Anybody not wear a helmet? Discuss....

biondino

In summer my scalp sweats like a motherf*cker anyway and in winter I'm glad for the warming effect, but maybe being bald is different from all you hirsute types.

greg66_tri_v2.0

biondino wrote:

My logic is that if I feel safer wearing a helmet (and I do), then it'd be nonsensical to ever not wear a helmet. If I ever had an accident when not wearing one and cracked my skull, I'd end up as the village idiot. QED.

Fixed that right up for you. No charge.

greg66_tri_v2.0

biondino wrote:

In summer my scalp sweats like a motherf*cker

Have you tried spraying your head with anti-perspirant?

Littigator

verloren wrote:

jashburnham - I agree, that's why I made the point that it applies to almost everyone, and it certainly applies a lot more to most of those.

Clever Pun - Well I wouldn't protest, but my standard is that you did a reasonable thing (cycling) and took reasonable precautions (a helmet). Reasonable is a beautifully vague word, of course As to the insurance you have, it sounds like you've covered everything so long as you don't incur permanent brain injury. I hope that is never an issue.

what an a$$e, shall we ban extreme sports at the same time....extreme is abeautifully vague term after all. I mean does it cover the off piste skier who breaks both legs, the boxer who gets brain damage. What about a paraplegic rugby player who had a scrum collapse on him? Or a pole vaulter whose pole snaps and breaks limbs? Should they ball wear helmets oe wear all protective clothing possible for each instance or shall we just ban the sports and refuse medical treatment if people don't listen to us...after all we're the ones paying for it eh!

Tell you what I'll keep typing the list and you can tell them t their face they can be treated because it's their fault for getting injured.

Phew...rant over

The list goes on....

walkernomore

verloren wrote:

walkernomore wrote:

I don't (except on days when I think I am leaving my wits at home) because there are many other things I could do to reduce risk in my life that would be much more effective than wearing a cycling helment - not cycling would be one - so wearing a helmet seems to be a bit tokenistic. But each to their own.

Mark

That's a puzzling attitude to me - in almost everything I do there's *something* more effective I could do, but that doesn't mean I don't bother doing at least something.

I didn't say I don't bother. What I meant was that simply wearing a cycling helmet and not doing any of the many other things I could do to protect myself from harm would have such an infinitesimal effect on the probablility of seriously damaging myself that it would be like doing two Lucky Dips instead of one as a strategy to get through the credit crunch.

Littigator

Greg66 wrote:

I wear one because I use my head to earn a living.

If I thought I could make a living eating through a tube, dribbling and staring blankly into the middle distance, I'd probably not bother.

PS: Litts - I love your textbook use of the quote fields. It's like having a live masterclass! :twisted:

Stop flirting with me...semi invalid lawyers aren't my style

always_tyred

How many of you non helmet wearer choose to wear reflective or bright clothing? How many of you carry lights? Why are these less of an imposition than wearing a helmet?

I've never driven into a cyclist without lights or reflectives at night. The headlights of my car have always been enough. Given the risk, and that they aren't all that effective against a ton of metal if the driver is inattentive anyway, I personally don't bother when I'm cycling because lights are heavy and expensive and a reflective jacket makes me sweat.

coffeecup

walkernomore wrote:

it would be like doing two Lucky Dips instead of one as a strategy to get through the credit crunch.

I've been doing two lucky dips for the past six months.....my dreams....shattered....

plan B - work.... for ever.....

greg66_tri_v2.0

Littigator wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I wear one because I use my head to earn a living.

If I thought I could make a living eating through a tube, dribbling and staring blankly into the middle distance, I'd probably not bother.

PS: Litts - I love your textbook use of the quote fields. It's like having a live masterclass! :twisted:

Stop flirting with me...semi invalid lawyers aren't my style

Would you change your mind for a 1/4 invalid?

Littigator

I would if she was blonde and had a twin.....oh you mean you

greg66_tri_v2.0

Littigator wrote:

I would if she was blonde and had a twin.....oh you mean you

Hey - I can be anything you want me to be.

Give me 30 mins and some papier mache and I'll even have a twin for you.

verloren

Littigator wrote:

what an a$$e

Thanks for the moderate nature of your reply, Littigator. I'm perfectly happy to pay my share in all of the circumstances you mention, even though it means I'm paying for someone else's risk, because these are risks that we deem acceptable in society. There are people who don't think they should help support such behaviour, however, and I suspect everyone has their limit. For example, I don't believe that someone repeatedly trying to emulate Jackass should get care when they inevitably get injured. Or to use one of your examples, if the boxer with brain damage got back into the ring in a lucid but slowed mental state I don't think he deserves extra care when his brain damage worsens.


walkernomore - I'm not sure we're in disagreement. If you've reason to believe that wearing a helmet is of no benefit, then sure, don't wear one. If you think it does, but there are other things that would be even more beneficial (full motorbike leathers and helmet, perhaps?) that doesn't mean it's not worth bothering with the helmet.

(edit: speeling)

roger_merriman

Always Tyred wrote:

How many of you non helmet wearer choose to wear reflective or bright clothing? How many of you carry lights? Why are these less of an imposition than wearing a helmet?

I've never driven into a cyclist without lights or reflectives at night. The headlights of my car have always been enough. Given the risk, and that they aren't all that effective against a ton of metal if the driver is inattentive anyway, I personally don't bother when I'm cycling because lights are heavy and expensive and a reflective jacket makes me sweat.

my town bike has lights, think low flying ufo. my work jacket does have refective bits though i don't always wear it as it's not always cold and wet. i ride in many ways like a car, and with good lights means i rarely get "dumb" drivers.

if the jacket is too hot i don't wear it, same as with any hat.

always_tyred

These threads are always interesting. Having seen a few come and go, it seems to me that the "where do you draw the line" debate pretty much hinges on the perception, or otherwise, that cycle helmets are completely ineffective. No one really seems to extend the argument to suggest that motorcyclists shouldn't wear them, for example.

So, IF cycle helmets were effective against the sort of head injuries and impacts associated with cycling, would you non helmet wearers wear one? (To answer this you have to set aside the assumption that such helmets would be like motor cycle helmets and thus unsuited to cycling).

Christophe3967

Always Tyred wrote:

These threads are always interesting. Having seen a few come and go, it seems to me that the "where do you draw the line" debate pretty much hinges on the perception, or otherwise, that cycle helmets are completely ineffective. No one really seems to extend the argument to suggest that motorcyclists shouldn't wear them, for example.

So, IF cycle helmets were effective against the sort of head injuries and impacts associated with cycling, would you non helmet wearers wear one? (To answer this you have to set aside the assumption that such helmets would be like motor cycle helmets and thus unsuited to cycling).

Yes, and I always wear a seat belt in a taxi

Littigator

verloren wrote:

Littigator wrote:

what an a$$e

Thanks for the moderate nature of your reply, Littigator. I'm perfectly happy to pay my share in all of the circumstances you mention, even though it means I'm paying for someone else's risk, because these are risks that we deem acceptable in society. There are people who don't think they should help support such behaviour, however, and I suspect everyone has their limit. For example, I don't believe that someone repeatedly trying to emulate Jackass should get care when they inevitably get injured. Or to use one of your examples, if the boxer with brain damage got back into the ring in a lucid but slowed mental state I don't think he deserves extra care when his brain damage worsens.


walkernomore - I'm not sure we're in disagreement. If you've reason to believe that wearing a helmet is of no benefit, then sure, don't wear one. If you think it does, but there are other things that would be even more beneficial (full motorbike leathers and helmet, perhaps?) that doesn't mean it's not worth bothering with the helmet.

(edit: speeling)

And you accuse me of not being 'moderate'. In my opinion, it is you who are taking an immoderate point of view. ps would you take the same position with amateur footballers or rugby players who get repeat injuries?

If you find the level of banter here to be too abrupt then feel free to to go back to posting on the Daily Mail website forums.

lost_in_thought

verloren wrote:

Thanks for the moderate nature of your reply, Littigator. I'm perfectly happy to pay my share in all of the circumstances you mention, even though it means I'm paying for someone else's risk, because these are risks that we deem acceptable in society. There are people who don't think they should help support such behaviour, however, and I suspect everyone has their limit. For example, I don't believe that someone repeatedly trying to emulate Jackass should get care when they inevitably get injured. Or to use one of your examples, if the boxer with brain damage got back into the ring in a lucid but slowed mental state I don't think he deserves extra care when his brain damage worsens.

Verloren, where do you draw the line? What's OK for healthcare and what's not? And how do you justify that position?

If you carry on from that view then nobody who willingly does anything that might get themselves injured or worsens their health doesn't deserve healthcare.

I think not wearing a helmet is a 'socially acceptable risk' - it's not a legal requirement and a lot of people (not necessarily on here) don't wear one.

However, I think it's a really bad idea for people to eat kebabs on their way home from a night out... so I'm not paying for their healthcare when they have heart attacks.

verloren

Littigator - I'd be entirely happy to pay for the treatment of repeat injuries for the rugby players or footballists. I'd draw the line if one of them had, for example, a bone fracture, went out and played and made the fracture worse. A simple test would be if after hearing how the sportsperson acquired their injury your first thought is "well it's not bloody surprising is it?"; in such circumstances I'd be inclined to refuse additional treatment. Try it yourself - "I was playing football and was fouled and sprained my ankle" = treatment, "I cut the plaster off my forearm and went out to play, and my arm broke even worse than last time" = "well it's not bloody surprising is it?" and no treatment.

Nice generalization about the Dailt Mail, btw, but I hold that paper in even greater contempt than I do the Daily Torygraph, and it's certainly far more execrable than the awful red-tops, which at least rarely pretend to journalism.

verloren

lost_in_thought - As I mentioned above, in general I'd draw the line around the expectation of injury. If what you're doing could reasonably be expected to injure you, then I don't see why I should pay for your medical care. So cycling (with or without a helmet) *can* injure you, but we don't expect it to. Similarly eating a kebab isn't going to do you any harm, whereas eating 3 a day is likely to harm you over time.

A parallel would be unemployment benefit. If you lose your job I'm perfectly happy to pay the taxes needed to help you get back on your feet, and I hope you'd do the same for me or anyone else. But if I can't be arsed to work I can't reasonably expect you to pay for me to stay at home, can I? Yet in both situations we're talking about a person who doesn't have a job.

tarquin_foxglove

I was sideswiped by a car a few years ago, my bike & I were rushed to hospital in an ambulance but there was nothing really wrong with me other than a few cuts & bruises and I was to be discharged.

On the way out of the inspection room I was chatting to the nurse and walked into a wall and knocked myself out :oops: . If I'd had a helmet on I would have been fine, perhaps everyone should have to wear one at all times.

Always Tyred wrote:

IF cycle helmets were effective against the sort of head injuries and impacts associated with cycling, would you non helmet wearers wear one?

I don't wear one at the moment but would wear one if it actually provided protection rather than a false sense of security.

il_principe

I think all peds should be made to wear helmets, especially when it's icy. At the speeds peds move a helmet might actually be of benefit.

It's funny how there is never this debate over skiing and helmets. I go far faster on skis than I do on a bike, so do many people, yet how many skiers do you see wearing helmets? Not many and I certainly don't - yet I reckon I'm more likely to fall on skis than I am on the bike...

Right all skiers should wear helmets too. Who else? What about drivers in cars without airbags? Or bus passengers? Yeah bus passengers should defo wear helmets, I mean they're not even strapped in and buses go quite fast sometimes don't they. Come to think of it, no belts, no helmets - they must be death traps. I'm certainly not paying for the treatment of anyone who willingly catches a bus.

Come to think of it, perhaps we should just wear helmets all the time, you never know when the skies might fall in.

I'll be alright though, I'm going down to my cellar now, reckon I'll make a cocoon out of cotton wool and just stay there, forever. Yes, then I'll be safe.

lost_in_thought

jashburnham wrote:

I think all peds should be made to wear helmets, especially when it's icy. At the speeds peds move a helmet might actually be of benefit.

It's funny how there is never this debate over skiing and helmets. I go far faster on skis than I do on a bike, so do many people, yet how many skiers do you see wearing helmets? Not many and I certainly don't - yet I reckon I'm more likely to fall on skis than I am on the bike...

Right all skiers should wear helmets too. Who else? What about drivers in cars without airbags? Or bus passengers? Yeah bus passengers should defo wear helmets, I mean they're not even strapped in and buses go quite fast sometimes don't they. Come to think of it, no belts, no helmets - they must be death traps. I'm certainly not paying for the treatment of anyone who willingly catches a bus.

Come to think of it, perhaps we should just wear helmets all the time, you never know when the skies might fall in.

I'll be alright though, I'm going down to my cellar now, reckon I'll make a cocoon out of cotton wool and just stay there, forever. Yes, then I'll be safe.

I also don't wear a helmet snowboarding. Nobody every bugs me about that.

iain_j

jashburnham wrote:

I'll be alright though, I'm going down to my cellar now, reckon I'll make a cocoon out of cotton wool and just stay there, forever. Yes, then I'll be safe.

What if the roof falls in on your cellar? What if you develop an allergic reaction to the cotton wool?

Feltup

Snowboarding without a helmet are you crazy?

Sorry couldn't resist...never worn one myself on the slopes. I do wear one most of the time on the bike. I don't wear one kitesurfing but do get pestered to wear one by some of my mates. Not sure why the change in philosophy though.

verloren

jashburnham - nice use of hyperbole. My reaction would be "No, inject yourself with whatever you want, I'll pay to have you put back together. You know, I've always wondered what turps tastes like too, why don't you neck a bottle and then I'll pay for you to have your stomach pumped. No really, modern crumple zone laws mean that getting hit by a car isn't so bad - try it, and I'll fax my bank details direct to the NHS to save any confusion. Well, I guess that cliff looks pretty high to me, but what the hell, birds evolved flight, why not you eh?"

greg66_tri_v2.0

jashburnham wrote:

It's funny how there is never this debate over skiing and helmets. I go far faster on skis than I do on a bike, so do many people, yet how many skiers do you see wearing helmets? Not many and I certainly don't - yet I reckon I'm more likely to fall on skis than I am on the bike...

Hold on. I *know* you've skied in Canada, so I know you must have seen a lot of helmeted skiers. In Whistler, the non-helmeted skiers are pretty rare now. Ditto snowboarders.

I started wearing a helmet skiing for precisely the reason you cite (and to avoid arguments with the kids over them wearing helmet if I didn't; which was unnecessary as they're mandatory at ski school in W). And since then I've had at least three *big* hits which have left me feeling very happy to have been wearing a helmet.

I'm pretty sure than Austria imposed mandatory helmets for all skiers under 14 only last month, following a fatal accident. I would guess they didn't impose a blanket measure for fear of being at a disadvantage to Switzerland & France.

Seriously jash, if you ski fast, you really should consider a helmet. They're not hot, heavy or crap. You can get bluetooth earpieces built into them. I'd never go out without mine now.

il_principe

verloren wrote:

jashburnham - nice use of hyperbole. My reaction would be "No, inject yourself with whatever you want, I'll pay to have you put back together. You know, I've always wondered what turps tastes like too, why don't you neck a bottle and then I'll pay for you to have your stomach pumped. No really, modern crumple zone laws mean that getting hit by a car isn't so bad - try it, and I'll fax my bank details direct to the NHS to save any confusion. Well, I guess that cliff looks pretty high to me, but what the hell, birds evolved flight, why not you eh?"

08 Boardman Hybrid Comp for the wet weather.

Starting to make sense now... :P

wgwarburton

Hi,
No-one seems to have mentioned what seems to me to be a fundamental point:

Cycling isn't dangerous.

Mountain biking offroad may be different, or racing etc but if you are riding on public roads to get from A to B you are very unlikely to get killed or seriously injured.

It's worth bearing that in mind when considering helmet use.

Cheers,
W.

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

I also don't wear a helmet snowboarding. Nobody every bugs me about that.

Step over here, young lady. I have a finger that's itching to do some wagging...

_Brun_

I don't wear one round town, I find keeping my wits about me to be a far more reassuring means of self preservation than the (possibly false) sense of security a helmet provides. Before anyone mentions that you can't mitigate for idiot drivers/cyclists/pedestrians etc, I'm quite confident in my ability to foresee (in a common sense rather than paranormal fashion) potential dangers before become an incident.

I see no end of people cycling round the place with their helmeted head's up their arses. Probably assuming they won't have an accident because they're covered in high-vis and lights, and thinking they'll be ok if they do because they're wearing a helmet.