Are helmets now compulsory?

Mark Elvin

WesternWay wrote:

Bikes should be quick, easy things, free of faff. Having a helmet is faff.

I

Not as much of a faff as having to be fed/changed/bathed if you end up with brain damage.

Perhaps I'm looking at it the wrong way, maybe it's natural selection. The "less clever" ones who opt not to wear helmets are less likely to survive, therefore less likely to reproduce, therby stregthening the gene pool.

WesternWay

Mark Elvin wrote:

WesternWay wrote:

Bikes should be quick, easy things, free of faff. Having a helmet is faff.

I

Not as much of a faff as having to be fed/changed/bathed if you end up with brain damage.

Perhaps I'm looking at it the wrong way, maybe it's natural selection. The "less clever" ones who opt not to wear helmets are less likely to survive, therefore less likely to reproduce, therby stregthening the gene pool.

Indeed not, that would be really quite a faff.

I won't rise to your bait Mr Elvin, I am comfortable and secure in my "cleverness".

Mark Elvin

Perhaps I'm being a little melodramatic about the whole cycle helmet thing.

My point is how can people consider that there is no benefit from wearing helmet.

Fireblade96

Mark Elvin wrote:

On the basis that helmets are not proven to do anything, why wear then on motorcycles?

Motorbike helmets are quite effective in protecting you from rain, cold and 90mph bees. Allegedly, your honour.

I have ridden my motorbike without a helmet. Bimbling along country lanes, away from traffic, wind in my hair (this wasn't yesterday...), it's great! Sadly it's not legal.

robz400

I've quized him as to how he feels a skull hitting a pavement unprotected can be as safe as a skull protected by a helmet, but he simply refuses to justify his actions.


People like you really wind me up. Why the hell should we be forced to wear a helmet?

Its nanny state lovers like you that mean eventually we'll all be banned from leaving our special little safety houses incase we hurt ourselves and try to blame someone.

And for the record, sometimes I wear a lid and sometimes I don't, very happy with it that way. :roll:

Mark Elvin

robz400.....

I am not a nanny state lover, far from it. In fact I too belive it should be personal choice whether you wear a cycle helmet once you are an informed adult (I choose to and always will).

But what I cannot understand how anybody can think not wearing one is as safe as wearing one. Perhaps I've not made my self clear about that.

wgwarburton

Mark Elvin wrote:

.. I too belive it should be personal choice whether you wear a cycle helmet once you are an informed adult ...

But what I cannot understand how anybody can think not wearing one is as safe as wearing one. ...

This is because you are ill informed.

Cheers,
W.

Mark Elvin

WGWarburton wrote:

Mark Elvin wrote:

.. I too belive it should be personal choice whether you wear a cycle helmet once you are an informed adult ...

But what I cannot understand how anybody can think not wearing one is as safe as wearing one. ...

This is because you are ill informed.

Cheers,
W.

Is that fact or opinion?

robz400

I agree that it seems obvious that if you land on your head with something between it and the road you'll probably be better off!

I don't understand being annoyed by a headmaster allowing freedom of choice?

It just seems that the blame culture is leading to more and more restrictions and it won't stop until anything exciting/fun is licenced, insured and ruled over.

Mark Elvin

robz400 wrote:

I don't understand being annoyed by a headmaster allowing freedom of choice?

It's the fact that he belives the helmet is of no benefit. In fact he doesn't wear one himself.

SpaceBadger

It's a good job the OP said he didn't want to start the helmet debate

UndercoverElephant

I do wear a lid. I get my kids to do the same. But the only "concrete" evidence I can find is that cyclists became more unsafe in Australia when they made them compulsory. This has been attributed to the decline in the numbers of cyclists, and as we all know, if there's one sure thing to make cyclists safer, it's more cyclists.

wgwarburton

Mark Elvin wrote:

Perhaps I'm being a little melodramatic about the whole cycle helmet thing.

My point is how can people consider that there is no benefit from wearing helmet.

Population studies of their effectiveness show that it is limited. To summarise one counter-argument (probably to the point of inaccuracy :-( ), when helmets were made mandatory in Australia and New Zealand there was a significant step up in the wearing rate but no corresponding reduction in head injuries.

There's other stuff, too, but the point is that it's by no means clear that wearing a helmet actually makes you safer, despite the widespread assumption that this is the case.

Cheers,
W.

andrewc3142

Good grief. Another helmet thread. I don't wear one, and still won't despite coming off this week and banging my head (see SMIDSY moment thread). A cycle helmet wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference where I landed. If I'd been wearing my motorbike helmet it would have, but I'm not cycling in one of those!!

I don't care whether others wear them or not. Why do people get so wound up about whether I do?

Mark Elvin

andrewc3142 wrote:

Good grief. Another helmet thread.

Yep, another.

But I've said my bit & stated my beliefs, and that's what I'll stand by, unless scientific evidence/crash testing proves otherwise.

gb2gw

It doesn't bother me if others choose not to wear a helmet.

I personally choose to.

When my bike slipped sideways on a patch of black ice late last year and I smacked the side of my head on the tarmac, the foam inside the lid cracked in several places but I suffered little more than a bit of a bout of concussion. The doc at A&E thought I'd possibly have suffered a fractured skull if it wasn't for the helmet.
Maybe, maybe not some of you might cry, but the force at which my head hit the road, there's no way it would have bounced, I'll tell you that much.

CiB

Mark Elvin wrote:

Perhaps I'm being a little melodramatic about the whole cycle helmet thing.

My point is how can people consider that there is no benefit from wearing helmet.

And this my friend is where your argument falls down. For a lot of people it's black & white. Helmets = Safe, so not wearing one is unsafe.

For those that choose not to, the thinking isn't a blanket delineation between [safe / not safe], or as you charmingly put it earlier [not stupid / stupid]. It's the bigger picture. My commute is entirely rural with pretty much zero traffic most of the time, and no kerbs at all except for short bits in the odd village. I know what falling off a bike is like and I've taken the considered view that I really am unlikley to fall off, statistically, physically, whateverly. Falling off or being lnocked off on my routes is in my view, unlikely. I also know that if I do come off, it'll most likely be my hands, elbows & knees that take the brunt. That's what's always hapened in the past; I have no reason to assume that an unlikely tumble down some pretty country lane will affect my head in such a way that the faff [good word there] of permanently wearing protective head gear just in case would change the ultimate outcome from dire to not good.

I accept the pitifully small risk that it might, in the same way that we all accept small risks in all walks of life. It's a personal choice and a decision based on personal circumstances. I might take a different view if I was barreling along the A40 into C London everyday, but out here it's Bumpkinsville. We point at lorries when they loom over the horizon.

The clincher for me though is that if I am wearing a helmet and a car or lorry runs into me, what good is the helmet going to do? Assuming my speed to be around 20, the other vehicle around 50, maybe more. If it hits me head on that's a big hit. Internal organs will become detached, various arteries & vessels will burst, limbs will be seriously damaged. The plastic helmet designed for low speed tumbles isn't going to help my brain much when it decelarates at that rate into my cranium, immediately after my face quickly followed by my skull is smashed against the front of the other vehicle. Pretty soon after this damage is done I'd expect to be either under its wheels, or flying through the air to the scene of my impending death, due in a few moments all being well.

And if I get hit from behind, my expectation is that my legs, spine, kidneys + the same assortment of arteries, lungs, vessels & other bits & bobs will have been mashed beyond use. Again - the helmet designed fro low speed tumbles probably won't be a lot of use after the initial hit, as I'm sucked under the wheels or catapulted through the air into the nearest hedge.

That's why I don't bother. I can deal with low speed tumbles in quiet roads if they ever happen. I don't expect to fall off. If something big hits me at road speeds I'd hope to be a gonner. The helmet won't have any influence on whether I am or not.

wgwarburton

Mark Elvin wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

Mark Elvin wrote:

.. I too belive it should be personal choice whether you wear a cycle helmet once you are an informed adult ...

But what I cannot understand how anybody can think not wearing one is as safe as wearing one. ...

This is because you are ill informed.

Cheers,
W.

Is that fact or opinion?

Good question.. You've stated that you don't understand how anyone can think they arn't a net benefit but it isn't clear why you don't understand that alternative point of view.

My working assumption is that you are ill-informed, and hence not aware that the issue isn't clear cut in favour of helmets (after all, common sense suggests they would be effective) but perhaps there's another reason?

Cheers,
W.

tailwindhome

ooh a helmet thread, we haven't done this in a while.

Make the most of it while you can, it's not long until those winter nights draw in and we're arguing about hi viz and lights again.

I make my kids wear helmets.

My logic is that they are more likely to fall off, in fact they have an off a least once a day each.

I want to make sure their heads are protected when they do.

Boy,5 had an off last week. Went over the bars when he slammed on the brakes. He wasn't wearing wearing a helmet at the time (they forget) and had a huge bump on the back of his head and a headache for a couple of days.

Your kids may vary

Mark Elvin

MY eldest did something similar, thankfullt she was wearing a helmet though, which was badly damaged and was duely replaced.

If she were no wearing a helmet a trip to A&E would have been forthcoming.

MrChuck

Mark Elvin wrote:

My point is how can people consider that there is no benefit from wearing helmet.

They can consider that because there is no real evidence that there is a benefit, and some evidence that there isn't when you're looking at populations. Sure everybody has anecdotes about perhaps avoidable cycling injuries, just as they do in many other scenarios- slipping on ice or in the shower, falling down the stairs etc.- but you don't hear people calling for compulsory helmet wearing when it's icy out.

That said, I do always wear a helmet, but I don't think people who don't are being particulalry irresponsible (unless they're doing DH or something).

On the basis that helmets are not proven to do anything, why wear then on motorcycles?

Are you serious? You're asking if there's no benefit in people doing A wearing X, then why do people doing B wear Y?

Good post form CiB too.

lost_in_thought

Ok, now.

I've asked this in the Great Helmet Debate threads before, but never really received a good answer.

Ignoring the evidence that helmets don't make you more safe for a moment here, can anyone show me any evidence (by which I don't mean anecdotes - medical/academic studies please) that show wearing a helmet makes you less safe than not wearing one?

nickthetrick

Hmmm... I think you're missing the point if you think that wearing a helmet makes a rider less safe on an individual basis.

The consideration is that it makes cycling less popular and thus discourages people from cycling which means fewer bikes on the road which means (and this is proven) that it is less safe for all cyclists! Therefore by wearing a cycle helmet you (and me too i must confess) are making it less safe for all cyclists!!

The CTC have a big campaign on this front.

The same applies for wearing silly reflective clothing (which I don't do) and lights in urban areas (which I do do). We find ourselves using these things on bikes to make it safe for us individually, but all it is doing is encouraging or allowing cars to drive faster and thereby makeing it less safe for all cyclists.

Any cyclist knows there is a small probability that he/she will fall off their bike through their own fault and smash their skull. Most riders are prepared to take this risk (i'm less inclined to when I MTB because I know the risks are higher). However any cyclist also knows that there's a small risk that a car driven by a negligent driver will cause the accident. I suppose it is the latter risk that makes most people want to wear a helmet. However the better way to remove this risk is to remove negligent drivers - and this is the strategy the government should be taking.

Mombee

Out with my six year old a few weeks back, coming down a hill after an evening trip round the Fosse Way, he drifted slightly to the left, hit some loose gravel, wobbled and crashed - hindsight is a wonderful, but we weren't going mad and the crash was unlucky.

Charlie dived into the tarmac head-first, his bike landed on him and I ran them both over. It was a heart-stopping moment and the outcome should have been horrendous... starting with a trip to A&E.

Starting from the bottom, Charlie's injuries were:
Scuffed knees, not blood - baggy shorts protected his knees.
Graze on his chest where he landed.
Some raggedy skin on back of fingers of one hand - gloves protected his hands and hoody protected his elbos.
Very large graze from his right eye, down his cheek and across his chin - this was a superficial weeping graze, with no blood.

The injuries should have been much worse - I know about these things after a life of mountain-biking - Charlie's head injuries were massively reduced by his helmet. He wears an adult style Bell leisure helmet - It was destroyed in this crash - it stayed in one piece, but the 'cheek' section cracked.

A week later the scabs had all come off and Charlie was back on his bike.
This was a typical accident that children have on a bike - they don't, as a rule, have those really high speed accidents where helmets snag on street furniture and cause whiplasj injuries - without the helmet we would have been in hospital and Charlie would probably have sustained longlasting physical injuries.

I don't understand why anyone has an issue with children wearing crash helmets - and going back to Mark's comment much earlier, as a parent governor, I would not allow any child to attend a school cycle event unless they wore a helmet... as a keen cyclist, I would make sure that we had a supply of helmets for those children whose parents haven't been able to buy a helmet.

lost_in_thought

nickthetrick wrote:

Hmmm... I think you're missing the point if you think that wearing a helmet makes a rider less safe on an individual basis.

The consideration is that it makes cycling less popular and thus discourages people from cycling which means fewer bikes on the road which means (and this is proven) that it is less safe for all cyclists! Therefore by wearing a cycle helmet you (and me too i must confess) are making it less safe for all cyclists!!

The CTC have a big campaign on this front.

The same applies for wearing silly reflective clothing (which I don't do) and lights in urban areas (which I do do). We find ourselves using these things on bikes to make it safe for us individually, but all it is doing is encouraging or allowing cars to drive faster and thereby makeing it less safe for all cyclists.

Any cyclist knows there is a small probability that he/she will fall off their bike through their own fault and smash their skull. Most riders are prepared to take this risk (i'm less inclined to when I MTB because I know the risks are higher). However any cyclist also knows that there's a small risk that a car driven by a negligent driver will cause the accident. I suppose it is the latter risk that makes most people want to wear a helmet. However the better way to remove this risk is to remove negligent drivers - and this is the strategy the government should be taking.

Wait, did I say evidence? Let me scroll up and check...

Oh good, yes, I did.

And I don't wear a helmet - I'm just curious.

gordon861

When I used to cycle to work everyday, over about 10 years, I found that I actually had more accidents when I had my helmet on than when I didn't. I found them distracting and uncombfortable for general use. But I always wore one when offroad due to trees/branches and you had to wear one for road races.

davmaggs

The headmaster has the right view in my mind, but I wonder how long he can hold out against the safety (or perceived safety) trend.

My thinking is that I notice that it is getting rarer to see unaccompanied chldren out on bikes to start with, and the majority seem to all wear lids. I strongly suspect that in the chattering classes the parent who lets their children out on the own is already seen as a bad parent and we're probably not far off the same for those who let them on bikes without lids.

The tide of (illusory) protection for children, like banning parents photographing them at sports days or swimming pools seems to draw in more and more parents into the supporting the myths even though they were never raised that way themselves.

nickthetrick

Links to evidence can be found on this link...

http://www.ctc.org.uk/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=4688

wgwarburton

Hi LiT,

lost_in_thought wrote:

... can anyone show me any evidence (by which I don't mean anecdotes - medical/academic studies please) that show wearing a helmet makes you less safe than not wearing one?

No, not really. The evidence is inconclusive. I think what's relevant is that there appears to be some evidence that helmets make minor injuries less likely but may increase the risk of more serious brain damage.

There is no real evidence because the subject hasn't been researched sufficiently- last year's TFL report on "The potential for cycle helmets to prevent injury", for example, simply states that no evidence was found for an increased risk ... which is true, but it doesn't point out that that's because no ones really looked for it, yet!!

I guess my position is that cycling's safe, so there's normally no need to wear one and that a lot of vested interests have been trying hard to prove they work without success- if they really were effective then it wouldn't be so hard to prove it!

My experience of bike crashes suggests that I'm generally unlikely to hit my head hard enough to injure it. I feel that a helmet would make it more likely that I'd bang my head and that wrenching it around is far more likely to cause injury than simply whacking it on something... I've no evidence for that, though.

I did suffer a serious whack on the side of my head when sailing, once. I'm very keen not to repeat the experience but it did give me a better understanding of what my head can take....and no, I don't wear a helmet when sailing either- I just keep a much closer eye on what the helm is doing with the boat!!!!

Cheers,
W.
[edit: typo]

davmaggs

Mombee wrote:

I don't understand why anyone has an issue with children wearing crash helmets - and going back to Mark's comment much earlier, as a parent governor, I would not allow any child to attend a school cycle event unless they wore a helmet... as a keen cyclist, I would make sure that we had a supply of helmets for those children whose parents haven't been able to buy a helmet.

I really worry about that kind of world view. We've got to the point where some schools ban photos at the school play even though all the world's police forces are yet to find an underground market for trading pics of Christmas plays. We have ill informed do-gooders enforcing more and more silliness on us all 'just in case'.

I don't remember the 80s pandemic of brain damaged children caused by bike riding, did I miss something?