Anybody not wear a helmet? Discuss....

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

But you've missed my point DDD. I'm talking about me and helmets not you and helmets. Take your unclipping point for example, I've never had a clipless moment, never hit my head, so I don't regard a helmet as being necessary for me and get cross when people tell me to wear one.

As for common sense, I never dismissed it, I said it is "often anything but sensible." My point is that many people consider something to be "common sense" without having really thought it through.

As I said before it's about perceived risk. For example, if I had a 15 year old kid who went to school in a deprived area known for gang violence, should I make him wear a stab proof vest? Anecdotal evidence suggests there is a risk he might get stabbed...

I'm unlikely to have an accident where I consider a helmet would be of much use, and I find them uncomfortable and impractical, so I don't wear one. If I was likely to have crash and bump my head in circumstances where a helmet would help (and they are limited circumstances given my riding style, speed and the effectiveness of helmets) then I would wear one.

Out of interest, is your helmet SNELL certified?

il_principe

Oh and I can't really see a situation where Biondino is going to hit me in a head with a hammer. If he was going to though I'd make damn sure to wear a motorcycle helmet not a flimsy cycle one.

always_tyred

jashburnham wrote:

Out of interest, is your helmet SNELL certified?

The DoT review comments on this. The different standards are "substantially similar" and there is no evidence that helmets complying with different standards provide different levels of protection in practise.

EDIT: Oh, and the first helmet I ever owned was a Snell certified Specialised. It fit me okay, but perched on top of my head, didn't stay put, and didn't come nearly as far down the back and side of my head as my S1 did or Decibel does. There might be a reason that the Snell certification fell out of favour, although I understand that in some aspects it was more stringent.

always_tyred

jashburnham wrote:

Oh and I can't really see a situation where Biondino is going to hit me in a head with a hammer. If he was going to though I'd make damn sure to wear a motorcycle helmet not a flimsy cycle one.

I don't know why I quoted this.....

Jash, be honest, had you experienced a cycling accident resulting in a concussion, do you think you would wear a helmet now? You seem to be saying that your decision is informed by your personal experience.

il_principe

But this irritates me further. Snell are held up by the press as being the gold standard, I've just been reading around and this no longer seems to be the case. There are multiple standards, so even if I do decide to wear a helmet which one should I go for?

Of course that question is irrelevant as few helmet buyers consider this, they just buy whatever helmet the shop had in stock that they liked the look of...

DonDaddyD

jashburnham wrote:

But you've missed my point DDD. I'm talking about me and helmets not you and helmets. Take your unclipping point for example, I've never had a clipless moment, never hit my head, so I don't regard a helmet as being necessary for me and get cross when people tell me to wear one.

Fair point. I'm not telling you to wear one. If you were my child or brother (to a lesser extent) I would...

As for common sense, I never dismissed it, I said it is "often anything but sensible." My point is that many people consider something to be "common sense" without having really thought it through.

I agree.

As I said before it's about perceived risk. For example, if I had a 15 year old kid who went to school in a deprived area known for gang violence, should I make him wear a stab proof vest? Anecdotal evidence suggests there is a risk he might get stabbed...

Good point, one I can't answer. Depends on the varibles I can't measure. Varibles, which lead me to wear a helmet and you not to wear one.

I'm unlikely to have an accident where I consider a helmet would be of much use, and I find them uncomfortable and impractical, so I don't wear one.

This is where we diverge in our view point.

Out of interest, is your helmet SNELL certified?

I have this helmet: http://www.tredz.co.uk/.Specialized-Pro ... _15636.htm

I bought it because I was riding and left my other helmet at home, it matched the colour of my bike, I liked the shape and the fact that it has reasonable ventilation.

I was under the impression it is SNELL certified.

il_principe

Always Tyred wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

Oh and I can't really see a situation where Biondino is going to hit me in a head with a hammer. If he was going to though I'd make damn sure to wear a motorcycle helmet not a flimsy cycle one.

I don't know why I quoted this.....

Jash, be honest, had you experienced a cycling accident resulting in a concussion, do you think you would wear a helmet now? You seem to be saying that your decision is informed by your personal experience.

I've had a crash that knocked me out! I was wearing a helmet, it never touched the ground. My hands, chin, mouth and lips did though and I cut my top lip in half - resulted in a plastic surgeon consult.

This just adds to my belief that I'm unlikely to fall directly on to my head. I reckon I'd get my hands out first anyway should this unlikely event ever occur. My line of reasoning also takes into account that cycle helmets aren’t designed to protect you in the event of collision with another moving vehicle.

always_tyred

jashburnham wrote:

I reckon I'd get my hands out first anyway should this unlikely event ever occur. My line of reasoning also takes into account that cycle helmets aren’t designed to protect you in the event of collision with another moving vehicle.

Interesting. My gut reaction is to ball up when I'm on the way down. Hence the other week I had road rash on my forearm near the elbow and shoulder as I tried to pull away from the ground, but my head/helmet didn't hit at all.
In my "big" arm breaking accident several years ago, I distinctly remember flying through the air (I high-sided, at some speed) and I curled up into a ball - or tried. I hit upside down, shoulder more or less first, then back/hip. Pretty good scrape on my helmet, but I think that was from the general tumbling along I did afterwards. The general crunch fractured my arm, god knows what would have happened if I'd have tried to brace my fall with a hand.

I think that the received wisdom is that you don't really have much of a say in how you hit the ground, or what hits the ground. I think its an overestimation of your abilities to assume that you'll have the time to be anything other than a passenger.

il_principe

No but getting your hands out and protecting your head is fairly instinctive isn't it? Of course in a really big smash when you are airborne your not going to have much choice, but again I come back to my point that this is unlikely to happen to me.

Also I wear a snug cap which will prevent some abrasion. When I fell on last years Etape I was amazed at how well the areas of my body covered by 2 layers (base and jersey) were protected from abrasion (when sliding along the tarmac) compared to the bare and 1 layer covered areas.

Perhaps you just fall more than me? Do you MTB?

alfablue

jashburnham wrote:

No but getting your hands out and protecting your head is fairly instinctive isn't it?

I have never seen any evidence that a hand can protect the head in a bike crash...we need some population level studies otherwise we can only conclude that hands should not be used - they may even result in risk compensation and more reckless behaviour by other road users...

biondino

jashburnham wrote:

Oh and I can't really see a situation where Biondino is going to hit me in a head with a hammer

Keep imagining :twisted:

We're not doing badly - 20 pages in and Godwin's law is uninvoked and as far as I can tell no-one now hates anyone else. Even though I may look at Buns' advice in a different light from now on

(another thought re risk compensation: this can also have a positive effect in that people who may have been too timid to cycle will feel sufficiently more confident wearing a helmet that they actually do take up the pastime. Thoughts?)

always_tyred

jashburnham wrote:

No but getting your hands out and protecting your head is fairly instinctive isn't it? Of course in a really big smash when you are airborne your not going to have much choice, but again I come back to my point that this is unlikely to happen to me.

Also I wear a snug cap which will prevent some abrasion. When I fell on last years Etape I was amazed at how well the areas of my body covered by 2 layers (base and jersey) were protected from abrasion (when sliding along the tarmac) compared to the bare and 1 layer covered areas.

Perhaps you just fall more than me? Do you MTB?

I'm a lot older than you - just had more opportunity.

I freely admit that I cycle on some sketchy surfaces on my road bike (now cross bike, for precisely that reason) and I've chosen some pretty daft locations to cycle in my time. My invincibility cloak is a bit torn up as a result.

But you can't legislate against someone deliberately driving into you, as happened to me last month, and a few years ago.

My instinctive head protection position isn't hands out its head in hands, like the pictures on the aircraft safety diagram. Ideally, I'd go with the bucket of sand, but it slows me down to carry it round with me.

jimmypippa

A proper scientifically collected set of high-quality data trumps anecdotes, and are needed for quantifying the risk.

However, anecdotes *are* data, just messy and uncontrolled. Social anthropologists collect anecdotes and draw conclusions. They are not incorrect, but if the same question can be answered by a rigorous data collection, that would be superior.

I have seen lots of anecdotal evidence where people have had their helmets destroyed, yet had surprisingly few head injuries.

for example:

I came off my bike on a diesel spill this summer at more than 20 mph and the setion of my helmet over my right temple hit the tarmac. I collected a variety of injuries (eyebrow needed glueing, cracked rib, big haematoma on my hip). But I only had a minor headache. The helmet was crushed over my temple.

This *is* evidence that they work.

Furtherrmore, on the "risk compensation behaviour".

I understand that many serious accidents seem to occur where cyclists are not cycling assertively (i.e.confidently) enough.

GyatsoLa

Always Tyred wrote:

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.

Ok, willful distortion. 'The Bath Uni guy. He only measured one cyclist'. He wasn't measuring any cyclists. He was measuring drivers behavior, not cyclists behavior. Thats like saying a drugs trial is stupid because the placebos were only from one manufacturer.

Cunobelin

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi,

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.
.

"K"s are even more misleading than "KSI"s as the head injur quoted is often only a contributory factor....

Take for example a patient who is involved with a fatal head injury. It is extremely unlikely that this will be the only injury. The combination of thoracic, limb and other injuries may be equally contributory or indeed impair the ability to cope with a minor head injury- but the head injury is recorded as the official one.

There is also a flaw in the STATS14 data and the reporting system in that it is often built from Police reports and not clinical - as many of you who deal with injuries know the more serious are often less vsible. So the Police attend and seeing a highly dramatic and visible head injury, recording it appropriately. Then we find at A/E abdominal trauma and the patient dies from this.

Stats 14 is not updated so we still have head injury as the cause.

Head injuries in this case ae over reported.

GyatsoLa

jimmypippa wrote:

Furtherrmore, on the "risk compensation behaviour".

I understand that many serious accidents seem to occur where cyclists are not cycling assertively (i.e.confidently) enough.

Risk compensation is claimed to alter both riders and drivers behavior, although there is stronger evidence for its impact on drivers behavior than cyclists. I find it hard to believe that many cyclists fall off of their own accord because they are not cycling assertively enough. But certainly accidents occur involving cyclists and cars because cyclist aren't assertive enough on the road. Ian Walkers research provides some indication that cars drive closer to cyclists who appear more experienced (i.e. they wear helmets). So the result... iwell, there is no data that I'm aware of that is conclusive, but its not as simple as you are suggesting.

Cunobelin

Always Tyred wrote:

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.

With pedestrians significantly higher than cyclists I recollect

Cunobelin

Always Tyred wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

Out of interest, is your helmet SNELL certified?

The DoT review comments on this. The different standards are "substantially similar" and there is no evidence that helmets complying with different standards provide different levels of protection in practise.

EDIT: Oh, and the first helmet I ever owned was a Snell certified Specialised. It fit me okay, but perched on top of my head, didn't stay put, and didn't come nearly as far down the back and side of my head as my S1 did or Decibel does. There might be a reason that the Snell certification fell out of favour, although I understand that in some aspects it was more stringent.

Snell testing became "unpopular" because it is too tough!

There are NO helmets on the market that pass the Snell B95 test that was the original cycle helmet standard.

The tests differ considerably with basic differences such that Snell tests the helmets "off the shelf" (ie the same as you and I are wearing) whereas most others actually allow the manufacturer to manufacturea batch for the testing!

Add to that the difference in anvils, impact heights, forces and head forms - thereare significant differences.

As before why are we allowing these standards to be "dumbed down" to satisfy vanity and cosmetics?

karate monkey

i'm gladdened by the fact that there are at least some people on here who realise that helmets are for cretins.


well done non-helmet wearers

always_tyred

Cunobelin wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

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.

With pedestrians significantly higher than cyclists I recollect

Incorrect - unless you want to compare miles walked to miles ridden/driven, but hours ridden to hours driven. If you compare like with like, I think cycling is 4 or 5 times as dangerous - we went through this in another thread. Don't let that get int he way of a good argument though.

always_tyred

GyatsoLa wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

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.

Ok, willful distortion. 'The Bath Uni guy. He only measured one cyclist'. He wasn't measuring any cyclists. He was measuring drivers behavior, not cyclists behavior. Thats like saying a drugs trial is stupid because the placebos were only from one manufacturer.

I think that you DON'T have a scientific background. Given that the measurements were of distance between a cyclist and vehicles, I think the number of cyclists in the study is somewhat relevant.

Do you have half an hour to listen to me destroy the credibility of that research?

1. He knew the nature of the research, so it wasn't exactly a double blind.
2. He measured the distance between him and vehicles, but not him and the kerb.
3. Tiny sample size - 1 cyclist, something in the region of 20 hours' cycling.
4. From memory, I'm not sure that he normalised for colour

He also made some rather leading statements, perhaps to be provokative, attempting to draw conclusions from the fact that he had "2 accidents, both while wearing his helmet". Well, for starters, it indicates that he's not that good a cyclist, since this was conducted on a short commute over a single summer. Secondly, a statistical sampling of 2. Jesus.

Look, I don't want to insult your intelligence, but if you flip a coin and in lands on heads twice, do you conclude that coins always land on heads?

As for the "compensation effect" - as far as I know, and I might be wrong, there have been no studies into the corresponding effects on motorists. The only pointers are from the population level numbers, where it is - if it exists - one of any number of factors, as we've been discussing (and does not show up in those figures - so you can't have it both ways), and from "opinion data" which are basically questionairres and do not therefore provide any measure of actual behaviour.

So, back to your outburst about seat belts. I am sure that there is an effect regarding compensatory behaviour with seatbelt use. However, accident statistics and legislation in most major industrialised countries suggest that use of seatbelts results in dramatically lower fatality rates. Thus, even if you are a rabid believer in compensatory behaviour, I frankly think that to be AGAINST compulsory seat belt use in motor vehicles where the issue is so clear cut suggests that you are nothing more than a zealot. As such, I pointed out that the particular argument in respect of cycle helmets was being championed by someone who exhibited zealotry elsewhere.

always_tyred

Cunobelin wrote:

Snell testing became "unpopular" because it is too tough!

There are NO helmets on the market that pass the Snell B95 test that was the original cycle helmet standard.

The tests differ considerably with basic differences such that Snell tests the helmets "off the shelf" (ie the same as you and I are wearing) whereas most others actually allow the manufacturer to manufacturea batch for the testing!

Add to that the difference in anvils, impact heights, forces and head forms - thereare significant differences.

As before why are we allowing these standards to be "dumbed down" to satisfy vanity and cosmetics?

We should actually be cautions here - there are TWO Snell standards.
I was proposing that I owned a helmet which was so old it complied with the original. It had absolutely no side or back protection and so stability whatsoever. Therefore, I was pointing out that this might suggest that the original test had shortcomings.
As I understand it, there is a current Snell standard in North America that brands like Giro and Specialized comply with, but brands such as Met do not because they don't retail out there.

I think you are being naughty in infering that manufacturers send special batches of helmets for testing that are different from the ones you buy in the shop. Really, that qualifies as a conspiracy theory and if you are going to lob that out into the forum, you might want to have some evidence to back up that there is any actual deception taking place. It makes you sound desperate otherwise.

I'll limit myself to debating the available evidence if you do.

EDIT: The point regarding differences is quite true, however Iagain you have misunderstood: I was highlighting that workers had attempted to find evidence of differing levels of protection in the various population studied and had found none. You can interpret this how you wish - it might suggest that they are all good, all crap, or somewhere moderate and considered in the middle.

My overall thrust at the moment is to point out that you can't pick on the population studies for one thing and then blithely ignore them for others. You have to treat them with the same level of circumspection for all issues, regardless of your point of view on each of them.

alfablue

I think the off the shelf testing is more about ensuring consistency in the product in the way they are supplied to the shops, I am not convinced that manufacturers would have special batches for testing, but I would imagine they could possibly undergo more rigorous inspection, maybe, maybe not, but it is always going to be more reassuring when the testers select the helmets rather than the manufacturers. As far as I'm aware, only Specialized helmets meet the Snell standard, although not labelled as such in the UK. I emailed Specialized UK last year to clarify this and they confirmed they did meet Snell. The Snell test has several differences, not least the fact that impacts are conducted to nearly twice the force of EN tests.

biondino

Re the driving thing. In my experience (NB sample size of 1 - which makes me as valid as Mr Walker I guess), I couldn't imagine driving closer to a cyclist because he's wearing a helmet, but I could imagine driving further away from one if, in my snap visual judgment, I felt he was likely to be inexperienced or reckless. And not wearing a helmet could well be part of that judgment.

il_principe

Interestingly Bell have rejected Snell completely and use CE EN1078 in Europe and CPSC Certification in the US.

don_don

karate monkey wrote:

i'm gladdened by the fact that there are at least some people on here who realise that helmets are for cretins.


well done non-helmet wearers

This is the same bull-sh1t that says all car drivers are morons and all cyclists are lycra-louts.

The only cretins are the people whose views are so polarised as to refuse to see any other point of view. Does that description fit you KM?

:roll:

always_tyred

biondino wrote:

Re the driving thing. In my experience (NB sample size of 1 - which makes me as valid as Mr Walker I guess), I couldn't imagine driving closer to a cyclist because he's wearing a helmet, but I could imagine driving further away from one if, in my snap visual judgment, I felt he was likely to be inexperienced or reckless. And not wearing a helmet could well be part of that judgment.

There may very well be something in the notion that if a driver is passing a cyclist travelling rapidly in a predictable straight line, who is not wearing clothing that is flapping all over the place (e.g. an experienced roadie) they might feel the need to give them less room than they would a lady carrying a sun shade wearing a floral dress that was blowing in the breeze, cycling side saddle.

Similarly, if I'm driving and I pass a cyclist who is clearly pis$ed and weaving all over the place, I give them loads of room.

Thus, we must assume that weaving unpredicatbly all over the place is safer.

Obviously this is bollicks, and suggests, if anything, that Dr. Walker's research was preliminary.

But even if there is a compensatory effect, what should be the response? Open ourselves to more risk by lobbing our helmets into a field, or seek to educate motorists?

alfablue

jashburnham wrote:

Interestingly Bell have rejected Snell completely and use CE EN1078 in Europe and CPSC Certification in the US.

I think this is related to cost - EN and CPSC are required, why pay more for SNELL?

Littigator

Ker-rist are you lot still banging on about stats, snail tests and car-driver risk testing scenario factiodal failsafes???

Surely this thread was boring even before it started let alone after 24 pages!!!!!!!!!

:P

Littigator

Ker-rist are you lot still banging on about stats, snail tests and car-driver risk testing scenario factiodal failsafes???

Surely this thread was boring even before it started let alone after 24 pages!!!!!!!!!

:P