Are helmets now compulsory?
Comments
-
I wear a helmet because:
i) I've been wearing for so long I don't feel 'comfortable' cycling without wearing one
ii) There is no benefit that I can see not wearing one, I'm suddenly not safer if I don't wear one and in the instances where I have come off my bike, my helmet has helped.
So I choose to wear it.
Others don't.
That's fine.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
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?
Not sure that I can, but I suspect that making it mandatory to wear helmets would lead to a decrease in the number of people cycling, in the short term at least. Less people cycling means less driver awareness of cyclists, and hence a more dangerous environment to cycle in.
Plus i'm pretty sure that if you wear a helmet people give you less room when they overtake. Well, I read it somewhere anyway... :?0 -
-
CiB wrote: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.
My thoughts exactly, but after reading that I'm off to but my bike on ebay.0 -
UndercoverElephant wrote:davmaggs wrote:I don't remember the 80s pandemic of brain damaged children caused by bike riding, did I miss something?
Is this one of those, "If you can't remember it happening, it happened to you" type things?
Well I did go over the handlebars more than once so perhaps the brain damage wiped my memory. I shall sue the manufacturers for not selling helmets in the 80s!0 -
I had got into the habit of wearing a helmet while out on my road bike. However, the onset of summer and the move to shorts and SS top made me question why. So I ventured out one evening sans helmet, full of trepidation.....
It was great ! My head was cooled by the passing breeze and I just enjoyed the ride more :-)
I've since had to invest in a little cycling cap to keep the sun from frazzling me, but I'm glad to have re-discovered the feeling of just going for a ride without feeling like I'm gearing up for combat. This doesn't mean I won't ever wear a helmet, it doesn't mean I would recommend others don't wear a helmet, but for now it makes me happy.
As for everyone else, you're free to choose - at least for now !Misguided Idealist0 -
I actually feel uncomfortable without a helmet to be honest.2012 Cannondale Synapse0
-
Try dropping a melon on the floor, then try dropping another in a helmet it will soon change your mind about wearing one0
-
-
DonDaddyD wrote:ii) There is no benefit that I can see not wearing one
For myself, a benefit of not wearing my helmet is that I ride more cautiously. I can't quantify it, but I feel I'm more reckless when I have my helmet on.
That said, I do wear it most of the time. It makes me invulnerable!0 -
try dropping a melon on your head, then try dropping another melon on your head while wearing a helmet.
then try dropping a melon in a helmet onto your head, also in a helmet.
then try dropping a melon on another melon. then try taking what is left of those melons and dropping it into a helmet.
then try wearing that helmet.
then try putting a melon on a bike and letting it ride in heavy traffic.
this will soon change your mind about gathering helmet safety evidence.0 -
Wearing a helmet is part of my routine, I feel oddly naked without it. Probably makes me more confident on the road and perhaps that makes me take more risks.
Main downside is that it messes up my beautiful curls, but then I shampoo, condition and blow dry when I get to work anyway
0 -
So are we saying then, that if I buy a melon I should make it wear a helmet before placing it in the fruit bowl?0
-
lost_in_thought wrote: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?
Well, the closest I've come across is that chap at Exeter (?) Uni how did the study on how close cars pass and found that cars gave cyclists without helmets more room than those wearing helmets. However, I've not seen any evidence that correlates proximity with risk... Of course, when the proximity becomes zero (or less), the risk is quite a lot higher than when the proximity is non-zero and positive...
_
P.S. Could we have a sticky on why it is theoretically possible for helmet wearing to increase the risk of head injury. Every one of these threads spends a few pages going over the same old points...0 -
DVV wrote:So are we saying then, that if I buy a melon I should make it wear a helmet before placing it in the fruit bowl?
FFS, you have completely missed the point! We are saying that wearing melons is safer than wearing helmets.
Duh! :roll: Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
However, I've not seen any evidence that correlates proximity with risk...
Well, the double-edged sword that is common-sense would suggest that closer proximity=increased risk. If we assume a driver makes a small error, making the car deviate from its intended trajectory, the further the car is from the cyclist the less likely the car is to hit the cyclist.0 -
Abacus123 wrote:Try dropping a melon on the floor, then try dropping another in a helmet it will soon change your mind about wearing one
Isn't this missing the point a bit though? Personally I think that helmets can protect your head in certain incidents, and I don't think there are many instances where you'd be worse off for wearing one. I'm talking about particular head-moving-towards-hard-objects instances here, so I'm on board with your melon analogy as far as that goes. But I don't think it goes as far as saying you'd be an idiot not to wear a helmet, or at least that you'd be a an idiot not to wear one when cycling, but not for any number of other activities when people can and do get head injuries.
So for me the thing is how likley this sort of falling melon scenario is when someone's riding their bike, partly in it's own right and partly when compared to lots of other actitivites that people don't think twice about doing without protection.
lately I'm not convinced it is much more likely, or sufficiently more likley that not wearing a helmet is an act of stupidity. It seems like perceived risk and anecdote is winning out over actual assessment of risk.
EDIT: Obviously I'm talking about general 'leisure cycling' here, not pelting around rocky trail centres or whatever.0 -
Try dropping a melon on the floor, then try dropping another in a helmet
I would also like to know, have you actually done this or not?0 -
They should be. 8)x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
Commuting / Winter rides - Jamis Renegade Expert
Pootling / Offroad - All-City Macho Man Disc
Fast rides Cannondale SuperSix Ultegra0 -
Abacus123 wrote:Try dropping a melon on the floor, then try dropping another in a helmet it will soon change your mind about wearing one
I have a spare helmet and I was just going to do that.
Would be interesting to see the result actually.
I do wear a helmet most of the time, properly tight, and they are a bloody nuisance when they are as tight as they are supposed to be. They don't make me feel any safer, and sometimes can be really irritating to the point of being distracting.
That's me. I wear it for two reasons: my wife insists I do, and there might always be a case when it's useful.
I do not though think they should be compulsory, especially since I realised most people wearing helmets, and advocate to their use, do not wear them properly anyway.
It makes the whole thing pointless. It makes it even more pointless when those who argue it should be compulsory bring into the equation children (as if no one else has ever been a child themselves), and when asked if they have ever done any training, or at least know about the basics as outlined in Cyclecraft, or how many miles they do in a year, they come back with ridiculous answers.
They are also supposed to be replaced after every little accident, even if not involving the helmet (as you might not know!) and I don't know anyone who does.
I would recommend anyone who wears with a helmet to try cycling without for some time. You can't form yourself an opinion of what it's like, in terms of comfort, to cycle with and without otherwise.
As for whether they are useful, research shows they can be beneficial in situations for which they are designed for.
But it is a leap of faith to believe they are effective in situations they were not designed to handle, such as high speed impacts.0 -
Underscore wrote:lost_in_thought wrote: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?
Well, the closest I've come across is that chap at Exeter (?) Uni how did the study on how close cars pass and found that cars gave cyclists without helmets more room than those wearing helmets. However, I've not seen any evidence that correlates proximity with risk... Of course, when the proximity becomes zero (or less), the risk is quite a lot higher than when the proximity is non-zero and positive...
Yeah, I'm aware of that study, it's 4 years old and no further work has been done after the initial findings.
But, it's not really what I meant. What I'm trying to find out is whether, in the event of a collision, there's any real evidence that you could come off worse as a result of wearing a helmet.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:Yeah, I'm aware of that study, it's 4 years old and no further work has been done after the initial findings.
But, it's not really what I meant. What I'm trying to find out is whether, in the event of a collision, there's any real evidence that you could come off worse as a result of wearing a helmet.
I think that the general view is that helmets are actually pretty good in a straight collision, which is what they're designed for. They're tested for straight impacts against a curb at, if I remember correctly 17 mph.
What they're supposedly not so good at are "rotational" injuries, when the angle of strike isn't head on. Motorcycle helmets are good at this, as they hold your neck still. There are even some who claim that these injuries may be worse if you are wearing a cycle helmet, as the helmet may cause extra purchase, causing more rotation.
Either way, small studies aren't likely to find a good correlation in this, and nobody is going to pay for a larger one, as there's no financial gain to it.0 -
Is the melon ripe, or not?0
-
Does this explain why motorcyclists never look round when you ask them why they are at the ASL next to you?UndercoverElephant wrote:Motorcycle helmets are good at this, as they hold your neck still.0 -
Who cares? There's no doubt that you'll come out of a bump better with a helmet than without, but that's not the question. It's not the question I'm answering anyway.lost_in_thought wrote:Yeah, I'm aware of that study, it's 4 years old and no further work has been done after the initial findings.
But, it's not really what I meant. What I'm trying to find out is whether, in the event of a collision, there's any real evidence that you could come off worse as a result of wearing a helmet.
The question really is how much damage do you expect to suffer in a cycle accident, and how much can you put up with as a penalty for not wearign a lid for every single journey by bike? Me? I assume that once in a blue moon I'll come a cropper. The last blue moon was when I bent my middle finger at a funny angle 5 years ago, previous to that about 20 years ago I did a face plant where the concencus was that a helmet wouldn't have made much difference to the facial scars. I'm happy to live with a couple of incidents both of which would have had the same outcome helemt or no helmet, in return for a) putting up with a bit of pain if it does happen [MTFU], and b) not being lectured at & having my IQ / reproducitve necessity called into question for not fitting in with the metrosexual London view.
It's that that bugs me, the insults & lecturing from people who know best. Orf with ye.
Not a pop at you LiT. General.
0 -
UndercoverElephant wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:Yeah, I'm aware of that study, it's 4 years old and no further work has been done after the initial findings.
But, it's not really what I meant. What I'm trying to find out is whether, in the event of a collision, there's any real evidence that you could come off worse as a result of wearing a helmet.
I think that the general view is that helmets are actually pretty good in a straight collision, which is what they're designed for. They're tested for straight impacts against a curb at, if I remember correctly 17 mph.
What they're supposedly not so good at are "rotational" injuries, when the angle of strike isn't head on. Motorcycle helmets are good at this, as they hold your neck still. There are even some who claim that these injuries may be worse if you are wearing a cycle helmet, as the helmet may cause extra purchase, causing more rotation.
Either way, small studies aren't likely to find a good correlation in this, and nobody is going to pay for a larger one, as there's no financial gain to it.
This 'rotational injury' thing is the type of thing I mean, as well as the idea that you're more likely to hit your head if you wear a helmet.
Are there not studies on this then? You'd think helmet companies would fund studies in order to either a)prove that such things are bunkum, or b) promote a re-design so everyone has to buy a new helmet...0 -
UndercoverElephant wrote:There are even some who claim that these injuries may be worse if you are wearing a cycle helmet, as the helmet may cause extra purchase, causing more rotation.
Yeah, cus skin and hair has less grip than a plastic coated helmet...
0 -
Right, I've done a small-scale test.
I took a grape (largest fruit in the kitchen at work) and dropped it. It looked fine.
I then popped a acorn shell on the top of another grape and dropped it too. Also looked fine.
I then took a hammer and smashed the first grape. Not fine.
I then took a hammer to the grape with the helmet on. Also not fine.
I think this conclusively proves what CiB has been saying all along.0 -
I think I might just try cycling to work wearing the melon.0
