proportion of the cost (economically socially and in resources) so again they would be making greater savings by promoting pedestrian helmets as well.


It is simply hypocritical to try and blackmail and bully cyclists yet argue against pedestrian helmets on the same choices that they are refusing to allow cyclists....... So far we have had refusals to discuss the points.

No-one is willing to answer why statements like "Just wear one. The pro's outweigh the con's" are made with total conviction are only valid for cyclists - do helmets not work for pedestrians?

Simply look at each argument and think to yourself would it benefit pedestrians and if so why are we not looking at benefiting both groups.

oldgit

How about we all just make our own decision and then let natural selection decide who is right.

Cunobelin

Felix-da-house-mouse wrote:

if you buy a helmet (and i would recommend it 100%, i think your mad if you dont but hey thats me) i would spend that extra bit of cash and get a good helmet like a giro atmos that when its first worn its fairly uncomfortable but it molds it's self to the shape of your head and you never know your wearing one and i think it installs that extra bit of confidence you need as a beginner.

Giro Atmos is actually not a good choice - GIro do not test helmets to SNELL standards. Theoretically there are helmets at £25 - £30 that are tested and proven t give more protection!

Cunobelin

Eau Rouge wrote:

doyler78 wrote:

We all know how ridiculous it is that pedestrians should be forced to wear helmets yet there are significantly more deaths every year to this group than there are to cyclists therefore if the concern which promotes the argument about helmet use if about concern over the lives of cyclists then you have to ask why that concern doesn't exist to other, seemingly more vulnerable, groups. That is a proper basis for the debate.

significantly more deaths? In absolute numbers maybe, but there are also significantly more pedestrians, and I have to believe the ratio's for cyclists are going to be far worse than for peds. A pedestrian tripping on some badly maintained footpath (just when they would need a helmet) isn't a road traffic accident. A cyclist falling off on a badly maintained pothole is, and this is always going to be a road safety issue.

So because there are more pedestrians and the pedestrian injury is differently classified it is less painful or traumatic?


Simply stated your argument is that per mile / journey / hour there are more pedestrians so we expect more head injuries. Despite suffering far fewer head injuries cyclists are lower in number the Injuries per mile / journey hour (ratio) is greater so we need to intervene in the case of cyclists.

Let me put the same argument with a different group

Thousands of people are killed on the roads per year however one or two per year are actually killed by cyclists. But as there are many more vehicles the "ratio" for cyclists is greater.

So despite the fact that motorists actually physically kill many more per year we should look at educating and modifying the behaviour of the group (cyclists) that kills less simply because the "ratio" (per mile, per journey or per hour) is greater.

Damn those killer cyclists - get them properly educated!