"pros" in helmets

on the road

squigs wrote:

Why do most clubs insist on wearing a helmet, when it isn't the law?

Most clubs don't insist on wearing a helmet.

mcj78

One situation I can think of where a helmet would be of value, is the instance I seen a couple of weeks ago where a guy had been filtering through traffic at a red light (presumably on the drops) & got doored by a transit van. Lovely 5 inch door-edge shaped gash right down the middle of his head, looked like he's been hit by an axe. If he'd been going flat out & the same thing happened he wouldn't have gotten away with an afternoon in hospital & some stitches. He wasn't wearing a helmet, might not have been as big a gash if he did. Although who knows - might have been exactly the same, might have been worse - if any one fancies running full speed into the edge of their car door with & without helmet to prove a point, please let me know how it goes for reference.
That morning I was actually deliberating wether or not to wear my helmet as it was pretty hot outside & I'd left early to avoid most of the traffic & the schools were on holiday so it was generally quieter, but whether or not you're an experienced rider, or it's quiet on the roads, or it won't really make a difference if a bus runs over your head, or you think you'll look like a twat, or some guy in your club hasn't worn one for 60 years & he's still alive - there might be an eventuality where a helmet would save you from more serious injury, so i'll continue to wear mine.
I wouldn't ever advocate making it compulsory to wear one though as it's down to personal choice whether an individual thinks it's sensible or not, and in most road fatalities involving cyclists not wearing a helmet, it probably wouldn't have made a vast difference if they were.

outofbreath2

on the road wrote:

squigs wrote:

Why do most clubs insist on wearing a helmet, when it isn't the law?

Most clubs don't insist on wearing a helmet.

Have either of you phoned most clubs to ascertain which is the case then.

Maybe this is where the poll should be directed to find this out.

squigs

outofbreath2 wrote:

on the road wrote:

squigs wrote:

Why do most clubs insist on wearing a helmet, when it isn't the law?

Most clubs don't insist on wearing a helmet.

Have either of you phoned most clubs to ascertain which is the case then.

Maybe this is where the poll should be directed to find this out.

I joined a local club 3 weeks ago(not that its been any good due to the hours I have been working recently) but it was a choice between 2 local clubs and both insist on wearing helmets. So from my experience 100% of the clubs I looked at insist on it, (that is how a stat works isn't it).
this and the fact the professionals wear them must mean something!

flet©h

amaferanga wrote:

flet©h wrote:

Saying you shouldn't/don't wear a helmet cycling becuase the risks are the same as walking and way less than being drunk is a ridiculous view to take. They are completely unrelated. Its like saying you don't need Ketchup on your chips because salad tastes better with mayonaise.

But the risk per mile of walking is about the same as that for cycling so surely if you think the risk is great enough to need a helmet to ride a bike you would think the same for walking?

And if the risk of head injury is significantly greater if you're drunk then surely it makes perfect sense to wear a helmet when you drunk?

It comes down to people's misconception of the actual risk of cycling compared to other activities.

Oh and your analogy is perhaps one of the stupidest I've ever heard btw - we're comparing two activities where there is a small, but real risk of head injury and trying to make sense of why people insist helmets for cycling are essential, but the same people don't wear helmets when walking.

The analogy is supposed to be stupid, thats the point. Looking at stats for walking and drinking when deciding to wear a helmet cycling is stupid.

outofbreath2

squigs wrote:

outofbreath2 wrote:

on the road wrote:

squigs wrote:

Why do most clubs insist on wearing a helmet, when it isn't the law?

Most clubs don't insist on wearing a helmet.

Have either of you phoned most clubs to ascertain which is the case then.

Maybe this is where the poll should be directed to find this out.

I joined a local club 3 weeks ago(not that its been any good due to the hours I have been working recently) but it was a choice between 2 local clubs and both insist on wearing helmets. So from my experience 100% of the clubs I looked at insist on it, (that is how a stat works isn't it).
this and the fact the professionals wear them must mean something!

Absolutely fair enough. It just tickled me that both statements appeared together apparently trying to outdo each other in their ...sweepingness.

thiscocks

SBezza wrote:

bompington wrote:

@SBezza ("plenty of older guys") & cougie ("how many cyclists post war"): this is a classic "My great auntie smoked 60 a day and lived to 95" argument. And just a thought - could it be that roads are more dangerous places to be these days? More, faster and bigger cars, more aggressive drivers, more street furniture (what did for me on one of the occasions below - road constriction that I just didn't see in the dark & pishing rain)

Again this is quoted, if you get hit by a vehicle, generally a helmet is the least of your worries. Helmets do not stop injuries to the rest of a very delicate body do they.

Helmets may or may not help stop concussion, but it is highly unlikely you will get concussion in every accident.

Do I think my helmet will help much if I come off at 25+mph and hit my head hard, well NO, it isn't designed for that sort of impact. It might help stop road rash on my head, but I doubt it will help much more than that. Until there is conclusive evidence to prove that a cycle helmet actually stops head trauma, they should not be compulsory, and people shouldn't force their views on others. If you think there is a benefit then fine, but don't moan at others that have a different view.

I actually wear my helmet for 99% of my cycling, I might not wear one for the very odd occasion I am cycling around with my lad at a very slow speed, and coming off is not likely or an issue. But I don't over estimate what one will actually do in a big accident.

Well said sir. Couldn't agree more. The only times I wear a helmet are in races(where you have to) and in some bike events which demand you have too(for insurance reasons I guess). You don't have to wear one in my local club-thankfully.

P.S. The pros wear them because they are forced to. Most would go without I'm sure given the choice.

on the road

outofbreath2 wrote:

on the road wrote:

squigs wrote:

Why do most clubs insist on wearing a helmet, when it isn't the law?

Most clubs don't insist on wearing a helmet.

Have either of you phoned most clubs to ascertain which is the case then.

Maybe this is where the poll should be directed to find this out.

No, I haven't, so yes I could be wrong. The club I'm in doesn't insist on helmet wearing but I know that some do but I would have thought the clubs that insist on helmet wearing would be in the minority.

amaferanga

flet©h wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

flet©h wrote:

Saying you shouldn't/don't wear a helmet cycling becuase the risks are the same as walking and way less than being drunk is a ridiculous view to take. They are completely unrelated. Its like saying you don't need Ketchup on your chips because salad tastes better with mayonaise.

But the risk per mile of walking is about the same as that for cycling so surely if you think the risk is great enough to need a helmet to ride a bike you would think the same for walking?

And if the risk of head injury is significantly greater if you're drunk then surely it makes perfect sense to wear a helmet when you drunk?

It comes down to people's misconception of the actual risk of cycling compared to other activities.

Oh and your analogy is perhaps one of the stupidest I've ever heard btw - we're comparing two activities where there is a small, but real risk of head injury and trying to make sense of why people insist helmets for cycling are essential, but the same people don't wear helmets when walking.

The analogy is supposed to be stupid, thats the point. Looking at stats for walking and drinking when deciding to wear a helmet cycling is stupid.

Why is comparing activities based on their risk of head injury stupid? Forget for a minute that we're talking about cycling and think about Activity A and Activity B. If someone told you that you're just as likely to suffer a serious head injury in both activities what would you do if you were offered a helmet? I'm guessing you wouldn't then decide that not wearing a helmet for Activity A is stupid, yet wearing a helmet for Activity B is also stupid!

The problem here (as is the case with many of the pro-helmet brigade) is that you're basing your judgements on your preconceived idea of risk as opposed to the actual risk. You can't accept that walking or being a passenger in a car is just as dangerous as cycling.

outofbreath2

[quote="amaferanga
The problem here (as is the case with many of the pro-helmet brigade Oooh I've always wanted to belong) is that you're basing your judgements on your preconceived idea of relative risk as opposed to the actual risk.

You can't accept that walking or being a passenger in a car is just as dangerous as cycling.[/quote]

Actually I can, and I carry out those tasks using the most appropriate safety measures that are currently available to me and which allow me to function as a reasonably normal human being. Call me risk averse.

As a pedestrian I am as mindful on the pavement as I can be, not running out in front of moving vehicles (cars or bikes - motor or push) and crossing at designated spots. In a car I wear a seatbelt and drive responsibly and I don't speed. NO REALLY I DON'T. I'm really boring. Neither do I talk on the phone. I do however listen to the radio. On a treader I wear a helmet and do my level best to ride in a straight line.

Anything to minimise risk (relative actual or absolute) whilst allowing me out of the house is fine with me. I'm perfectly aware that it's everyone else I can't control.

Do the 'I've not worn a helmet since I left the womb and I didn't wear one in there either 'brigade' not do any of those things mentioned above. Or is it all or nothing.

Pross

I think you are missing Amaferanga's point, from what I read he is saying you are statistically as likely to recieve a head injury walking as you are cycling * so if as you say you take the appropraite measures available to you then why not wear a helmet whilst walking?

* I'm not sure if this is indeed the case but that appears to be Amaferanga's case and if it is indeed true it is a valid point.

squigs

This thread is brilliant, great interaction.

Ollieda

As for those quoting the "risk per mile" stats of cycling and walking.....think about how they look at those stats and you'll see the argument is pretty pointless.

Either you impose a suggested risk level and divide by miles or you look at a cyclist and a pedestrian and see how many times they have an accident and divide by miles. Both ways the cyclist would come out with a lower "risk per mile" purely because they do more miles and a mile on the bike is not comparative to a mile on foot.

"Risk per minute" or some other measure of time would be a better measure however the idea of "risk" and the suggested amount of risk would still be a theoretical one.

Pross

Yep, it's one of the reasons that road casualty figures show that motorways are the safest road (there are other factors as well). It's very difficult to compare different modes using any basis.

datasone

What I see alot of is a family out for a bike ride, with the kids wearing a helmet yet the parents are not. Good example eh.

Ollieda

"Per mile an adult is less likely to hit their head whilst cycling than a child is"(Ollieda et. al. 2010)

Well according to the above study the adults are safe so they don't need to wear one

Cunobelin

Pross wrote:

squigs wrote:

Alberto Contador averages 25mph during the Tour de France as do most of the riders. Why do most of them wear a helmet?
Also do the head butt a wall test, one with a helmet and one without, if one hurts more than the other then I would favour the one that doesnt.

That's because the UCI rules make it compulsory, before that probably less than half the pro peloton wore helmets and virtually none on big climbs. Would Fabio Casartelli have survived his crash and hitting his head on a rock at 50mph if he'd been wearing a helmet? I doubt it but it gave the UCI their first attempt at compulsory helmet wearing.

Actually this was not simple, one of the biggest problems in this case was breathing problems due to facial injuries, to have any effect it would need to have been a full face helmet as recommended by the British Dental Association and Headway

Cunobelin

thermopyl wrote:

Debate is one thing, and evidence based debate is even better. "Wear a helmet on a bike or be a vegetable" is neither - it is emotive blackmail and bullying.

That is where the "outrage" occurs

The example i gave was neither blackmail nor bullying - stop overreacting. You contradict yourself in one sentence - stick to evidenced based debate as you have none to show that my intention is anything other that to elicit a debate.

It is a true example of what i have experienced, so from my perspective i have evidence

You going to be calling me a Nazi next? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

My apologies if you took this personally - it is a reference to the large number of posts of this type that pepper these debates- no evidence, or real value to the debate.... a bit like your assumption about Godwin's law

Cunobelin

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

kettrinboy wrote:

...there will always be cyclists who will never wear a helmet, ive been one for 40 odd years but ive changed my mind, now i,ll do my research and get the best helmet i can afford.

Snell Foundation have done it for you. Helmets that get their B-90A rating have passed a far tougher test than ones that reach the European standard EN1078.

From the Snell website most of them appear to be made by Specialized. The Specialized website lists these as their current models meeting B-90A.

EN1078 helmets are banned from racing events in the US due to the extremely low standard of protection!

outofbreath2

Pross (nothing personal, but there's a few between us now....)
I too got the point in the first para of A's post thanks. And I agree with it. But I wasn't responding to that bit otherwise I would've quoted it. 'The problem here' is percieved to be the inability of 'some of the helmet brigade' to discern between different types of risk and risk assessment capability being somehow defective in the real world... just because some people want to wear a hat.

You got me. There is no logical reason why I don't wear a lid whilst on the pavement. This is my choice, it is where I choose to draw the line. It's a reasonable place to draw it.

This is the point, personal choice regardless of motivation, evidence based or not. Now I think everyone is guilty of a little non-evidence based decision making in their waking hours. Whether it be 'I'm going to wear a lid because I feel happier with one/I'm sure it helped when I fell off once,' or 'I've been riding years lidless and never had a problem.' Either way, great, fine, do carry on. But don't cast aspertions on someone's reasoning powers just because you don't agree with them.

I wrote more than this but it dumped me - it was brilliant too

redddraggon

...

STEFANOS4784

redddraggon wrote:

I find calling non-helmet wearers "stupid" very offensive.

If this is really true then you need to get out more, but not to where i go as you'd get pulled to pieces.

I wear one as it helps disguise my face so i don't get recognised dressed up in lycra and thus avoid p1ss taking from mates down the pub

Pross

outofbreath2 wrote:

Pross (nothing personal, but there's a few between us now....)
I too got the point in the first para of A's post thanks. And I agree with it. But I wasn't responding to that bit otherwise I would've quoted it. 'The problem here' is percieved to be the inability of 'some of the helmet brigade' to discern between different types of risk and risk assessment capability being somehow defective in the real world... just because some people want to wear a hat.

You got me. There is no logical reason why I don't wear a lid whilst on the pavement. This is my choice, it is where I choose to draw the line. It's a reasonable place to draw it.

This is the point, personal choice regardless of motivation, evidence based or not. Now I think everyone is guilty of a little non-evidence based decision making in their waking hours. Whether it be 'I'm going to wear a lid because I feel happier with one/I'm sure it helped when I fell off once,' or 'I've been riding years lidless and never had a problem.' Either way, great, fine, do carry on. But don't cast aspertions on someone's reasoning powers just because you don't agree with th

I wrote more than this but it dumped me - it was brilliant too

We agree then , I just read your response in a different way to intended and assumed you were disagreeing with the whole point sorry. I too feel happier with the helmet (probably because I have nearly always worn one since I started cyling) but wouldn't consider one when walking although I did seriously consider it for my little girl at one point as her balance was shot due to illness and ops. I'm also a little dubious of the statistics to be honest as I've walked all my life and have only fallen and hit my head once, I've done it twice on a bike and suspect total miles covered on foot far outweigh miles covered by bike over my life but a sample size of one may not be particularly useful

outofbreath2

Pross wrote:

[
We agree then , I just read your response in a different way to intended and assumed you were disagreeing with the whole point sorry. I too feel happier with the helmet (probably because I have nearly always worn one since I started cyling) but wouldn't consider one when walking although I did seriously consider it for my little girl at one point as her balance was shot due to illness and ops. I'm also a little dubious of the statistics to be honest as I've walked all my life and have only fallen and hit my head once, I've done it twice on a bike and suspect total miles covered on foot far outweigh miles covered by bike over my life but a sample size of one may not be particularly useful

Well quite. I can't think of a better reason for toying with the idea of pavement headware. We do live in an evidence based world 'tis true. Without it we'd not have ... well anything really. Trouble is people use and abuse all the stuff brought about by this evidence stuff. People, per se, are sentient beings and frankly, who bloody knows why they do anything. :roll:

nigel19076

:twisted: I can tell you fact that helmet legislation is being drafted at present with a fixed penalty notice for not wearing one being issued by the Police for non compliance when it comes to pass.

Cunobelin

Hopefully it won't be based on the same lies and falsehoods that were spouted in the Commons previously and still being expounded by Headway et al

All previous legislation has seen a massive reduction in cycling (up to 40%) with a lesser increase in head injuries

In each case the risk of head injury to the remaining cyclist is higher!

Rather an own goal!

on the road

nigel19076 wrote:

:twisted: I can tell you fact that helmet legislation is being drafted at present with a fixed penalty notice for not wearing one being issued by the Police for non compliance when it comes to pass.

Troll

Ollieda

Any proof nigel19076? Or would you have to kill us if you told us.

Not trying to be rude but I could probably find a few people willing to say that they could state as a fact that legislation on many things is being drafted right now.

If it is true I doubt it'll be one of the first things through when HoC sit again in September......maybe a few months before the Daily Hate get hold of it and start saying cyclists wearing helmets is wasting taxes / causing cancer / killing grandmothers

Cunobelin

LAt time this happened was the MP Eric Martlew with an EDM

He did indeed claim magic powers for helmets, as the reduction in child head injuries that would be achieved was greater than ALL head injuries for all road users in the previous year!


He also claimed a 2Bn saving on NHS costs when the total spending on ALL children is 1.5 Bn
Headway is in denial over reduction in cycle numbers (Victoria 40%, and in New Zealand there was a 91% in secondary school children)



If the argument for compulsion is that good why do the pro-compulsion campaigners have to resort to bullying and lies?

greasedscotsman

nigel19076 wrote:

:twisted: I can tell you fact that helmet legislation is being drafted at present with a fixed penalty notice for not wearing one being issued by the Police for non compliance when it comes to pass.

So what would people do if this happens? Not suggesting it's going to or that it should, but a question to those who don't currently wear helmets for whatever reason, would you start to wear one, run the risk of not wearing one and be fined or just stop riding?