Anybody not wear a helmet? Discuss....

lost_in_thought

I have to say, despite coming from t'other side of the helmet-wearing fence, I agree with blondie. I don't think that wearing a helmet would make someone cycle more recklessly.

In fact, again despite not wearing a helmet, I agree with most of the arguments for doing so.

Still not going to though. Don't like 'em. And not for aesthetic reasons either, I just find them uncomfortable.

I do however agree with the person who said that pressure from non-cyclists is a big factor. Most of the people who are really appalled that I don't wear a helmet, and lecture me about it, are non-cyclists.

roger_merriman

Always Tyred wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

this is why these threads go on and on, because proof is some what lacking and there are some fairly overstated claims on both sides.

What have I said that's overstated? I've rebuffed statements like "helmets are useless" and "they only protect you if you are moving below 12 mph" and "people only wear them because non cyclists tell them to" or "pedestrians are at higher risk than cyclists" or "helmets make people cycle more dangerously" or "helmets put people off cycling", all of which I agree are overstated.

The equivalent might be "helmets are perfect protection for cycling accidents" or "helmets are fantastic" or "only clever people come to the conclusion that they should wear a helmet" or "people who are confident enough not to wear a helmet are reckless cyclists" which I'm not aware of anyone having said. Although it seems that they might as well have been.

You see MY problem with the debate is that the overstated claims tend only to come from one side.

i wasn't thinking of you as such but the whole lot really, and yes your quite correct that a 30mph crash doesn't in fact probably almost all ways not be a 30mph impact, that being so doesn't mean that the helmet will help.

places with helmet laws haven't seen the drops one would expect if a helmets did make a differnce as a whole.

niether does the fact that a helmet might make twisting worse, seem to show up.

if a helmet did save lives or harm them it really should be showing up in the stats.

what they do do is make heated forum posts with a lot of belief...

roger_merriman

lost_in_thought wrote:

I have to say, despite coming from t'other side of the helmet-wearing fence, I agree with blondie. I don't think that wearing a helmet would make someone cycle more recklessly.

In fact, again despite not wearing a helmet, I agree with most of the arguments for doing so.

Still not going to though. Don't like 'em. And not for aesthetic reasons either, I just find them uncomfortable.

I do however agree with the person who said that pressure from non-cyclists is a big factor. Most of the people who are really appalled that I don't wear a helmet, and lecture me about it, are non-cyclists.

indeed when i have worn a helmet i don't think ooh i'm steel man nothing can harm me now!

hope your family friends are safe from the fires LIT or are they the other side i can't rember.

lost_in_thought

roger merriman wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

I have to say, despite coming from t'other side of the helmet-wearing fence, I agree with blondie. I don't think that wearing a helmet would make someone cycle more recklessly.

In fact, again despite not wearing a helmet, I agree with most of the arguments for doing so.

Still not going to though. Don't like 'em. And not for aesthetic reasons either, I just find them uncomfortable.

I do however agree with the person who said that pressure from non-cyclists is a big factor. Most of the people who are really appalled that I don't wear a helmet, and lecture me about it, are non-cyclists.

indeed when i have worn a helmet i don't think ooh i'm steel man nothing can harm me now!

hope your family friends are safe from the fires LIT or are they the other side i can't rember.

'My helmet is like a shield of steel!'

teeheehee...

The closest family are in Canberra, OK for now, and some friends have fled but are safe, thanks.

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

I have to say, despite coming from t'other side of the helmet-wearing fence, I agree with blondie. I don't think that wearing a helmet would make someone cycle more recklessly.

In fact, again despite not wearing a helmet, I agree with most of the arguments for doing so.

Still not going to though. Don't like 'em. And not for aesthetic reasons either, I just find them uncomfortable.

[I sense this one is falling off the back of the herd, and is limping slightly. Now might be the time to attack...]

Have you tried a few makes? The reason I wear Met is that it fits the shape of my skull really well. Unlike Giro, whose helmets are designed for people who have had their heads narrowed in an industrial vice.

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

I have to say, despite coming from t'other side of the helmet-wearing fence, I agree with blondie. I don't think that wearing a helmet would make someone cycle more recklessly.

In fact, again despite not wearing a helmet, I agree with most of the arguments for doing so.

Still not going to though. Don't like 'em. And not for aesthetic reasons either, I just find them uncomfortable.

[I sense this one is falling off the back of the herd, and is limping slightly. Now might be the time to attack...]

Have you tried a few makes? The reason I wear Met is that it fits the shape of my skull really well. Unlike Giro, whose helmets are designed for people who have had their heads narrowed in an industrial vice.

I think your assessment of my position may be a little off!

I have tried a few, yes, otherwise my conclusion that they are uncomfortable would be a little unfair.

I have a big head (yes, both literally and metaphorically :roll: ) so my options are slightly limited to companies who make them in sizes of 63cm and over, and have yet to find a comfortable fit.

What I actually find the most uncomfortable is the strap. My theory is that if it's not tight enough to stay on in a crash, then you may as well not wear it. I'm not talking super-tight, just tight enough that it doesn't move too much when I try to move it with my hands. This, however, is uncomfortable when I'm riding fast enough to exert myself. Which is all the time.

That's why I don't wear one.

soy_sauce

lost_in_thought wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

......

......

I think your assessment of my position may be a little off!

I have tried a few, yes, otherwise my conclusion that they are uncomfortable would be a little unfair.

I have a big head (yes, both literally and metaphorically :roll: ) so my options are slightly limited to companies who make them in sizes of 63cm and over, and have yet to find a comfortable fit.

What I actually find the most uncomfortable is the strap. My theory is that if it's not tight enough to stay on in a crash, then you may as well not wear it. I'm not talking super-tight, just tight enough that it doesn't move too much when I try to move it with my hands. This, however, is uncomfortable when I'm riding fast enough to exert myself. Which is all the time.

That's why I don't wear one.

no strap and stylish (depending your taste, i guess.. 8) )

http://www.rip101.com/product/Quiksilver-Bartik-2-d3o-Impact-Beanie-Bark.aspx

always_tyred

lost_in_thought wrote:

I do however agree with the person who said that pressure from non-cyclists is a big factor. Most of the people who are really appalled that I don't wear a helmet, and lecture me about it, are non-cyclists.

That's because most people are non-cyclists, LiT.

steve-m

Always Tyred wrote:

steve-m wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

steve-m wrote:

most people wear them because of pressure from non-cyclists.

Rubbish.

Well it is certainly not due to overwhelming evidence that they offer any form of increased safety but thanks for your well considered reply

Pot, kettle, black.
Perhaps you would like to propose why the statement is not rubbish?

Don't be ridiculous, you got a more considered reply than your yah-boo response deserved in the first off.

always_tyred

steve-m wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

steve-m wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

steve-m wrote:

most people wear them because of pressure from non-cyclists.

Rubbish.

Well it is certainly not due to overwhelming evidence that they offer any form of increased safety but thanks for your well considered reply

Pot, kettle, black.
Perhaps you would like to propose why the statement is not rubbish?

Don't be ridiculous, you got a more considered reply than your yah-boo response deserved in the first off.

So it was rubbish then. Okay.

lost_in_thought

henry_ho_yin wrote:

no strap and stylish (depending your taste, i guess.. 8) )

http://www.rip101.com/product/Quiksilver-Bartik-2-d3o-Impact-Beanie-Bark.aspx

My brother's girlfriend has one of those. It's all well and good having very clever molecules, but it fell off every time she crashed so.................

Also, my head gets hot in summer so a beanie would be less than ideal.

always_tyred

lost_in_thought wrote:

What I actually find the most uncomfortable is the strap. My theory is that if it's not tight enough to stay on in a crash, then you may as well not wear it. I'm not talking super-tight, just tight enough that it doesn't move too much when I try to move it with my hands. This, however, is uncomfortable when I'm riding fast enough to exert myself. Which is all the time.

That's why I don't wear one.

My helmet will stay on without the straps, if I turn upside down and shake my head fairly vigorously. Even if I listen to Bohemian Rapsody.

So I don't have the strap terribly tight. Tight enough so I can feel it just about when I'm not on the bike, not so tight that I can feel it when I'm stretched out and looking forward when cycling.

In my experience, crashes tend to be very graceful and gentle affairs until you land on something. Its also my experience that you only need the helmet to work once. Providing my helmet is where it should be when I need it that one time, I figure its doing its job. A strap isn't going to stop it shifting on your head with impact anyway. Note: its also my experience that my helmet is right were I put it, once I've got up from an accident as well, so I've not had cause to question if it fits or is on tight enough. That includes the time the garage door landed on my head. Okay, I admit it, I walked into it.

One of the good things about todays crappy useless helmets is that the retention systems have improved greatly.

Cunobelin

Always Tyred wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

I can't remember who it was, but someone posted that the plural of anecdote is not evidence!


Also it is a "fixed" concept ...... try daring to suggest that another factor like poor mechanical maintenance, over assessment of skills, training, poor judgement were factors that would have prevented the injury in the first place and made the helmet unnecessary and you will be treated like an unsympathetic and evil pariah!

I have no idea what your position is. You have 4 helmets and appear furious at their adequacy.

INadequacy - which is the point.

The stance is simple. The helmet is the equivalent of PPE in industry.- you make the processes safe through training, planning, improvements and other means then use PPE as a last resort.

If only the expense, vigour and time spent on promoting helmets was spent on training road users - I suspect we would see a much safer environment. That would decrease head and other injuries more dramatically than helmets.

Yet you also appear to be critical of people who wear helmets and ridicule them for wishing the protection they offer.

I am critical of some of the more bizarre claims - it is dangerous to over estimate the efficiency and protection that helmets offer

It also appears that certain non helmet lobbyists identify with you. Is this what you want? I mean, if you want better helmets, do you actually want to encourage people not to wear one at all?

It is free choice....... Wear one or not - but make an informed choice as to why and have a realistic assessment of the protection they offer. As to the association with "non helmet lobbyists" - it is simply an easy way to dismiss anyone who dares to question the often bizarre and extreme claims and emotional blackmail used as justification. These posters are labelled simply because they dare to question the pre-concieved "gospel" of helmet worship.

Pragmatically, by the way, heavier, thicker, smoother helmets are never going to be adopted. If you do indeed want better helmets, those helmets are not going to get better by getting heavier and less well ventilated, they are going to get better by the adoption, by economies of scale, of more advanced materials. If you ever want that to happen, I'd suggest encouraging people to wear helmets.

That is quite funny!

Why should we not accept heavier, thicker, smoother helmets- that is the basic mechanics.... you need to have a certain amount of material to protect by absorbing impact and energy. Thinner helmets need stiff material for support - there is no "magic super modern material" that is going to solve this dilemma.

Now what is the difference between the following:

I am going to compromise my safety by not wearing a helmet because it is heavy and poorly ventilated....

I am going to compromise my safety by wearing a poorly performing helmet because it is heavy and poorly ventilated....

Encouraging people to wear substandard helmets and accepting this poorly designed and poorly performing equipment is a false and dangerous compromise.

Another point is that Iw ould have thought that the cyclist who believes that they can avoid head injury by the power of their own skills is probably over assessing their skills. this to me makes a great deal more sense than proposing that cyclists who are cautious enough to wear helmets suddenly become cavalier when wearing one.

Training for road users would make the head (and other) injuries less likely It is a balance and compromise.though. It will reduce the number of events where a helmet contributes.

In the simplest form - If a rider is riding a poorly maintained bicycle (for instance one of the many with disconnected brakes) then maintaining the brakes will enable them to stop!

Surely this is better than wearing a helmet so that you are protected when you hit something because you weren't able to stop?

If someone uses the Primary position and prevents the following vehicle forcing through and knocking them off - it has prevented the injury - again better than being knocked off and relying on the helmet?

Not an answer to all problems - but then again neither are helmets....

lost_in_thought

Always Tyred wrote:

My helmet will stay on without the straps, if I turn upside down and shake my head fairly vigorously. Even if I listen to Bohemian Rapsody.

In my experience, if it'll stay on without the straps it's too tight, and therefore uncomfortable, or will be before long! It may be the case that my head is also oddly shaped.

Always Tyred wrote:

In my experience, crashes tend to be very graceful and gentle affairs until you land on something. Its also my experience that you only need the helmet to work once. Providing my helmet is where it should be when I need it that one time, I figure its doing its job. A strap isn't going to stop it shifting on your head with impact anyway.

yes, I've heard it's the sudden stop that gets you!

Both the accidents I've had have involved impact from a vehicle followed by impact with the ground. The first one, years ago on the headington roundabout, I lost my sunglasses and baseball cap, which was on pretty tight. The second one I lost my sunglasses and even my watch came flying off.

This leads me to believe that a helmet needs to be pretty well attached to your head to be of use.

always_tyred

lost_in_thought wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

My helmet will stay on without the straps, if I turn upside down and shake my head fairly vigorously. Even if I listen to Bohemian Rapsody.

In my experience, if it'll stay on without the straps it's too tight, and therefore uncomfortable, or will be before long! It may be the case that my head is also oddly shaped.

Always Tyred wrote:

In my experience, crashes tend to be very graceful and gentle affairs until you land on something. Its also my experience that you only need the helmet to work once. Providing my helmet is where it should be when I need it that one time, I figure its doing its job. A strap isn't going to stop it shifting on your head with impact anyway.

yes, I've heard it's the sudden stop that gets you!

Both the accidents I've had have involved impact from a vehicle followed by impact with the ground. The first one, years ago on the headington roundabout, I lost my sunglasses and baseball cap, which was on pretty tight. The second one I lost my sunglasses and even my watch came flying off.

This leads me to believe that a helmet needs to be pretty well attached to your head to be of use.

Not a nice roundabout.

I can only say that I've lost sunglasses as well, but never my helmet.

But then I might have a more padded forehead or something.

lost_in_thought

Always Tyred wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

My helmet will stay on without the straps, if I turn upside down and shake my head fairly vigorously. Even if I listen to Bohemian Rapsody.

In my experience, if it'll stay on without the straps it's too tight, and therefore uncomfortable, or will be before long! It may be the case that my head is also oddly shaped.

Always Tyred wrote:

In my experience, crashes tend to be very graceful and gentle affairs until you land on something. Its also my experience that you only need the helmet to work once. Providing my helmet is where it should be when I need it that one time, I figure its doing its job. A strap isn't going to stop it shifting on your head with impact anyway.

yes, I've heard it's the sudden stop that gets you!

Both the accidents I've had have involved impact from a vehicle followed by impact with the ground. The first one, years ago on the headington roundabout, I lost my sunglasses and baseball cap, which was on pretty tight. The second one I lost my sunglasses and even my watch came flying off.

This leads me to believe that a helmet needs to be pretty well attached to your head to be of use.

Not a nice roundabout.

I can only say that I've lost sunglasses as well, but never my helmet.

But then I might have a more padded forehead or something.

Perhaps it's because you're building up your frowning muscles from all the thinking you've had to do about velocity and speed...

always_tyred

Cunobelin wrote:

INadequacy - which is the point.

I think you'll find that they are inversely related. I'm not going to debate whether or not my syntax was correct though. My syntax was correct, though.

Cunobelin wrote:

If only the expense, vigour and time spent on promoting helmets was spent on training road users - I suspect we would see a much safer environment. That would decrease head and other injuries more dramatically than helmets.

Yup. Why not both?

I am critical of some of the more bizarre claims - it is dangerous to over estimate the efficiency and protection that helmets offer

What bizzare claims? Its equally, or more, dangerous to underestimate their effectiveness, if this means you don't wear one.

That is quite funny!

Why should we not accept heavier, thicker, smoother helmets- that is the basic mechanics.... you need to have a certain amount of material to protect by absorbing injury. Thinner helmets need stiff material for support - there is no "magic super modern material" that is going to solve this dilemma.

There are a myriad of other materials available. I'm not a materials specialist, but were you to plot density of a foam vs. its shock absorbancy, not all materials would fall on a straight line (which in case you aren't following is the conclusion one would draw from your argument). Indeed, polystyrene is a foam, but the stuff they use in helmets is compromised since it is extruded as beads, and the weak point in the system is the association between the beads, not the shock absorbancy of the beads themselves.

So, in your terms, there are "magic super modern materials" out there which might substantially out perform expanded polystyrene. The world of polymer chemistry is huge and exciting and I would invite you to visit.

Now what is the difference between the following:

I am going to compromise my safety by not wearing a helmet because it is heavy and poorly ventilated....

I am going to compromise my safety by wearing a poorly performing helmet because it is heavy and poorly ventilated....

Encouraging people to wear substandard helmets and accepting this poorly designed and poorly performing equipment is a false and dangerous compromise.

What about encouraging people not to wear a helmet at all, poorly ventilated or not?

Another point is that Iw ould have thought that the cyclist who believes that they can avoid head injury by the power of their own skills is probably over assessing their skills. this to me makes a great deal more sense than proposing that cyclists who are cautious enough to wear helmets suddenly become cavalier when wearing one.

Oh, wait, I wrote that. I thought it made sense.

jedster

LiT,

I don't wear my chin strap very tight and my helmet has not come off in a fall yet (only 5 attempts though!).

J

lost_in_thought

jedster wrote:

LiT,

I don't wear my chin strap very tight and my helmet has not come off in a fall yet (only 5 attempts though!).

J

You clearly need to try and crash at higher speed

always_tyred

lost_in_thought wrote:

Perhaps it's because you're building up your frowning muscles from all the thinking you've had to do about velocity and speed...

No, its from repeatedly smashing my head into a brick wall.

EDIT: LiT, I have the answer - get a perm. A good Scouse perm will push through the vents of any helmet and keep it there regardless of the chip strap. It will also add shock absorbancy.

lost_in_thought

Always Tyred wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Perhaps it's because you're building up your frowning muscles from all the thinking you've had to do about velocity and speed...

No, its from repeatedly smashing my head into a brick wall.

You know what you need, in that case? A helmet.

Always Tyred wrote:

EDIT: LiT, I have the answer - get a perm. A good Scouse perm will push through the vents of any helmet and keep it there regardless of the chin strap. It will also add shock absorbancy.

I already have my hair un-permed from its scouse level of curliness.

always_tyred

You could simply tie the helmet on, like a weave.

jimmypippa

or put so much hairspray that you don't have an impact beanie, but am impact beehive...

jjojjas

Needs a "sometimes" option.
I wear one sometimes. Like when off road or in the dark (lights on the back of it).
If its freezing cold I wear a wooly hat with special protective crash proof qualities.

wgwarburton

Hi,
We're getting away from the fundamentals, again. Remember:

Cycling isn't dangerous.

Helmets don't work.

By all means wear one- especially if it makes you feel more comfortable. There's a pretty good chance it might mitigate some minor injuries, especially off road.

But please, please don't pressure others to do so. Respect their choice as they respect yours.

Thanks very much.

Cheers,
W.

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

Cycling isn't dangerous.

Helmets don't work.

If you repeat it often enough, loud enough, it will become true.

You are most likely to have an accident cycling if you are young and/or inexperienced. As such, I wouldn't bother too much with pressuring an experienced cyclist into wearing one. But it is irresponsible to pressure an inexperienced cyclist not to, quite frankly.

wgwarburton

Hi,

You do seem to be pressuring LiT.

> You are most likely to have an accident cycling if you are young and/or inexperienced. As such, I wouldn't bother too much with pressuring an experienced cyclist into wearing one. But it is irresponsible to pressure an inexperienced cyclist not to, quite frankly.


You know, I probably agree with you... but I'd really like to see evidence that supports this view.

Presumably some of the cyclists who were mandated to wear helmets in Oz & NZ were inexperienced but they didn't see any improvement in KSIs, or if they did it was offset by other factors.

Cheers,
W.

jedster

wgw,

Helmets don't work.

Hmm. If I am being extremely charitable this is extravagant spinning others might call it a lie.

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.

The helmet did exactly what it was supposed to do. It worked. It would be difficult to argue that the incident was one that came about from false confidence caused by helmet wearing. Certainly I don't think you can claim that my injuries were made worse by the helmet.

Now what you may be getting at is that there is a lack of good evidence at the population level that helmets improve cycling safety. Note: lack of good evidence DOES NOT prove that helmets do not work.

A honest statement would be that "helmets don't protect you in all incidents". IMO it would be perfectly reasonable to add "they only make a modest contribution to safety and are no substitute for road awareness and cycling skills". But "helmets don't work". Utter rubbish.

But I agree with you that helmet wearing is a personal choice.

J

wgwarburton

jedster,

There are any number of anecdotes like this, but no real evidence.

From the above we don't know if your head would have hit anything at all if you hadn't been wearing a helmet, nor whether your injuries would have been worse- plenty of people have come off their bikes under similar circumstances and not hit their head at all- maybe the headache was caused by the impact of the helmet on the road. Or maybe you would have died or been seriously brain injured if you hadn't been wearing it.

Population studies would surely show an improvement in KSI stats if helmets worked as they are purported to do.

I really struggle to get away from this- it's very counterintuitive and I worry that there's something sinister going on (eg increased risk of serious injury along with reduction in rate of relatively minor ones).

As I said earlier, I would really like to see some evidence that helmets actually work, in the absence of that it looks very like faith based reasoning.

Cheers,
W.

biondino

Once you get enough anecdotes about helmets doing their job, you have to start thinking there may be something to it, Buns. And there have been dozens on here alone, so by all means start on the prudent assumption that some are overstated or plain wrong but at some point you've got to take your head out of the sand.

What there ISN'T any evidence of - and I mean not one single example in every single helmet thread I've read - is helmets increasing injuries. Not one. There's a theoretical argument that in a very small window between serious injury and death, a helmet might exacerbate damage - and yet not one of the naysayers has found a single example.

As for jedster's accident, you're suggesting that if he hadn't been wearing a (crushed) helmet he might not have hit the road at all? Really? I dunno about your neck muscles but the extra inch breathing space not wearing a helmet gives doesn't sound enough to be able to bring however many pounds of skull, flesh and brain to a complete stop in a 20mph accident.

The depressing thing is that you're one of the most knowledgeable and wise posters on here and yet when someone gives you the CLEAREST POSSIBLE evidence - and yes it's anecdotal but I'm not sure an anecdote could be more cut and dried - you stick your fingers in your ears and start shouting "I'm not listening". It really doesn't help the rest of your argument, you know.