Helmet or no helmet?

softlad

benvickery wrote:

I have a wife and 4 children, if I can't work because of an accident and lose my salary then my family's life is ruined. I like cycling and by cycling on busy roads I am taking a risk, by wearing a helmet I am reducing the risk, by how much is insignificant.

By your own logic Ben, you should not be cycling at all - as the risk to your family's future is too great.

redddraggon

I wear a helmet, I've crashed 6 or 7 times this year, but my helmet hasn't got a scratch.(But I've had loads of road rash, ripped bar tape, ripped clothing, bent chainring, bent mech hanger, broken glasses, etc but my head is still fine)

My friend doesn't wear a helmet, he's only crashed once, but broke his jaw, but didn't get concussion or anything like that.

From my anecdotal evidence helmets don't do seem to matter that much. Only a full face helmet would have help in my friends case.

Why aren't people therefore crusading for full face helmets for all cyclists? Afterall they'd provide more protection would they not? I used to play rugby, and there was a far far far far far greater chance of head injury, but "helmets" aren't allowed.....

If you really think that helmets make that much of a difference perhaps you get a full face helmet to be extra safe.

Dog Breath

There's so much smoke & mirrors in the arguments put forward. Just like smokers say they know someone who smokes 40 a day and has lived to be 100. So smoking must be OK for you.

There are plenty of good reasons for wearing a helmet. But please, somebody from the 'anti camp', give me a sound and valid reason why I should not wear a helment. One that would make me reconsider my pro-helmet stance.

DB

teamcrane

Having bit the dust on a road bike going round a slippery corner at about 10 mph, may I say that after hitting the road on the left side of my head and left hip I had a big black and blue painful bruise on my hip but thanks to the helmet absorbing the side impact my head was injury free.

softlad

Dog Breath wrote:

But please, somebody from the 'anti camp', give me a sound and valid reason why I should not wear a helment. One that would make me reconsider my pro-helmet stance.

I'm not anti-helmet - I am pro choice. If you feel safer in a helmet - wear one. If not - don't. Some years ago now I went down in a bunch sprint, which resulted in a broken collar bone, severe road burns and some (permanent) nerve damage in my right thigh. One of my team mates clocked us at 37mph just before we all went down. I also hit my head on the tarmac, which gave me a bit of a stiff neck for the next few days after - I don't know how hard I hit my head, because at the time, that was the least of my problems. Had I not been wearing a helmet, I may have had some kind of head injury - I don't know the answer and never will.

But despite all of that, I still don't wear a helmet while training out on the road. Its my choice - I've been there, had the crash and survived - and it is still my own decision not to wear one.

I don't need a reason not to wear one - I just need a free choice, that's all. I may wake up tomorrow morning and decide it is no longer safe to go outside without a helmet on - but for now, I'm happy as I am.

Presumably you are too..?

Dog Breath

I said in my first post that I'm all for freedom of choice. I've no problem with people not wearing helmets.

It's just that the anti brigade seem so vehemently against helmets that I'm just trying to understand their reasons when, in all probability, if you hit your head on the tarmac you are less likely to incur serious and lasting damage if you do wear a helmet.

DB

percusski

teamcrane wrote:

Having bit the dust on a road bike going round a slippery corner at about 10 mph, may I say that after hitting the road on the left side of my head and left hip I had a big black and blue painful bruise on my hip but thanks to the helmet absorbing the side impact my head was injury free.

This argument is all the evidence one should need when making a decision. As far as i'm aware there is no evidence of a properly fitted helmet causing injury but plenty of incidences of injury suffered as a result of not wearing one.
A family friend wearing an improperly fitting helmet (ie the helmet came off before hitting the ground) is now wheelchair bound having fallen off the back of a horse, it is belived the helmet would have prevented the injuries. Makes sense to me.

softlad

percusski wrote:

A family friend wearing an improperly fitting helmet (ie the helmet came off before hitting the ground) is now wheelchair bound having fallen off the back of a horse, it is belived the helmet would have prevented the injuries. Makes sense to me.

my understanding is that a helmet may prevent or mitigate head injury - but I have never heard of a helmet preventing spinal injury. Unless I am assuming too much. Can you explain..??

doyler78

Dog Breath wrote:

I said in my first post that I'm all for freedom of choice. I've no problem with people not wearing helmets.

It's just that the anti brigade seem so vehemently against helmets that I'm just trying to understand their reasons when, in all probability, if you hit your head on the tarmac you are less likely to incur serious and lasting damage if you do wear a helmet.

DB

Who is exactly is it that is against helmets. There are those that believe they don't really offer much protection however I don't think you will find any of them that will argue that the choice to wear one or not should be restricted on the other hand there are those that would clearly like to take way our choice to choose what we do without any convincing evidence than in doing so that we actually significantly change the outcomes of those cyclist involved in accidents.

Just because you believe something to be so doesn't make it so it just makes you unreasonable and unable to see any point of view other than your own. That is no way to form legislation is it?

doyler78

percusski wrote:

teamcrane wrote:

Having bit the dust on a road bike going round a slippery corner at about 10 mph, may I say that after hitting the road on the left side of my head and left hip I had a big black and blue painful bruise on my hip but thanks to the helmet absorbing the side impact my head was injury free.

This argument is all the evidence one should need when making a decision. As far as i'm aware there is no evidence of a properly fitted helmet causing injury but plenty of incidences of injury suffered as a result of not wearing one.
A family friend wearing an improperly fitting helmet (ie the helmet came off before hitting the ground) is now wheelchair bound having fallen off the back of a horse, it is belived the helmet would have prevented the injuries. Makes sense to me.

Please point to the studies that say so. I myself am aware of "evidence" that wearing a helmet makes drivers less cautious in dealing with that cyclist and that that cyclist may act more fool hardy because they mistakenly believe that a helmet will provide all the protection they will ever need. Does my ability to see something from a different perspective to yours mean that you are right and I am wrong? Does it mean that I am just trying to muddy the waters because I don't agree with you? I can only muddy the waters if there is mud to throw up.

percusski

softlad wrote:

percusski wrote:

A family friend wearing an improperly fitting helmet (ie the helmet came off before hitting the ground) is now wheelchair bound having fallen off the back of a horse, it is belived the helmet would have prevented the injuries. Makes sense to me.

my understanding is that a helmet may prevent or mitigate head injury - but I have never heard of a helmet preventing spinal injury. Unless I am assuming too much. Can you explain..??

Sorry didn't make it clear, it was a brain injury not spinal, back of the head hit the ground. Don't have the full details of injury i'm afraid.

Beeblebrox

My cycle helmet fulfills its proper purpose brilliantly - keeping my mum and sister quiet.

mozwyn69

Cunobelin wrote:

benvickery wrote:

I don't understand why everyone gets so angry about this???

I have a wife and 4 children, if I can't work because of an accident and lose my salary then my family's life is ruined. I like cycling and by cycling on busy roads I am taking a risk, by wearing a helmet I am reducing the risk, by how much is insignificant.

If you are willing to take the risk and ride without a helmet then go for it. Before I had a family I never wore a helmet either but things change.

The reason people get "angry" is the sheer hypocrisy.

Let me give you an example....

Dog Breath wrote:

Completely spurious and idiotic reasoning.

Oh well, natural selection will have its day...

Arguing the fact fact that head injuries can be alleviated by the use of a helmet is completely spurious and idiotic ................................................unless it fits the personal agenda when it becomes idiotic not to argue the same case?

Hardly logical reasoning - either helmets prevent head injuries or not!



Then we have a "Health care professional" who gives emotive statements implying that if you don't wear a helmet you will require your family to "clean up your sh*t" - yet when asked about how many cyclists this actually affects - declines to comment!

Could it be the fact that (inconveniently) the published studies are correct and cyclists are a minority?



We should be looking at evidence, and allowing an informed choice. One must question the agenda of those who resort bullying and emotional blackmail and then simply dismiss anything that does not fit. This forms no part of a serious discussion.


If we are serious about head injury reduction then we should be looking at other groups and learning the lessons that they can give us.

Not declined to coment, I just have a life away from a computer (with 11000 plus posts I wonder if you do?). You fail to state where your 28 yrs of experience are but by your patronising, every word I speak is gospel tone I can only presume your a doctor. My original post was to highlight that heads are fragile and the consequences of of injuries can be horrific regardless of the cause. Obviously the unit was not full of cyclist (but of course being the polymath you undoubltably are you could have guessed that) .

cougie

Wasnt there a survey that showed that motorists gave more space to a cyclist not wearing a helmet ? That is possibly one reason not to wear one. I do think that because a lot of us wear helmets motorists dont really see us as lumps of flesh and blood - so its OK to skim past our thighs doing 60 (thats you Mr BMW Estate).

gkerr4

God is this thread still running!!

madandybell

bikeradar.com should give a prize for the most viewed/posted/longest running thread.

An Orbea Orca would do me just fine.

softlad

madandybell wrote:

bikeradar.com should give a prize for the most viewed/posted/longest running thread.

there's still some way to go before you catch this one..

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12544013

secretsqirrel

Or this one...

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12562652

swagman

Its all about freedom of choice, and people who dont wear helmets want to keep it that way.
Who likes anyone telling them what they should do or is best for them.
There's going to be alot bigger problems with thing like obesity in this country so lets ban crap foods.
What gets on our wicks is some one telling you that you should wear a helmet when i could tell them stop driving that car or eating shit thats going to wreck your life.
What we dont need is more laws and especially not this one.
Happy New Year..

nasahapley

I want to get the 200th post on this thread, so here it is.

After reaching the double-ton, is the question 'helmet or no helmet?' any closer to being resolved? I'll pop back if it gets to 250 to find out.

rally200

I've been away from this thread for a while - can anyone remind me whether I was for or against.

Amos

I always wear a helmet on the road bike and mtb. I think its an age thing, a lot of the riders of my generation seem a lot more likely to wear helmets where as the older guys, who grew up with out them dont.