Are helmets now compulsory?

itsbruce

Runoutofgears wrote:

Save the Melon, compulsory helmets for melons

Does it make any difference if the melons are wearing skinny jeans, do you think?

wgwarburton

Always Tyred wrote:

..Btw - wearing a helmet for mtb but not road cycling is illogical. You are on both sides of the argument, employing contradictory reasoning, for substantially equivalent activities (depending on the lunacy with which you mtb)

How do you figure that, then? MTB'ing is (almost universally) a leisure activity, often done for thrills, rather than to explore trails slowly & enjoy the view. Trees, rocks and tumbles are commonly encountered hazards. Road cycling for transport (ie commuting rather than racing or touring in their various forms) is generally carried out on surfaced roads, designed for the job, with the major hazard being traffic where an encounter would easily exceed the design parameters of the helmet....

I don't see them as substantially equivalent at all, unless you compare a lunatic fringe of road riders with a relatively timid MTB group!

Cheers,
W.

wgwarburton

itsbruce wrote:

...So I'm very grateful to KiwiMike, CIB, diplomacy and others who have argued for rationality with such good humour. Really cheered me up (made me laugh aloud, at points).

Yeah, +1 to that!!

There was a regular poster on u.r.c (may still hang out there?) who's .sig was:

"The plural of anecdote is not data".

So true...

Cheers,
W.

jedster

But explaining 20 years of evidence with a 3M+ size statistical survey pales into nothing compared to anecdote. "My mate had a crash and his head would have been ripped clean orf if not for his £100 Giro" is much easier to sell down the pub than the evidence-based fact that KSI rates per million km cycled across 3m people did not change at all following 100% helmet uptake.

Risk transferance, rotational brain injury, reduction of Safety In Numbers all have some part to play in making helmets a bad idea when viewed at a population level.

Very good post.

But I'm going to challenge your conclusions a bit.

I agree that I haven't seen any evidence that helmets works at a whole population level. Because of this I don't support compulsion.

But I suspect that risk transferance (assume this is the same as risk compensation?) and reduction of Safety in Numbers are key factors that mask the real value of helmets in SOME falls. My point from this is that just because helmets don't do any good at the population level does not mean that they make no sense at the individual level - e.g., if I can manage my personal tendenacy to risk compensate then the fact that most people rsk compenate is irrelevant. Equally, me not wearing a helmet has no impact on Safety in Numbers.

I think helmets do help in falls that resemble the test (hardly surprising!). I don't think these are that uncommon. I have twice lost my front wheel on diesel spills. When that happens you go down sideways very hard - It is very much like dropping your head from 2m. In both occasion my helmet smacked the ground hard, crushed, deformed but meant that I didn't even have concussion or a headache afterwards. I know this is an annecdote but I'm just using it to illustrate the type of fall where helmets can do some good.

So I will continue to wear a helmet but I don't think they should be compulsory.

J

wgwarburton

jedster wrote:

...- e.g., if I can manage my personal tendenacy to risk compensate then the fact that most people rsk compenate is irrelevant.

I think you may be kidding yourself. Look at it this way: if you feel at all uncomfortable riding without a helmet then the chances are that you are subconciously being less careful than you could be when you are wearing it. The "I don't risk-compensate" meme is almost as common as "a helmet saved my/myMates life".

I think helmets do help in falls that resemble the test (hardly surprising!). I don't think these are that uncommon. I have twice lost my front wheel on diesel spills. When that happens you go down sideways very hard - It is very much like dropping your head from 2m. In both occasion my helmet smacked the ground hard, crushed, deformed but meant that I didn't even have concussion or a headache afterwards. I know this is an annecdote but I'm just using it to illustrate the type of fall where helmets can do some good.

The last couple of times I've met the Diesel Fairy I havn't been wearing a helmet and didn't strike my head on the ground at all... from this the obvious and incontrovertible conclusion is that it's more dangerous to wear a helmet 'cos you are much more likely to hit your head! [ Mostly :-) ]

So I will continue to wear a helmet but I don't think they should be compulsory.

...and I will continue not to do so and agree wholeheartedly with you on that point!

Cheers,
W.

always_tyred

WGWarburton wrote:

How do you figure that, then? MTB'ing is (almost universally) a leisure activity, often done for thrills, rather than to explore trails slowly & enjoy the view. Trees, rocks and tumbles are commonly encountered hazards. Road cycling for transport (ie commuting rather than racing or touring in their various forms) is generally carried out on surfaced roads, designed for the job, with the major hazard being traffic where an encounter would easily exceed the design parameters of the helmet....
Cheers,
W.

I don't understand your physics. The biggest impact is determined by relative velocity and (when considering something he4avy, like the earth, and something light, like your head) the mass of the lightest object. You've nicely pointed out that mtber's encounter rocky, tree-like immovable objects, whereas roadies encounter tarmac like or winscreen like immovable objects.
What's the difference again?

wgwarburton

Always Tyred wrote:

... I don't understand your physics. The biggest impact is determined by relative velocity and (when considering something he4avy, like the earth, and something light, like your head) the mass of the lightest object. You've nicely pointed out that mtber's encounter rocky, tree-like immovable objects, whereas roadies encounter tarmac like or winscreen like immovable objects.
What's the difference again?

I havn't done a lot of Mountain Biking, admittedly, but from what I recall few of the trees moved particularly quickly. Cars, on the other hand, have an irritating tendency to pounce...

I've also found that road falls tend to be more of a slidy abrasive nature than a bouncy tumbly one... Gravel/tarmac rash (and torn clothes) being more common than somersaulting OTB type bruisers.
Statistically, I think that off-road falls are more common than onroad ones- however I'm relying on my memory of reading various statistical papers for that, soI could easily be wrong!!!

Cheers,
W.

[edit- typos (sorry)]

iPete

zzzzZZZ not reading all of this but I'm that guy down the pub!

This morning I got things a little wrong and ploughed into the back of a lorry, a bit like Mark Webber at the weekend (except at slower speeds, I didn't go flying and I didn't even register on the other object).

Thanks to mr lid I laughed it off, bent my bike back together and continued on my journey, dent in my ego, not my head. If you choose to let statistics protect you, your choice.

& Last time I came off my mountain bike, I didn't hit my head, go figure, I've smacked my head on hard objects twice now on my roadie.

Mark Elvin

iPete wrote:

zzzzZZZ not reading all of this but I'm that guy down the pub!

This morning I got things a little wrong and ploughed into the back of a lorry, a bit like Mark Webber at the weekend (except at slower speeds, I didn't go flying and I didn't even register on the other object).

I'll bet Mark's injuries were less severe though, bloody amazing modern F1 safety

dondare

itsbruce wrote:

Runoutofgears wrote:

Save the Melon, compulsory helmets for melons

Does it make any difference if the melons are wearing skinny jeans, do you think?

Should women with ample figures wear two helmets? (Or three, if they're not bothered about messing their hair up.)

Paulie W

Always Tyred wrote:

KiwiMike wrote:

Hah. Haven't joined a helmet thread for years. Interesting to see the same ol' stuff again and again and again...

Coming from NZ, I can speak with first-hand experience of a 100% compliance regime of helmet wearing.

Btw - wearing a helmet for mtb but not road cycling is illogical. You are on both sides of the argument, employing contradictory reasoning, for substantially equivalent activities (depending on the lunacy with which you mtb)

I dont follow this at all. There seems nothing contradictory to me here since they're not 'substantially equivalent' activities - unless MTBIng for you is pootling along a fire road (or even bmbing along a fire road for that matter). I would never have the kind of relatively slow speed accidents on road as I would off-road - e.g. slow motion topples on rocky technical descents.

always_tyred

Is there any actual evidence of risk compensation?

Is there any actual evidence that rotational brain injuries are more prevelant when wearing a helmet?

Just asking, given that people seem to be placing a lot of stock in the notions.

iPete

Mark Elvin wrote:

iPete wrote:

zzzzZZZ not reading all of this but I'm that guy down the pub!

This morning I got things a little wrong and ploughed into the back of a lorry, a bit like Mark Webber at the weekend (except at slower speeds, I didn't go flying and I didn't even register on the other object).

I'll bet Mark's injuries were less severe though, bloody amazing modern F1 safety

Yup, jammy ozzy, was quite amazing to see him initially more annoyed than concerned about how big the crash was! I bet I'm carrying more bruises and was going about 185mph slower!

rjsterry

Nigh in impossible to design an experiment that filters out all other possible causes, I'd have thought. And if, as some suggest, it is an almost instinctive reaction, how would you set up a control, who didn't risk compensate?

pickylongstocking

Its a bright sunny day so stop pontificating on here and go out and ride.

Wear a helmet if you want to and don't if you don't

Simples?

pickylongstocking

Its a bright sunny day so stop pontificating on here and go out and ride.

Wear a helmet if you want to and don't if you don't

Simples?

dondare

Here's a piece of anecdotal 'evidence'.
A few weeks ago I was waiting to turn right at a light-controlled junction where the left-turning traffic goes first. Something ruffled my hair - it was the wing-mirror of a lorry.
Now, if I'd been wearing a helmet then the helmet would have taken quite a knock, and I might have thought that it'd saved my head. But in the event the mirror - big, solid affair - gave me no kind of knock at all so I was actually better off without the lid.

iPete

dondare wrote:

Here's a piece of anecdotal 'evidence'.
A few weeks ago I was waiting to turn right at a light-controlled junction where the left-turning traffic goes first. Something ruffled my hair - it was the wing-mirror of a lorry.
Now, if I'd been wearing a helmet then the helmet would have taken quite a knock, and I might have thought that it'd saved my head. But in the event the mirror - big, solid affair - gave me no kind of knock at all so I was actually better off without the lid.

And if you'd been standing up on the pedals? :roll:

I think my anecdotal evidence was better, except I don't plan on doing it again to see how bad I'd have come off with no helmet

Paulie W

I wear a helmet on and off road because I came to road riding from MTBing.

I have always worn a helmet when MTBing because I feel it protects me from the kind of cuts, bruises and concussions that potentially arise from coming off at slowish speeds and striking my head on a rock. I have plenty of anecdotal evidence that shows the contrast between those wearing helmets in such accidents and those not.

On the road I guess that I dont expect to have these kind of accidents - the risk of me falling and striking my head on the curb is probably less than that of slipping on ice and doing the same and I would never wear a helmet when out for a walk in winter would I? - but I still wear a helmet because I'm used to it and because loved ones hassle me if I dont.

rjsterry

Clipped a mirror on a (stationary) fire engine the other day, whilst pulling up to the lights. The vizor (which I find invaluable for riding home into the setting sun) meant that I didn't see the mirror. Also have done something very similar on a building site wearing a hard hat, but having gouged my shins on the ends of scaffolding poles, I'll stick with the hat/helmet, even if they just stop the superficial stuff.

dondare

iPete wrote:

dondare wrote:

Here's a piece of anecdotal 'evidence'.
A few weeks ago I was waiting to turn right at a light-controlled junction where the left-turning traffic goes first. Something ruffled my hair - it was the wing-mirror of a lorry.
Now, if I'd been wearing a helmet then the helmet would have taken quite a knock, and I might have thought that it'd saved my head. But in the event the mirror - big, solid affair - gave me no kind of knock at all so I was actually better off without the lid.

And if you'd been standing up on the pedals? :roll:

I think my anecdotal evidence was better, except I don't plan on doing it again to see how bad I'd have come off with no helmet

I sometimes stand up on the pedals when climbing or accelerating, never while waiting.
But anedotes are 'this happened' rather than 'what if this had happened'.
What happened is that I was saved from a hard knock by not wearing a helmet.

dondare

rjsterry wrote:

Clipped a mirror on a (stationary) fire engine the other day, whilst pulling up to the lights. The vizor (which I find invaluable for riding home into the setting sun) meant that I didn't see the mirror. Also have done something very similar on a building site wearing a hard hat, but having gouged my shins on the ends of scaffolding poles, I'll stick with the hat/helmet, even if they just stop the superficial stuff.

Also shinpads?

jedster

I think you may be kidding yourself. Look at it this way: if you feel at all uncomfortable riding without a helmet then the chances are that you are subconciously being less careful than you could be when you are wearing it. The "I don't risk-compensate" meme is almost as common as "a helmet saved my/myMates life".

Au contraire! I'm not kidding myself, I do risk compensate. However I THINK I limit it. The otherside of it is that if I, say, corner a bit faster when I'm wearing a lid then this may mean that I am no more safe than being lidless but at least I get the benefit of cornering faster!

One of the issues with the risk compensation argument is that the logic drives you to not use any safety equipment at all:

climbing? Don't use a rope, you'll only fall off more
skiing? Don't use a transceiver, you'll only be tempted to ski off piste
cycling? Don't fit good brakes, you'll only cycle faster

always_tyred

I have never not been hit on the head by not wearing a helmet.

iPete

dondare wrote:

iPete wrote:

dondare wrote:

Here's a piece of anecdotal 'evidence'.
A few weeks ago I was waiting to turn right at a light-controlled junction where the left-turning traffic goes first. Something ruffled my hair - it was the wing-mirror of a lorry.
Now, if I'd been wearing a helmet then the helmet would have taken quite a knock, and I might have thought that it'd saved my head. But in the event the mirror - big, solid affair - gave me no kind of knock at all so I was actually better off without the lid.

And if you'd been standing up on the pedals? :roll:

I think my anecdotal evidence was better, except I don't plan on doing it again to see how bad I'd have come off with no helmet

I sometimes stand up on the pedals when climbing or accelerating, never while waiting.
But anedotes are 'this happened' rather than 'what if this had happened'.
What happened is that I was saved from a hard knock by not wearing a helmet.

Yup and if you go back a few posts, I was saved from a hard knock, by something that happened this morning and was saved by my helmet when I did hit something, hard! :P

Point was, I won't be trying it again to see what the different outcome would have been without but I'd place money on me not being here typing out this message!

always_tyred

Always Tyred wrote:

I have never not been hit on the head by not wearing a helmet.

However, I have previously failed to avoid not being hit on the head by failing to not wear a helmet.

asprilla

Always Tyred wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

I have never not been hit on the head by not wearing a helmet.

However, I have previously failed to avoid not being hit on the head by failing to not wear a helmet.

You've made my head hurt. Your posts should come with a warning requiring protective brain wear.

rjsterry

dondare wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Clipped a mirror on a (stationary) fire engine the other day, whilst pulling up to the lights. The vizor (which I find invaluable for riding home into the setting sun) meant that I didn't see the mirror. Also have done something very similar on a building site wearing a hard hat, but having gouged my shins on the ends of scaffolding poles, I'll stick with the hat/helmet, even if they just stop the superficial stuff.

Also shinpads?

Call me shallow, but I don't mind if my shins have a few (manly?) scars across them, but I'm more fussy about the face. Also, my head is more essential for day-to-day activities than my legs.

dondare

iPete wrote:

zzzzZZZ not reading all of this but I'm that guy down the pub!

This morning I got things a little wrong and ploughed into the back of a lorry, a bit like Mark Webber at the weekend (except at slower speeds, I didn't go flying and I didn't even register on the other object).

Thanks to mr lid I laughed it off, bent my bike back together and continued on my journey, dent in my ego, not my head. If you choose to let statistics protect you, your choice.

& Last time I came off my mountain bike, I didn't hit my head, go figure, I've smacked my head on hard objects twice now on my roadie.

I don't know if it's risk compensation but it does seem to me that cyclists who wear helmets need them more than cyclists who don't.
How did you go into the back of a lorry?

iPete

dondare wrote:

iPete wrote:

zzzzZZZ not reading all of this but I'm that guy down the pub!

This morning I got things a little wrong and ploughed into the back of a lorry, a bit like Mark Webber at the weekend (except at slower speeds, I didn't go flying and I didn't even register on the other object).

Thanks to mr lid I laughed it off, bent my bike back together and continued on my journey, dent in my ego, not my head. If you choose to let statistics protect you, your choice.

& Last time I came off my mountain bike, I didn't hit my head, go figure, I've smacked my head on hard objects twice now on my roadie.

I don't know if it's risk compensation but it does seem to me that cyclists who wear helmets need them more than cyclists who don't.
How did you go into the back of a lorry?

A small miss timing, unexpected breaking at a green light and one shoulder safety check to many oh and its Monday morning. Would I have done the same without a lid? More than likely!