Anybody not wear a helmet? Discuss....

itboffin

lost_in_thought wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

I don't have a problem with people wearing helmets, if they want to do so, what grates on me is the assumption that they are needed, that they are effective and that others are somehow shirking their reponsibilities by choosing not to.

+1!

Word to the wise - experience on the FG/SS thread shows that buns is always right, it just takes some of us longer to realise it.

Er we don't openly admit that :oops:

This was the last helmet I wore and kind of the reason I don't wear one now.

karate monkey

i think helmets are skill compensators , and they make you look stupid.

i ride 300 miles a week on road now ,and don't wear a helmet for even one of those miles. 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

Always Tyred writes:

> Haven't you just applied all of the same assumptions, in your own sweet way?

Of course, but the key difference is that mine are correct and The_Darkness' are wrong! :-)

More specifically- you can look at the accident statistics and determine that cycling isn't particularly dangerous (hundreds of thousands of miles between KSIs, IIRC), at the experience of countries where helmets have been mandated (no significant drop in head injuries) and assess from there.
I don't have a problem with people wearing helmets, if they want to do so, what grates on me is the assumption that they are needed, that they are effective and that others are somehow shirking their reponsibilities by choosing not to.
Maybe if The Darkness would care to justify his starting point, I'd be less irritated. I might still think s/he's wrong, but at least we'd get away from the dubious assumption that it doesn't even need to be stated.

Cheers,
W.

#
Agreed that the risks are not as high as one might imagine.

However, there must surely be a balance between likelihood of any injury and likely consequences of any injury.

I'm personally of the view that, since like Greg my wits are all I have, I would prefer to mitigate the potential risks of that particular form of injury. If I was a bottom double for Brad Pitt, I might be rather more concerned about road rash, and wear downhill mountain bike shorts, for example.

always_tyred

karate monkey wrote:

i think helmets are skill compensators , and they make you look stupid.

i ride 300 miles a week on road now ,and don't wear a helmet for even one of those miles. 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

what a tit.

StrangelyBrown

I don't wear one because cycling on a public road is far too dangerous - only a madman would consider the risk.

I stay at home wrapped up in a sumo suit for protection. Don't go out there, it's dangerous :!:

Littigator

walkernomore wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

walkernomore wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

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

Sorry, and this is not aimed at the author personally, but isnt the hypocritical bollocks that attaches to this debate brought out perfectly in the above paragraph?

Sorry, but the subtlety of your observation is a bit beyond me. Care to amplify?


Sorry - people put a helmet on their head, but at the same time make the world a more dangerous place for both themselves and (the bit that IS my business) for others by rendering themselves deaf/hearing impaired with earphones.

Ahhhhhhhhh look out it's the behaviour police...quick he's about to arrest us for doing what we want to do...RUNAWAY!

In other news, I know a deaf rider...should we ban him from riding because of the intrusion on your personal safety? What about the two one legged riders I see round Richmond Park...selfish b&stards risking everyone else's safety wobbling around like that eh :twisted:

If I want to rid with music I will, also if I want to pul a wheelie do a skid or ride no handed then I shall

thankyouverymuch :P

Littigator

lost_in_thought wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

I don't have a problem with people wearing helmets, if they want to do so, what grates on me is the assumption that they are needed, that they are effective and that others are somehow shirking their reponsibilities by choosing not to.

+1!

Word to the wise - experience on the FG/SS thread shows that buns is always right, it just takes some of us longer to realise it.

I too fell foul of the wisdom of buns and made the schoolboy error of trying to argue with him.

The pain has gone but the scars are still there. Perhaps I should have worn a helmet

karate monkey

i ride off road without a helmet too

and snowboard at speed witjout a helmet ,or a stupid bluetooth headset.
:P
lol

greg66_tri_v2.0

karate monkey wrote:

i ride off road without a helmet too

and snowboard at speed witjout a helmet ,or a stupid bluetooth headset.
:P
lol

Yeah.

It shows.

always_tyred

karate monkey wrote:

i ride off road without a helmet too

and snowboard at speed witjout a helmet ,or a stupid bluetooth headset.
:P
lol

Do you buzz people learning to snow plough on the bunny run?

Way cool.

tailwindhome

jashburnham wrote:

I take your point Greg, but I stand by my stats, 20 years and never any need of a helmet.

Is that not a helmet in your moi photo?

wgwarburton

Always Tyred:

> Agreed that the risks are not as high as one might imagine.
> However, there must surely be a balance between likelihood of any injury and likely consequences of any injury.
> I'm personally of the view that, since like Greg my wits are all I have, I would prefer to mitigate the potential risks of that particular form of injury....

Indeed, and as you say, that's your informed, personal choice. Which might be different from mine (or even karate monkey's, though he seems to have less to protect).
I'm all for that, and for you to express it- that's what the forum's for, after all.

Cheers,
W.

il_principe

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

I take your point Greg, but I stand by my stats, 20 years and never any need of a helmet.

Is that not a helmet in your moi photo?

Poor use of quotes fella, the above is in reference to skiing not cycling.

Yes I'm wearing a helmet in the pic - you aren't allowed to ride L'Etape without one sadly.

walkernomore

Littigator wrote:

walkernomore wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

walkernomore wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

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

Sorry, and this is not aimed at the author personally, but isnt the hypocritical bollocks that attaches to this debate brought out perfectly in the above paragraph?

Sorry, but the subtlety of your observation is a bit beyond me. Care to amplify?


Sorry - people put a helmet on their head, but at the same time make the world a more dangerous place for both themselves and (the bit that IS my business) for others by rendering themselves deaf/hearing impaired with earphones.

Ahhhhhhhhh look out it's the behaviour police...quick he's about to arrest us for doing what we want to do...RUNAWAY!

In other news, I know a deaf rider...should we ban him from riding because of the intrusion on your personal safety? What about the two one legged riders I see round Richmond Park...selfish b&stards risking everyone else's safety wobbling around like that eh :twisted:

If I want to rid with music I will, also if I want to pul a wheelie do a skid or ride no handed then I shall

thankyouverymuch :P

My word what an anarchist you are.

tailwindhome

jashburnham wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

I take your point Greg, but I stand by my stats, 20 years and never any need of a helmet.

Is that not a helmet in your moi photo?

Poor use of quotes fella, the above is in reference to skiing not cycling.

Yes I'm wearing a helmet in the pic - you aren't allowed to ride L'Etape without one sadly.

Doh! :oops:


Top marks on your co-ordinating helmet, shirt and bike. 8)

karate monkey

Always Tyred wrote:

karate monkey wrote:

i ride off road without a helmet too

and snowboard at speed witjout a helmet ,or a stupid bluetooth headset.
:P
lol

Do you buzz people learning to snow plough on the bunny run?

no i don't

Littigator

walkernomore wrote:

Littigator wrote:

walkernomore wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

walkernomore wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

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

Sorry, and this is not aimed at the author personally, but isnt the hypocritical bollocks that attaches to this debate brought out perfectly in the above paragraph?

Sorry, but the subtlety of your observation is a bit beyond me. Care to amplify?


Sorry - people put a helmet on their head, but at the same time make the world a more dangerous place for both themselves and (the bit that IS my business) for others by rendering themselves deaf/hearing impaired with earphones.

Ahhhhhhhhh look out it's the behaviour police...quick he's about to arrest us for doing what we want to do...RUNAWAY!

In other news, I know a deaf rider...should we ban him from riding because of the intrusion on your personal safety? What about the two one legged riders I see round Richmond Park...selfish b&stards risking everyone else's safety wobbling around like that eh :twisted:

If I want to rid with music I will, also if I want to pul a wheelie do a skid or ride no handed then I shall

thankyouverymuch :P

My word what an anarchist you are.

I prefer it to being a facist

lost_in_thought

Dear All,

In order to use the 'quote' function, please ensure that your quote is preceded by either this:

[_quote_] or this [_quote="somebody"_]

and followed by this [_/quote_]

all without the underscores.

This is for my sanity and ease of comprehension.

Ta very much.

_Brun_

lost_in_thought wrote:

Dear All,

In order to use the 'quote' function, please ensure that your quote is preceded by either this:

or this

somebody wrote:

and followed by this

all without the underscores.

This is for my sanity and ease of comprehension.

Ta very much. /quote]


Can you run that by us again, I don't think I've quite grasped it.

il_principe

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

WheezyMcChubby wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

I take your point Greg, but I stand by my stats, 20 years and never any need of a helmet.

Is that not a helmet in your moi photo?

Poor use of quotes fella, the above is in reference to skiing not cycling.

Yes I'm wearing a helmet in the pic - you aren't allowed to ride L'Etape without one sadly.

Doh! :oops:


Top marks on your co-ordinating helmet, shirt and bike. 8)

What can I say, I am a tart of the highest order. Only bought that damn bike to match my gloves!

walkernomore

Littigator wrote:

walkernomore wrote:

Littigator wrote:

walkernomore wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

walkernomore wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

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

Sorry, and this is not aimed at the author personally, but isnt the hypocritical bollocks that attaches to this debate brought out perfectly in the above paragraph?

Sorry, but the subtlety of your observation is a bit beyond me. Care to amplify?


Sorry - people put a helmet on their head, but at the same time make the world a more dangerous place for both themselves and (the bit that IS my business) for others by rendering themselves deaf/hearing impaired with earphones.

Ahhhhhhhhh look out it's the behaviour police...quick he's about to arrest us for doing what we want to do...RUNAWAY!

In other news, I know a deaf rider...should we ban him from riding because of the intrusion on your personal safety? What about the two one legged riders I see round Richmond Park...selfish b&stards risking everyone else's safety wobbling around like that eh :twisted:

If I want to rid with music I will, also if I want to pul a wheelie do a skid or ride no handed then I shall

thankyouverymuch :P

My word what an anarchist you are.

I prefer it to being a facist

Me too.

lost_in_thought

_Brun_ wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Dear All,

In order to use the 'quote' function, please ensure that your quote is preceded by either this:

or this

somebody wrote:

and followed by this

all without the underscores.

This is for my sanity and ease of comprehension.

Ta very much.

Can you run that by us again, I don't think I've quite grasped it.

Damn your eyes...

facemunk

I'm a deaf (hearing impaired) cyclist and I don't wear a helmet either. Should I be shot?

il_principe

facemunk wrote:

I'm a deaf (hearing impaired) cyclist and I don't wear a helmet either. Should I be shot?

Most likely. Damn your selfishness man, think of your responsibilities. :roll:

Did you the Tweed run btw?

facemunk

Tweed run? You talking an eccentric recent Rapha line, or fixie races? Hmmm, maybe they could be combined...

I didn't akshally as I am a right old scruff and they would have thrown me orf the course. innit.

always_tyred

jashburnham wrote:

facemunk wrote:

I'm a deaf (hearing impaired) cyclist and I don't wear a helmet either. Should I be shot?

Most likely. Damn your selfishness man, think of your responsibilities. :roll:

Did you the Tweed run btw?

I suspect, dear Jash, that in 25 years, when you still regard yourself as a tart, you may inadertently be wearing the equivalent in clothing to the Tweed run people who you so ridicule today. Oh how the young cyclists of 2034 will laugh at the bald, middle aged man in his silly red and white outfit.

flattythehurdler

I wear one only when my wife catches me going out without one, and even then I sometimes hide it in the bushes at the gate. I HATE the teary eyed "if you loved us you'd wear one" b0ll1x.
I agree with the TV packaging line. It's sooo much nicer without one.

bikesdontfloat

I found this on the BMJ website for those of you who wear a helmet when cycling but not when walking yet consider those who choose not to wear a helmet when cycling as taking a reckless risk. Thoroughly tongue in cheek but making a serious point - normal, everyday cycling is not especially risky and as such requires no more safety equipment than walking.

Three lessons for a better cycling future
Malcolm J Wardlaw

Cyclists were the only group of road users in Britain whose death rate increased sharply during the 1990s, yet cycling was in decline throughout the decade. How could this happen, when attention on casualties was the most intense in the history of the bicycle? Perhaps a vision of the near future will be instructive ...


Safe walking
It began in America, as so many trends do, but for years no one in Europe took any notice. American tourists wearing helmets around the streets of London first drew media attention. And although public response to walking helmets was initially amusement, the appeal of extra safety drew some pioneers to the habit, especially academics and competitive walkers.

The first case­control study of about 2000 injuries to pedestrians in Britain (180 of whom had worn hel­mets) concluded that the risk of serious head injury was reduced by 75% when a good walking helmet was worn. Safety campaigners used the slogan “walkers need helmets” to encourage parents to send their children to school in helmets. Several high profile acci­dents focused public attention on the dangers of walk­ing. A well known television presenter was severely head injured by a police van answering an emergency call. Doctors concluded that her injuries would have been “substantially reduced” had she worn a helmet.

Walking helmets became widely available. The entire cabinet posed in their helmets outside Number 10, the beaming prime minister urging: "Let's go forward together into a new era of walking safety." Most children now wore a helmet walking to school, although they were otherwise not seen on the streets. They played at home, where many injured themselves stunt walking in mountain boots. Safety campaigners praised the courage of the 25% of adults who wore a walking helmet.

Safety campaigner Jean Keystone read her Walkers' Helmet Bill before parliament: "As a society we are tired of the waste of lives in walking accidents. Every year, around a 1000 pedestrians are killed in walking accidents, and head injuries feature in 80% of these deaths. Since research has shown that 75% of head injuries are prevented if a good walking helmet is worn, legislation to compel wearing is justified by the saving of lives that will result."

The bill wasn't passed, but time was on the campaigners' side. The pop group Toyzone promoted walking helmets in their video Take a Walk on the Mild Side. Safety campaigners founded the Helmet Youth. Only the most antediluvian public figure would appear bareheaded in the media. Compensation for injury was reduced if the pedestrian had not worn a helmet. Pressure was mounting against those who still valued the "dubious pleasure of walking with the wind in their hair."

However, safety did have its consequences. Not only had walking declined, the aspiration to walk skilfully had disappeared. A generation was growing up incapable of crossing the road. Young walkers had become dependent on their helmets. Casualty rates were increasing. Many otherwise capable adults were afraid to walk, having been alarmed by the safety campaigns. As one chubby chap said from his car: "It's got nothing to do with helmets. Walking is dangerous---why take the risk."

A new breed of walker had appeared, stern and serious about safety. They wore £100 helmets, lighthouse jackets, eye protection, and spent £1000 on footwear. But they were a rare breed. Gym clubs were expanding their car parks, and the traffic had never been so bad.

You can read the whole article, including the dull bits with real facts and figures relating to cycling at http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582

Those who wear hi-vis, lights and a helmet while walking to the shops are, of course, still perfectly entitled to berate any cyclist who doesn't wear a helmet

il_principe

Always Tyred wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

facemunk wrote:

I'm a deaf (hearing impaired) cyclist and I don't wear a helmet either. Should I be shot?

Most likely. Damn your selfishness man, think of your responsibilities. :roll:

Did you the Tweed run btw?

I suspect, dear Jash, that in 25 years, when you still regard yourself as a tart, you may inadertently be wearing the equivalent in clothing to the Tweed run people who you so ridicule today. Oh how the young cyclists of 2034 will laugh at the bald, middle aged man in his silly red and white outfit.

Eh? Do you know what the Tweed Run is AT? I attended, in Tweed, and there was no ridicule...

itboffin

Just got this in the CTC news letter

On your head be it?

A High Court judge has concluded that cyclists who suffer head injuries when not wearing a helmet may not be entitled to full compensation if it can be shown that a helmet would have reduced or prevented their injuries. He then awarded cyclist Robert Smith full compensation, ruling that his particular injuries (which arose from a collision with a motorcyclist) would not have been prevented by a helmet. However, the judge’s general conclusions are alarming, particularly since they were reached without hearing any of the contested evidence about the overall effectiveness of helmets. CTC will seek legal advice on how and when we can best challenge his finding. More information on the ruling, including comments from CTC Solicitor Paul Kitson can be found on our website.