Anybody not wear a helmet? Discuss....

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi,

Citing Malcolm Wardlaw:
....A British
cyclist who rides for 280 hours per year (2,300 miles) will face
an annual risk of death about double that of a British driver,
but the risk is low at 0.0083% per year. This risk corresponds
to an expectation of travelling 280 hours’ per year for 12,000
years – the same as for a German driver and safer than a Belgian
driver.

Does that help? It doesn't cover "SI"s, of course, only "K"s but gives some idea of the level of risk we're exposed to.

We can bat anecdotes and artificial experiments around 'till we're blue in the face. It isn't going to prove anything. As I said before, one of the things I find most compelling is that people are trying very, very hard to prove reliably that helmets are worthwhile (governments, helmet makers, safety bodies etc.) and failing to come up with anything compelling. That, in itself, is deeply suspicious.

I believe, from the studies I've read and the evidence I've seen that helmets are unnecessary and ineffective. I may be wrong, and will continue to keep an eye on developments in order to re-evaluate the situation.

What grates is that people who don't appear to have done much investigation into the matter want to tell others what to do on the basis of common sense and anecdote, when there is some credible evidence that the common sense judgement is unfounded and that the anecdotes are largely meaningless....

Cheers,
W.

Mmm, so it seems that my recollection is correct.

What about injury and/or serious injury rates? This I simply don't recall, but I imagine that this scales more seriously for cyclists/pedestrians than for motorists.

EDIT: About 17 serious injuries per fatality for cyclists.

_Brun_

Is that risk with or without a helmet? Or does it not make much difference either way?

flattythehurdler

Did anyone see the news last night where that man had his shoe removed by a train on a level crossing? Worth looking for on youtube if you missed it. Now if that man had been hit by that train, wearing a cycle helmet wouldn't have helped him in the slightest.
I rest my case.
I'm with LiT.

always_tyred

flattythehurdler wrote:

Did anyone see the news last night where that man had his shoe removed by a train on a level crossing? Worth looking for on youtube if you missed it. Now if that man had been hit by that train, wearing a cycle helmet wouldn't have helped him in the slightest.
I rest my case.
I'm with LiT.

What if the shoes had been high visibility, flashing shoes?

flattythehurdler

You need to see the clip. It might have saved his life bit I doubt it. Seriously, they had a montage on the late news. I saw the first one and jumped and said "fcuk me". My wife said "wait 'til you see the next one", and she was right. I doubt even a high viz vest would have helped. Or overalls. :shock: :shock: :shock:

biondino

So if driving a car is twice as safe as cycling, surely wearing a seatbelt is even less necessary than wearing a helmet?

If I go through life never having a bike accident and always wearing a helmet, have I actually made any sacrifice at all beyond the price of the helmet(s)? "Diminishing the pleasure" - codswallop. Unless you're so preoccupied with looking slightly more of a tit than you might do otherwise (and bear in mind we all wear lycra, we look tits by default). Get a decent fitting helmet and you won't even notice it.

Jash - obviously you're not travelling at <12mph very much, but I'll wager that, when you're cruising along at 25mph and a car pulls out in front of you, you'll tug on the brakes even if you still can't avoid an accident. Add to that the deceleration caused by the impact with the car, the loss of forward speed as you sail through the air and the fact that your head may not be the first thing to hit the ground - there's every chance that the actual real force of impact may be below 12mph.

But on top of that, it's incredibly likely that even at speeds above 12mph the helmet with be partially to totally effective. Isn't that a plus?

flattythehurdler

Incredibly likely it will be partially to totally effective?
Possible it might help perhaps.

DonDaddyD

You know why I wear padded cycling shorts? Becuase it protects me from some groin injuries when cycling not all (it also increases comfort). When I get off my bike I look a little of a tit.

I wear cycle gloves because it prevents some types of cramp, not all.

The list can go on. The point is protection is very nearly never absolute but some protection is better than none.

So with that in mind to recap:

Not wearing a helmet is more dangerous than wearing a helmet.

A helmet doesn't protect you from all types of head injuries but it'll protect you from some.

No one can prove that wearing a helmet is more dangerous than not wearing one.

So there isn't a plausible reason not to wear a helmet when cycling except that some people don't want to.

flattythehurdler

Succinctly put and entirely accurate. I generally don't unless training for an event where I have to wear one. Now then DDD, should they be compulsory?

lost_in_thought

Spot on DDD!

always_tyred

GyatsoLa wrote:

I've been following this discussion with a certain amount of interest, not to mention despair. It seems people are incapable of stepping back and looking clearly at the evidence. For those who claim a scientific background, thats pretty discouraging. This is pretty well reflected in this (somewhat out of date) DoT summary of the arguments:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/re ... 26?page=11

Unfortunately, a lot of the papers are not accessible on the web, but there is an interestng, if inconclusive debate about risk compensation here:

http://www.mayerhillman.com/Articles/En ... aring.aspx

This is a little out of date, there has been a lot more evidence published since the debate, most notably Ian Walkers by now famous/notorious research.

I do find it interesting that a lot of the comments here along the lines of 'I wear a helmet because it makes me feel safer', actually supports Hillmans contentions (if you read it through you'll see why).

If we assume the argument is solely about an individuals choice to wear a helmet (as opposed to confusing it with the debate about compulsory helmet use), then really everything rests around an interpretation of risk compensation theory and how it applies to cycling (not just to cyclists, but to drivers passing cyclists). Any reasonable overview would conclude that there isn't any conclusive evidence on this either way. Some of the discussion here has (in my opinion) been downright wilful in the way some posters refuse to come to grips with the concept, which makes any discussion pointless.

I just read as much of these as I could over lunch. The DoT one is particularly good - I've not gone through it that thoroughly before. It seems that I agree with most of it.

The opinion piece by that Hillman fellow is also fascinating. Its just opinion, though, but offers a useful counterpoint to some bumkum and points out that one of the world's greatest proponent of risk compensation theory is also against mandatory seat belt laws, which is a nice piece of context.

always_tyred

That should read "bunkum".

"Bumkum" is frankly obscene and I apologise.

DonDaddyD

flattythehurdler wrote:

Succinctly put and entirely accurate. I generally don't unless training for an event where I have to wear one. Now then DDD, should they be compulsory?

Making it compulsory wouldn't stop me from riding my bike, using a helmet hasn't diminished my enjoyment.

I remember my Dad testing new brakes on Brixton Hill with my Uncle and me in the back flying forward as he suddenly stopped the car. These days I can't imagine buying a car without passenger airbags let alone a driver airbag. Like a seatbelt they won't always save your life (in fact there was a time an airbag could snap your neck) but they increase your safety levels.

I think other things could be made legal (lights on bikes at night) to increase cycling safety before wearing a helmet is made compulsory but with the increase in cyclists a change gonna come... and is needed.

wgwarburton

DDD writes:

> So with that in mind to recap:
> Not wearing a helmet is more dangerous than wearing a helmet.

I don't think that's proven scientifically, though there's a lot of anecdotal "evidence" that points in that direction.

> A helmet doesn't protect you from all types of head injuries but it'll protect you from some.

I think that one's true.

> No one can prove that wearing a helmet is more dangerous than not wearing one.

That's true, too, though, again, there's some suggestion that it might make certain very serious injuries more likely.

> So there isn't a plausible reason not to wear a helmet when cycling except that some people don't want to.

Yup, that's pretty much it. It works the other way, too- there's no plausible reason to wear a helmet when cycling, except that some people want to.

The evidence isn't compelling either way: essentially, It isn't provable, given current understanding, whether you are safer with or without; so it's very much a matter of personal choice.

Cheers,
W.

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

DDD writes:

> So with that in mind to recap:
> Not wearing a helmet is more dangerous than wearing a helmet.

I don't think that's proven scientifically, though there's a lot of anecdotal "evidence" that points in that direction.

> A helmet doesn't protect you from all types of head injuries but it'll protect you from some.

I think that one's true.

> No one can prove that wearing a helmet is more dangerous than not wearing one.

That's true, too, though, again, there's some suggestion that it might make certain very serious injuries more likely.

> So there isn't a plausible reason not to wear a helmet when cycling except that some people don't want to.

Yup, that's pretty much it. It works the other way, too- there's no plausible reason to wear a helmet when cycling, except that some people want to.

The evidence isn't compelling either way: essentially, It isn't provable, given current understanding, whether you are safer with or without; so it's very much a matter of personal choice.

Cheers,
W.

I'd strongly encourage that you browse that DoT review.
You can't "prove" anything scientifically, strictly speaking. Ultimately, you make a judgement call based on a proliferation of evidence.
I think you were right - although I disagree - up top, where you essentially contend "what's twice nothing?"

DonDaddyD

WGWarburton wrote:

DDD writes:

> So with that in mind to recap:
> Not wearing a helmet is more dangerous than wearing a helmet.

I don't think that's proven scientifically, though there's a lot of anecdotal "evidence" that points in that direction.

I'm sorry, but this is one of those instances where common sense takes precedent. I can't measure all the varibles (which is why no absolute undisbuted finding has been found) what I know is that I'd prefer to crash my skull against helmet than concrete.

> A helmet doesn't protect you from all types of head injuries but it'll protect you from some.

I think that one's true.

Thank you

>No one can prove that wearing a helmet is more dangerous than not wearing one.

That's true, too, though, again, there's some suggestion that it might make certain very serious injuries more likely.

How?

> So there isn't a plausible reason not to wear a helmet when cycling except that some people don't want to.

Yup, that's pretty much it. It works the other way, too- there's no plausible reason to wear a helmet when cycling, except that some people want to.

Poppycock and you contradict your point above by agreeing with me here (no matter how carefully you word it):

> Not wearing a helmet is more dangerous than wearing a helmet.

I don't think that's proven scientifically, though there's a lot of anecdotal "evidence" that points in that direction.

And here:

>No one can prove that wearing a helmet is more dangerous than not wearing one.

That's true, too

GyatsoLa

Always Tyred wrote:

GyatsoLa wrote:

I've been following this discussion with a certain amount of interest, not to mention despair. It seems people are incapable of stepping back and looking clearly at the evidence. For those who claim a scientific background, thats pretty discouraging. This is pretty well reflected in this (somewhat out of date) DoT summary of the arguments:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/re ... 26?page=11

Unfortunately, a lot of the papers are not accessible on the web, but there is an interestng, if inconclusive debate about risk compensation here:

http://www.mayerhillman.com/Articles/En ... aring.aspx

This is a little out of date, there has been a lot more evidence published since the debate, most notably Ian Walkers by now famous/notorious research.

I do find it interesting that a lot of the comments here along the lines of 'I wear a helmet because it makes me feel safer', actually supports Hillmans contentions (if you read it through you'll see why).

If we assume the argument is solely about an individuals choice to wear a helmet (as opposed to confusing it with the debate about compulsory helmet use), then really everything rests around an interpretation of risk compensation theory and how it applies to cycling (not just to cyclists, but to drivers passing cyclists). Any reasonable overview would conclude that there isn't any conclusive evidence on this either way. Some of the discussion here has (in my opinion) been downright wilful in the way some posters refuse to come to grips with the concept, which makes any discussion pointless.

I just read as much of these as I could over lunch. The DoT one is particularly good - I've not gone through it that thoroughly before. It seems that I agree with most of it.

The opinion piece by that Hillman fellow is also fascinating. Its just opinion, though, but offers a useful counterpoint to some bumkum and points out that one of the world's greatest proponent of risk compensation theory is also against mandatory seat belt laws, which is a nice piece of context.

The notion that mandatory seat belt laws do not provide a straightforward reduction in road deaths is well established and accepted and has been since the 1980's, it is not seriously disputed to my knowledge, higher driving speeds (amongst other phenomenon), among seat belt users has been consistently demonstrated in research papers going back at least 20 years. Where most people depart from Adams's view (not Hillman as you say) is his contention that risk compensation results in an overall similar death rate (including pedestrians and cyclists). The general thrust of road safety policy in most countries is to parallel enforce safe driving along with seatbelts and other safety devices. But the general point that 'perception' of safety changes drivers behaviour is and has been the basis of road safety design and policy throughout Europe and north American for many years (I'm an urban planner by profession and I've been dealing with this stuff since the 1980's). There is no serious dispute about it and if you are implying that there is, then you should do some reading on the topic before making snide comments about serious professional researchers.

I don't know why I'm bothering to engage with you on this topic, as from my reading of all your posts you are wilfully distorting and twisting other peoples arguments to support your own, but road safety is a very serious issue. Any reasonable person would, when faced with proper peer reviewed evidence that wearing a helmet results in significantly more dangerous behaviour by drivers (as Ian Walker did) would at least pause to think, rather than indulging in snide commentry about specialists in the field.

always_tyred

GyatsoLa wrote:

I don't know why I'm bothering to engage with you on this topic, as from my reading of all your posts you are wilfully distorting and twisting other peoples arguments to support your own, but road safety is a very serious issue. Any reasonable person would, when faced with proper peer reviewed evidence that wearing a helmet results in significantly more dangerous behaviour by drivers (as Ian Walker did) would at least pause to think, rather than indulging in snide commentry about specialists in the field.

Oh christ, you are joking , right? The Bath Uni guy. He only measured one cyclist, he only measured in one direction. It was a bit of fun. Really, please, don't call my understanding into question if you are going to call this stuff "evidence that wearing a helmet results in significantly more dangerous behaviour by drivers". That is rediculous.

Not only that but you've mis read the very article you posted. Setting aside the name, the article you posted is by an author who disagrees with you as regards compensatory behaviour and appears to be stating that (a) helmets improve safety (b) there is no evidence of compensatory bahaviour (in his opinion).

Please give me an example of my willful distortion. I'm amused to discuss this with you.

wgwarburton

DonDaddyD wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

DDD writes:

> So with that in mind to recap:
> Not wearing a helmet is more dangerous than wearing a helmet.

I don't think that's proven scientifically, though there's a lot of anecdotal "evidence" that points in that direction.

I'm sorry, but this is one of those instances where common sense takes precedent. I can't measure all the varibles (which is why no absolute undisbuted finding has been found) what I know is that I'd prefer to crash my skull against helmet than concrete.

That's fine. I'm not trying to tell you what to do. It's your call.

> A helmet doesn't protect you from all types of head injuries but it'll protect you from some.

I think that one's true.

Thank you

>No one can prove that wearing a helmet is more dangerous than not wearing one.

That's true, too, though, again, there's some suggestion that it might make certain very serious injuries more likely.

How?

Largely the risk of rotational injuries, but related to that (assuming we're not going to get bogged down in semantics) you have a larger and heavier "head", which is more likely to hit something and less likely to slide and then there's the whole "risk compensation" argument, and the claims that visibility is reduced (harder to look around, less easy to identify direction of sounds) and your reaction times slowed by the increased heat.
I don't know if any of these are significant, just that they are suggested as possible reasons why head injuries don't go down when people wear helmets more often.

> So there isn't a plausible reason not to wear a helmet when cycling except that some people don't want to.

Yup, that's pretty much it. It works the other way, too- there's no plausible reason to wear a helmet when cycling, except that some people want to.

Poppycock and you contradict your point above by agreeing with me here (no matter how carefully you word it):

You've lost me, here. There's no hard evidence either way, so we draw conclusions depending on our assessment of what we've read and judgement of the balance of risks. Some people want to wear a helmet and choose to do so, others don't and choose not to. We arn't in a position to say that either choice is wrong.

> Not wearing a helmet is more dangerous than wearing a helmet.

I don't think that's proven scientifically, though there's a lot of anecdotal "evidence" that points in that direction.

And here:

>No one can prove that wearing a helmet is more dangerous than not wearing one.

That's true, too

Why do you want me to wear a helmet? Or are you just concerned that by challenging the assumption that it's worthwhile I'll cause someone to be hurt?

Cheers,
W.

always_tyred

I think that you two actually agree with one another.

Or is that a willful distortion?

wgwarburton

Always Tyred wrote:

I'd strongly encourage that you browse that DoT review.

Yup, I have. Also the commentary on it:

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

AT wrote:

You can't "prove" anything scientifically, strictly speaking. Ultimately, you make a judgement call based on a proliferation of evidence.
I think you were right - although I disagree - up top, where you essentially contend "what's twice nothing?"

Yes, thanks for that.

Cheers,
W.

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

You know why I wear padded cycling shorts? Becuase it protects me from some groin injuries when cycling not all (it also increases comfort). When I get off my bike I look a little of a tit.

I wear cycle gloves because it prevents some types of cramp, not all.

The list can go on. The point is protection is very nearly never absolute but some protection is better than none.

So with that in mind to recap:

Not wearing a helmet is more dangerous than wearing a helmet.

A helmet doesn't protect you from all types of head injuries but it'll protect you from some.

No one can prove that wearing a helmet is more dangerous than not wearing one.

So there isn't a plausible reason not to wear a helmet when cycling except that some people don't want to.

Rubbish, sorry but your arguments don't hold up.

I always wear padded shorts because I always need them (I use racing saddles).
I wear gloves because I pretty much always need them (thin bar tape, stiff wheels).

I don't always need a helmet because I don't always need one. In fact I have never needed one whilst cycling, not once, ever. I don't like helmets, they are heavier than caps, the straps tend to chafe after long distances, they get hot in the summer. If I get hot in a cap I can take it off and pop it in my jersey pocket. So why should I wear a helmet? Because there is a very slim chance that I'll be in an accident where a helmet does much good? There's a slim chance everytime I go on the bike that I'll be mown down by a lorry, but these chances are slim enough that I chose personal comfort over risk, or choose cycling over sitting at home doing nothing.

So there are plenty of plausible reasons for not wearing a helmet. As for "common sense" well that's also rubbish. It was considered common sense 200 odd years ago to drain blood from ill people. It was common sense at one stage to consider the world to be flat etc etc. Common sense is often anything but sensible, it just appears to be. Hence lots of people (often non cyclists) will tut at me for not wearing a helmet rather than actually sitting down and thinking about it. Ooh it must be safer to have something on your head than not - "so wear one all the time then" is my response.

npowell28

Don't forget if you get hit by a car it's not just head injuries that will kill you, it's internal injuries aswell. I prefer not to wear one but i do anyway purely because i feel safer. I do look a t*t in it though.

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

Yup, I have. Also the commentary on it:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1067.html

Ha ha ha - the DoT site also comments on cyclehelmets.org doesn't it?

>There is no reference at all to rotational injuries, the principal cause of serious head injuries.
Is this the case for cycle injuries? If so, it would seem to be a serious omission from all recorded data by all of the clinicians in AU, NZ, CA and the UK. Bit of a slip up.

> There is no mention of medical evidence that helmets may increase the likelihood of the most serious injuries.
There is discussion on potential increase in neck injuries, and the most serious injuries (i.e. death) do appear to be considered.

> Consideration of 'risk compensation', which can result in people taking more risks when helmeted and for which there is clear evidence, is specifically excluded from the Review.
It is considered in depth, indeed pointing out several studies which indicate that non-helmeted riders tend to be involved in more serious accidents (as determined by comparing non-head injuries).

> There is no reference to other evidence unsupportive of helmet use, except to a minimal extent in a section on 'opinion pieces', which attempts to belittle helmet sceptic views without any consideration of the merits of evidence put forward.
In fact, there is a long discussion about opinions. Additionally, the report starts by setting out the number of pro- and ani- studies and attempts to point out the merits and shortcomings of each, in a number of detailed tables.

> Papers examined by the Review are sometimes reported selectively.
There's also a discussion about selective reporting.

> Helmet promotion campaigns are examined without any consideration of their impact on injury trends or cycle use, even though some of the papers examined suggest negative results.
Nope, wrong again, this is mentioned explicitly, and is even one of the principle critereon to determining the merit of mandatory helmet laws. The conclusion is that there is some evidence, but that the longer term effect has either not been measured yet (laws generally being recently implemented) or that the data are inconclusive. Its a legitimate concern, though, I'm sure we all agree.

> The Review exaggerates cycling as being inherently hazardous, with no comparison to other everyday activities.
There are comparisons to driving and motorcycling. Not knitting though.

---

Okay, okay. Anyway, cyclehelmets.org is a little lacking in credibility. I'm not proposing that the DoT review is gospel, merely pointing out how misleading that website is.

always_tyred

jashburnham wrote:

So there are plenty of plausible reasons for not wearing a helmet. As for "common sense" well that's also rubbish. It was considered common sense 200 odd years ago to drain blood from ill people. It was common sense at one stage to consider the world to be flat etc etc. Common sense is often anything but sensible, it just appears to be. Hence lots of people (often non cyclists) will tut at me for not wearing a helmet rather than actually sitting down and thinking about it. Ooh it must be safer to have something on your head than not - "so wear one all the time then" is my response.

So we are now all converging on the assessment of risk -

- there is a risk
- the risk may or may not be large enough to justify wearing a helmet
- conclusion: freedom of choice

This is a hell of a lot better than "helmets are here because of corporate profiteering", "helmets do nothing" or "helmets make you more dangerous".

My position is that I want to encourage NEW cyclists to wear them and give NEW cyclists a healthy respect for the road - this forum also has a lot of threads about annoying bad cyclists, right? Most new cyclists who start out wearing a helmet will simply carry on, like I did (Canadian law and painful experience conspired to get me into the habit).

The risk of disuading cycling troubles me, but I don't see a solution. They aren't THAT bad for anyone, so its really only a perceived barrier and one that is hopefully succeptible to challenge. Surely the simultaneous increase in cycling and in helmet usage in London should give us hope that helmets will not be the end of cycling?

DonDaddyD

jashburnham wrote:

Rubbish, sorry but your arguments don't hold up.

I always wear padded shorts because I always need them (I use racing saddles).
I wear gloves because I pretty much always need them (thin bar tape, stiff wheels).

I don't always need a helmet because I don't always need one. In fact I have never needed one whilst cycling, not once, ever. I don't like helmets, they are heavier than caps, the straps tend to chafe after long distances, they get hot in the summer. If I get hot in a cap I can take it off and pop it in my jersey pocket. So why should I wear a helmet? Because there is a very slim chance that I'll be in an accident where a helmet does much good? There's a slim chance everytime I go on the bike that I'll be mown down by a lorry, but these chances are slim enough that I chose personal comfort over risk, or choose cycling over sitting at home doing nothing.

So there are plenty of plausible reasons for not wearing a helmet. As for "common sense" well that's also rubbish. It was considered common sense 200 odd years ago to drain blood from ill people. It was common sense at one stage to consider the world to be flat etc etc. Common sense is often anything but sensible, it just appears to be. Hence lots of people (often non cyclists) will tut at me for not wearing a helmet rather than actually sitting down and thinking about it. Ooh it must be safer to have something on your head than not - "so wear one all the time then" is my response.

That was the closest to a rant I've ever read from you.

Going from top to bottom.

Putting your trousers on before your shoes is common sense and will always remain so until sock thin shoes are invented. Common sense is justified by necessity of the times.

Jash, I come to a red light, I stop, I don't unclip in time, I fall off. I hit my head.
Common sense does dictate that the outcome would be better wearing a helmet than not wearing one. Common sense dictates (Biondino example) that I'd prefer to be the person wearing a helmet while being hit with a hammer than the person not wearing a hammer. You cannot dismiss common sense.

My whole point is that you don't always need a helmet, you don't always need a seatbelt or an airbag but in the instances when people do need one they are thankful they have one. I refer to my point about falling off my bike at a set of lights.

I also wear padded shorts and gloves for those reasons (mius the stiff wheels - don't understand that). Just because there are other it doesn't detract from the ones I originally raised.

DonDaddyD

jashburnham wrote:

Rubbish, sorry but your arguments don't hold up.

I always wear padded shorts because I always need them (I use racing saddles).
I wear gloves because I pretty much always need them (thin bar tape, stiff wheels).

I don't always need a helmet because I don't always need one. In fact I have never needed one whilst cycling, not once, ever. I don't like helmets, they are heavier than caps, the straps tend to chafe after long distances, they get hot in the summer. If I get hot in a cap I can take it off and pop it in my jersey pocket. So why should I wear a helmet? Because there is a very slim chance that I'll be in an accident where a helmet does much good? There's a slim chance everytime I go on the bike that I'll be mown down by a lorry, but these chances are slim enough that I chose personal comfort over risk, or choose cycling over sitting at home doing nothing.

So there are plenty of plausible reasons for not wearing a helmet. As for "common sense" well that's also rubbish. It was considered common sense 200 odd years ago to drain blood from ill people. It was common sense at one stage to consider the world to be flat etc etc. Common sense is often anything but sensible, it just appears to be. Hence lots of people (often non cyclists) will tut at me for not wearing a helmet rather than actually sitting down and thinking about it. Ooh it must be safer to have something on your head than not - "so wear one all the time then" is my response.

That was the closest to a rant I've ever read from you.

Going from top to bottom.

Putting your trousers on before your shoes is common sense and will always remain so until sock thin shoes are invented. Common sense is justified by necessity of the times.

Jash, I come to a red light, I stop, I don't unclip in time, I fall off. I hit my head.
Common sense does dictate that the outcome would be better wearing a helmet than not wearing one. Common sense dictates (Biondino example) that I'd prefer to be the person wearing a helmet while being hit with a hammer than the person not wearing a hammer. You cannot dismiss common sense.

My whole point is that you don't always need a helmet, you don't always need a seatbelt or an airbag but in the instances when people do need one they are thankful they have one. I refer to my point about falling off my bike at a set of lights.

I also wear padded shorts and gloves for those reasons (mius the stiff wheels - don't understand that). Just because there are other it doesn't detract from the ones I originally raised.

always_tyred

A hammer might go through one of the vents.

The DoT article considers this, arguing this sort of impact is highly unlikely, though.

DonDaddyD

WGWarburton wrote:

Largely the risk of rotational injuries, but related to that (assuming we're not going to get bogged down in semantics) you have a larger and heavier "head", which is more likely to hit something and less likely to slide and then there's the whole "risk compensation" argument, and the claims that visibility is reduced (harder to look around, less easy to identify direction of sounds) and your reaction times slowed by the increased heat.
I don't know if any of these are significant, just that they are suggested as possible reasons why head injuries don't go down when people wear helmets more often.

Rotational injuries = fair enough (too a point)

Larger heavier head = My helmet doesn't weigh enough to make a difference (I'd never buy a helmet heavy enough to make that differece). If I'm going to hit my head during a fall I'd do so regardless of whether the helmet is on or off. The helmet can protect during the impact.

Visiblity = As a person who wears contact lenses and glasses a helmet doesn't reduce my visiblity at all. In fact it helps my visibility during rain. I'm also not seeing the whole direction of sound argument as valid.

Reaction time due to increased heat = :?

I'm not really buying any of these and I don't think you are either.

You've lost me, here. There's no hard evidence either way, so we draw conclusions depending on our assessment of what we've read and judgement of the balance of risks. Some people want to wear a helmet and choose to do so, others don't and choose not to. We arn't in a position to say that either choice is wrong.

My mistake we do agree. From different perspectives but we do agree.

Why do you want me to wear a helmet? Or are you just concerned that by challenging the assumption that it's worthwhile I'll cause someone to be hurt?

The bit in bold you've lost me, I don't understand what you mean.

I don't want you to wear a helmet. Until it's law its your choice. I was just expressing my rationale for wearing a helmet and enjoying the discussion for and against.

DonDaddyD

Always Tyred wrote:

A hammer might go through one of the vents.

The DoT article considers this, arguing this sort of impact is highly unlikely, though.

I still would prefer to wear a helmet if I were to be hit on the head with a hammer. That's just common sense.