Anybody not wear a helmet? Discuss....

wgwarburton

AT writes:

> do you think that this difference (and the concomitant increased risk of collision) outweighs the overall benefit of wearing a helmet?

You're still doing it... when was it you stopped beating your wife?

Cheers,
W.

Groke

Always Tyred wrote:

Groke wrote:

These were the reports findings - I don't like them either (the cyclist who was accorded the most room was a bmx rider wearing a hooded top).

Incorrect. No mesurements were taken. This report consists entirely of information from interviews with drivers and is therefore based on what they think they'd do.

Are you convinced that a motorist would give, for example, a rider in full road lycra kit wearing a cycling cap measureably more room than the same rider wearing a helmet?

This would presuppose that the driver would actually notice (as opposed to comment on what they think they might do when asked to comment on this in particular). Given that drivers often fail to notice a cyclist entirely, I remain skeptical.

Assume for a second that you do belive this to reflect what actually takes place, and wearing a helmet means drivers pass you more closely. How much closer? Lets assume, for fun, that the guy from Bath Uni is correct and a driver comes on average 8 cm closer (do I remember that right?)

The next question you have to answer is, do you think that this difference (and the concomitant increased risk of collision) outweighs the overall benefit of wearing a helmet? Indeed, one might also ask, IS there an actual increased risk of collision, or is this factor itself outweighed by the factor that the types of cyclists afforded less room are more competent, predictable cyclists who are less likely to collide with vehicles passing them, not withstanding that said vehicle pass on average a certain percentage closer.

I'd argue that all of these factors are embedded in the data already.

The report contains a mixture of qualitative and quantitative data and it included a driving simulation (so more than just opinion). Note how I used the word "accorded"; I did not not allude to measurments.

I think headwear alone matters little to the way you are treated on the roads and I have yet to see a robust study that supports the risk compensation / helmet theory, but I would not dismiss it.

My point was less about helmets and more about perceptions of "predictability" being equated with safety.

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

AT writes:

> do you think that this difference (and the concomitant increased risk of collision) outweighs the overall benefit of wearing a helmet?

You're still doing it... when was it you stopped beating your wife?

Cheers,
W.

Pardon? I think that is quite offensive.

Christophe3967

Helmets really mess your hair up.

wgwarburton

Always Tyred wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

AT writes:

> do you think that this difference (and the concomitant increased risk of collision) outweighs the overall benefit of wearing a helmet?

You're still doing it... when was it you stopped beating your wife?

Cheers,
W.

Pardon? I think that is quite offensive.

Sorry, no offence meant- It's a standard example of a question where either answer condemns you.

My point is that you continue to write as if it were definitely proven that cycle helmets are beneficial overall, which is not the case. In fact it's misleading.

You may believe they are effective, but that's an opinion, not something that's "provable", and it would be appreciated if you would acknowledge that.

Cheers,
W.

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

AT writes:

> do you think that this difference (and the concomitant increased risk of collision) outweighs the overall benefit of wearing a helmet?

You're still doing it... when was it you stopped beating your wife?

Cheers,
W.

Pardon? I think that is quite offensive.

Sorry, no offence meant- It's a standard example of a question where either answer condemns you.

My point is that you continue to write as if it were definitely proven that cycle helmets are beneficial overall, which is not the case. In fact it's misleading.

You may believe they are effective, but that's an opinion, not something that's "provable", and it would be appreciated if you would acknowledge that.

Cheers,
W.

Ah, tea or coffee [Y/N].

I see what you mean - okay, interpret the question as being based on the prima facie assumption that a helmet will mitigate the effects of blunt force trauma to the head. As opposed to asking you to assume that the overall benefit of helmets is positive in population studies.

i.e. I'm pointing out that helmets have a measureable (in the lab) positive effect, and in the context of debating whether or not this tranlates into the real world, the discussion has moved on to other factors such as this compensatory behaviour idea.

I was trying to set out a chain of reasoning for what factors must cancel out what, in order for the compensatory effect to result in no overall benefit to helmet use, to see if anyone thought that it sounded reasonable that this might be the case.

don_don

Always Tyred wrote:

linsen wrote:

MODERATOR - can you lock this blinking thread now?

You are no fun any more.

No, do it MODS, lock the thread..

Its already beaten my lost_in_thought love story thread and I can tell you, I'm p*ssed off about that!

il_principe

Nah, it's cathartic. We need a good helmet/RLJ thread every now and again!

itboffin

I couldn't be arsed to read this thread but did notice Buns threatening to beat up some ones wife, get in there Buns and be sure to kick her when she's down....

What WAS this all about? which is best Shimano or Campagnolo?

always_tyred

jashburnham wrote:

Nah, it's cathartic. We need a good helmet/RLJ thread every now and again!

You may find it hard to believe, but I don't actually hold particularly strong views regarding helmet use. I have my opinion, yes, but not 27 pages worth.

However (a) I like a good argument (preferably a full half hour) and (b) I find the way people interpret information on this subject absolutley fascinating. (I also find the way people react to having someone challenge the way they interpret information pretty interesting also).

Cunobelin

Always Tyred wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

Please feel free to ignore the question if you find it inconvenient.

Go to the pedestrian forum. Or the motoring forum.

Hell, I don't know why we are debating deaths due to traumatic injury at all. And if you are, shouldn't we first focus on the minor wars in third world countries forum?

Mind you, that all just pales into insignificance when you consider the stuff they talk about on the starvation forum.

But then, some diseases have killed more people than all of this put together. We should be on the malaria forum. Or the cholera forum.

What was your point again?

So we can no longer discuss anything such as cars, diets, etc - your idea of what can and cannot be discussed is a little restrictive, but if that is what you really feel then feel free to limit yourself when it becomes convenient to do so.

Those with an open mind will realise that excluding the inconvenient is poor debating or discussion.

You will not like this, but the facts are simple...

More pedestrians are admitted with head injuries than cyclists
If head injuries are prevented by helmets then more injuries would be prevented if the pedestrians wore helmets....

A greater saving in NHS costs would be achieved, and agreater reduction in personal and social costs

If you feel unable to recognise this or simply would rather find an excuse not to recognise this - then feel free......

Avoiding these facts will not make them go away.

Cunobelin

Server problem - deleted post

Cunobelin

Here is an interesting one......

A jacket that has an airbag built in

Now as it is (at present) for motorcyclists - can we discuss its possible implications for cyclists?

Or is it banned to motorcycle fora?

DO we discuss it?

biondino

Lose the sarcasm and maybe we can discuss it!

jimmypippa

Cunobelin, are you arguing that because pedestrians get head injuries, cyclists shouldn't wear helmets?

Even if you include data from drunk pedestrians, you'll find that per hour, head-injuries are more common and more severe amongst cyclists without helmets compared to pedestrians without helmets.

Cunobelin

jimmypippa wrote:

Cunobelin, are you arguing that because pedestrians get head injuries, cyclists shouldn't wear helmets?

Even if you include data from drunk pedestrians, you'll find that per hour, head-injuries are more common and more severe amongst cyclists without helmets compared to pedestrians without helmets.

No - I am pointing out that there would be greater financial savings in costs to the NHS and in social and personal costs if all head injury patients had been wearing helmets

I don't work in an environment that calculates how many head injuries should or may occur - I deal with the ones that are brought in through the door. Cyclists form a very small minority of the head injuries we see.

We can put definite and proven firm figures on the head injuries that occur.........

The hypocrisy is to suggest that a cyclist in some way has a responsibility to prevent this injury whilst a pedestrian in the next bed with an identical injury does not. Person A can decide that the risk to themselves is small enough not to wear a helmet as a pedestrian, but person B is not allowed to decide that the risk to themselves is small enough not to wear a helmet as a cyclist.


If you read the posts you will see that I am in favour of more protective helmets and also promoting them where they will prevent head injuries - including cyclists.

One study which looked at admissions showed that if ALL head injuries admitted had worn helmets then some 5 lives would have been saved if cyclists had worn them, but 150 if all (including pedestrians and car drivers) had worn them. These are hard facts.... you can tell the pedestrian that they "were at less risk" but it will not hurt less or make the prognosis any better.

For instance when compared with overall mileage the number of 40 year old female cyclists suffering head injuries is probably low enough to make helmet use in their case on a par with pedestrians - do they not wear helmets as the "risk" is low?

We deal with the outcome..... that is what a helmet prevents.... and this needs to be considered.



Edited ..

PS the single biggest common feature in head injuries is Alcohol with over 60% of injuries,followed by 40% as falls (Thornhill et al)

Strangely there is also a correlation suggesting that severe head injuries are more common in those who have had a previous head injury.

Cunobelin

biondino wrote:

Lose the sarcasm and maybe we can discuss it!

What sarcasm?

It is on the restricted list!

biondino

Person A can decide that the risk to themselves is small enough not to wear a helmet as a pedestrian, but person B is not allowed to decide that the risk to themselves is small enough not to wear a helmet as a cyclist.

Even the most vitriolic pro-helmet debaters on this thread readily agree that no adult should be forced to wear a helmet! You know this!

always_tyred

biondino wrote:

Even the most vitriolic pro-helmet debaters on this thread....

I resent that.

(Do not be concerned. I'm just hamming things up for effect.)

DiggingDeeper

The state will decide what you wear and what you don't. At present it does not stipulate, but it's coming. NZ, Aus etc its coming and you will have to put up with it.

It won't happen to you so don't worry!!!!

I have had a helmet smashed up on me - so I am glad I wore one, but it won't happen to you so don't worry.

No it won't, really, no not at all.

Me, I am going to crushed by a bus.................................................

JonnyBoy

You're the rare individual who has fully provided for his own health insurance, disability insurance and unemployment insurance. I've no problem with anyone who does the same deciding to cycle without a helmet. If someone expects me to help pay for their health care, long term care, or sick leave, then that makes it in part my decision.

I'm all for personal choice and not having a nanny state.. but for my mind, not wearing a helmet could be considered a selfish personal decision. I agree with the comments above, but its not just a cost to NHS issue, its on more levels than that.

What happens if on a group ride, helmetless, you crash and sustain head injuries, leaving you drifting in and out of consciousness, dribbling, bleeding profusely....
Whilst you made that descision to accept that situation as inherent risk to yourself, is it then fair to subject you helmeted riding buddies to having to deal with the ensuing shit show that is making sure you don't die.. when potentially - your choice to wear a helmet could have avoided all that bother?

Obviously that's worse case scenario and the same could be said about any number of other injuries causing significant personal damage while crashing from your bike.. but its only a helmet for your head and if it reduces my risk of severe head injury then I'll be wearing one on my bike [apart from popping down the shops or the salon ]

back-on-two-wheels

If you're one of them... maybe you could talk me through it.

In response to the OP. I bought a bike & bits but skipped helmet purchase at time - with every intention of getting one soon after.
Hindsight they say...

It happens remarkably quickly. One moment I'm trundling along and then I feel an odd, dull sore, scraping feeling on top of my head. Stood up looking for my bike but was asked to sit down again by a kind man who said he'd called an ambulance. Then lots of people appeared and I suddenly felt very guilty and :oops: at hindering their homeward journeys. One kind lady had a big green box of plasters but looked at my head, then the plasters, and then slowly shut the lid again...

I didn't pass out but it would appear I'd been over the handlebars and the odd dull painful feeling was my head sliding along the tarmac for a couple of metres. Add to that a fractured right clavical, bruised hip and the obligatory road rash. When reading about poor old lance armstrong I thought yup - that's annoying isn't it.

Admittedly the helmet might not have saved every injury but it would probably have saved a lot of time on the part of the kind people who looked after me, my local NHS staff - who were marvellous BTW and my embarrassment of passing the long red trail ending in a splodge that took about two weeks to dissappear... oh and some of my hair!

FYI - I felt I should vote NO as it seemed relevant to my post. Suffice to say that now though, I have a helmet and given the unnecessary inconvenience I caused lots of people, I'd recommend it... I'm definitely a YES voter.

teagar

JonnyBoy wrote:

What happens if on a group ride, helmetless, you crash and sustain head injuries, leaving you drifting in and out of consciousness, dribbling, bleeding profusely....
Whilst you made that descision to accept that situation as inherent risk to yourself, is it then fair to subject you helmeted riding buddies to having to deal with the ensuing shoot show that is making sure you don't die.. when potentially - your choice to wear a helmet could have avoided all that bother?

Don't get on a bike in the first place and then you'll never have to fall off it... :roll: No bother at all then.

steve-m

back-on-two-wheels wrote:

Admittedly the helmet might not have saved every injury but it would probably have saved a lot of time on the part of the kind people who looked after me, my local NHS staff - who were marvellous BTW and my embarrassment of passing the long red trail ending in a splodge that took about two weeks to dissappear... oh and some of my hair!

Why do you believe that? Is it assumption or evidence?

back-on-two-wheels

Why do you believe that? Is it assumption or evidence?

An interesting question. Hopefully this answers it.
I believe assumption with regard to the level of injuries sustained but definitely evidence on the part of the time and resources of other people.
As head wounds do have a habit of bleeding fairly disproportionately to the injury, the fact I was sitting watching drops create an increasingly large puddle meant it probably looked worse at the time. Add to that the expressions on peoples faces and - as kind as people try to be, faces say a lot - it was evident that my head didn't look pretty. So cosmetically my head wound had a lot more visual shock than a bit of road rash, and the audience reaction supported this observation. Also the marvellous staff at my local NHS spent a fair amount of time picking gravel out of my head and stitching it up as well as additional x-rays and cost of an NHS B&B.

This next bit is supposition but based on the facts I think a theoretical probability.
If I had been wearing a helmet then there's a strong chance that I might have sustained only the bone fracture and some road rash. Not pretty but not nearly as shocking and I might not have alarmed nearly as many people kind people as I did. I would likely have still incurred some NHS costs but perhaps not needed an ambulance and I doubt an NHS B&B would have been necessary.
The time and expenditure on my head wound seemed disproportionate to the affect the injury had on me. Apart from a headache for a little while and scarring I suffered little or no inconvenience. The fracture however caused a lot more inconvenience but short of getting a sling and an x-ray required little medical attention.
Surprisingly to me I wasn't noticeably judged once for not wearing a helmet. I think perhaps the lesson spoke for itself.
To conclude then, I feel it's fair to say that a helmet would have saved others a lot more time and inconvenience but as it transpired, little effect on me.
which leaves me rather :oops: but eternally grateful to all those kind people who did selflessly stop to help and patch me up.
My opinion now? It's not big and it's not clever.

flattythehurdler

If you weren't wearing a helmet you might not have fallen off.
I reckon one should disguise one's bike as a racehorse, with white eyes and flaring nostrils.
They get plenty of room from motorists.

always_tyred

flattythehurdler wrote:

If you weren't wearing a helmet you might not have fallen off.
I reckon one should disguise one's bike as a racehorse, with white eyes and flaring nostrils.
They get plenty of room from motorists.

Dry ice. If you carry a bucket of the stuff, you can drip water from a bottle onto it and create your own fog. Drivers slow down in fog. Way more effective than a helmet.

Jay dubbleU

Personally I think all pedestrians should be compelled to wear helmets and padded jackets - so much easier to bounce off them :evil:

I usually wear a helmet around town but if I'm bikepacking then I'm usually heading for the nearest mountain and either wear a climbing helmet or nothing as I want to cut down on weight

Actually with a lightweight frame and some canvas you could disguise your bike as a white van and get RESPECT :P

JonnyBoy

teagar wrote:

JonnyBoy wrote:

What happens if on a group ride, helmetless, you crash and sustain head injuries, leaving you drifting in and out of consciousness, dribbling, bleeding profusely....
Whilst you made that descision to accept that situation as inherent risk to yourself, is it then fair to subject you helmeted riding buddies to having to deal with the ensuing shoot show that is making sure you don't die.. when potentially - your choice to wear a helmet could have avoided all that bother?

Don't get on a bike in the first place and then you'll never have to fall off it... :roll: No bother at all then.

You're missing the point.. I think its fine to get on a bike and fall off.. as thats what happens and thats accepted PERSONAL risk... its the 'fecking' up everyone elses day that I think is a factor that people don't consider when making the decision to wear a helmet (is that not selfish?)

Case in point

To conclude then, I feel it's fair to say that a helmet would have saved others a lot more time and inconvenience but as it transpired, little effect on me.
which leaves me rather Embarassed but eternally grateful to all those kind people who did selflessly stop to help and patch me up.
My opinion now? It's not big and it's not clever.

Glad you're ok and sorry it took an injury for you to change your outlook.

teagar

JonnyBoy wrote:

teagar wrote:

JonnyBoy wrote:

What happens if on a group ride, helmetless, you crash and sustain head injuries, leaving you drifting in and out of consciousness, dribbling, bleeding profusely....
Whilst you made that descision to accept that situation as inherent risk to yourself, is it then fair to subject you helmeted riding buddies to having to deal with the ensuing shoot show that is making sure you don't die.. when potentially - your choice to wear a helmet could have avoided all that bother?

Don't get on a bike in the first place and then you'll never have to fall off it... :roll: No bother at all then.

You're missing the point.. I think its fine to get on a bike and fall off.. as thats what happens and thats accepted PERSONAL risk... its the 'fecking' up everyone elses day that I think is a factor that people don't consider when making the decision to wear a helmet (is that not selfish?)

Case in point

To conclude then, I feel it's fair to say that a helmet would have saved others a lot more time and inconvenience but as it transpired, little effect on me.
which leaves me rather Embarassed but eternally grateful to all those kind people who did selflessly stop to help and patch me up.
My opinion now? It's not big and it's not clever.

Glad you're ok and sorry it took an injury for you to change your outlook.

I get the point.

You don't get mine. Never get on a bike then you'll never have to fall off, and so you'll never have to bother anyone trying to help you. :roll: