Another little nugget for the helmet debate!

Hoopdriver

I'm a little confused by Paulie W's reaction to my post. Does he wish to argue that pedestrians DO whiz down hills at 30mph (Usain Bolt perhaps) or is he arguing that I was indeed uncomfortably hot in my helmet when I rode across the Great Sandy Desert and other places but am lying about it for the purposes of furthering helmet use? If it is the later, how would he know?

I think the whole helmet debate is absurd. If you're sensible you'll wear one, if not, well, who cares? The libertarian in me is very much against compulsory helmet use. The logician in me hates to see such facile arguments presented to discourage their use

Paulie W

Hoopdriver wrote:

I'm a little confused by Paulie W's reaction to my post. Does he wish to argue that pedestrians DO whiz down hills at 30mph (Usain Bolt perhaps) or is he arguing that I was indeed uncomfortably hot in my helmet when I rode across the Great Sandy Desert and other places but am lying about it for the purposes of furthering helmet use? If it is the later, how would he know?

I think the whole helmet debate is absurd. If you're sensible you'll wear one, if not, well, who cares? The libertarian in me is very much against compulsory helmet use. The logician in me hates to see such facile arguments presented to discourage their use

When you adopt the position that 'anyone who doesnt agree with me is an idiot'; when you willfully choose not to see the force of an argument - even one you think is wrong - then I imagine life is generally quite confusing.

Kieran_Burns

Paulie W wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

I'm a little confused by Paulie W's reaction to my post. Does he wish to argue that pedestrians DO whiz down hills at 30mph (Usain Bolt perhaps) or is he arguing that I was indeed uncomfortably hot in my helmet when I rode across the Great Sandy Desert and other places but am lying about it for the purposes of furthering helmet use? If it is the later, how would he know?

I think the whole helmet debate is absurd. If you're sensible you'll wear one, if not, well, who cares? The libertarian in me is very much against compulsory helmet use. The logician in me hates to see such facile arguments presented to discourage their use

When you adopt the position that 'anyone who doesnt agree with me is an idiot'; when you willfully choose not to see the force of an argument - even one you think is wrong - then I imagine life is generally quite confusing.

+1

I honestly cannot understand why the advocates of helmet wearing cannot understand the simple premise that cycling is safe.

Hoopdriver

Cool your jets mate - I don't think that anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. Plenty of people can disagree with me on plenty of issues without my thinking they are idiots. I do think anyone who sallies forth on a bike without a helmet is just plain dumb. I am not for forcing them to wear them - not at all - but I think they are dumb.

And the force of your argument was? What? The speedy pedestrian? The fact that I must have really been unbearably hot when I rode through the desert and am dissembling about it now to make a point? Or that bicycle helmets are indeed silly looking?

Run your argument by me again - I must have missed it. All I heard was a howl.

Hoopdriver

Sure - Kieren-Burns, cycling is safe. So is skiing. So is rock climbing. In my time I have done plenty of all of the above. That doesn't mean that you should ignore certain obvious risk factors and not take adequate steps to negate them.

Go ahead and ride bare-headed. I really don't care. It's your noggin, do as you please. Pound tent pegs with it if you like. It's nothing to me. I just do not like seeing facile arguments used to discourage sensible precautions such as wearing a helmet.

Paulie W

Hoopdriver wrote:

Cool your jets mate - I don't think that anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. Plenty of people can disagree with me on plenty of issues without my thinking they are idiots. I do think anyone who sallies forth on a bike without a helmet is just plain dumb. I am not for forcing them to wear them - not at all - but I think they are dumb.

And the force of your argument was? What? The speedy pedestrian? The fact that I must have really been unbearably hot when I rode through the desert and am dissembling about it now to make a point? Or that bicycle helmets are indeed silly looking?

Run your argument by me again - I must have missed it. All I heard was a howl.

You really are very stupid arent you?!

CiB

Hoopdriver wrote:

Sure - Kieren-Burns, cycling is safe. So is skiing. So is rock climbing. In my time I have done plenty of all of the above.

Skiing involves sliding down a slippery slope on two planks of wood, with trees, people and rocks on your route. A helmet may be a good idea.

Rock climbing involves moving upwards where hazards are out of the immediate eye-line, and a higher propensity to slip or fall. A helmet may be a good idea.

Cycling involves forward movement is predictable manner, with the means to stop & steer at will. As my route is virtually traffic-free and kerbs + lamp post free for pretty much the whole 21 miles, I'm of the opinion that it is safe, and does not require a helmet.

I'd like not to be called a dumb-ass wanker for having considered the risk, weighed it against 43 years & counting of successfully not being KSI'd, and concluding that for the non-existent risk of being involved in an accident where a helmet would make any difference, it's safe today not to wear it.

It's incredibly rude to dismiss those who take this position as dumb, or wankers, and does nothing to promote the wearing of helmets.

Kieran_Burns

Hoopdriver wrote:

Sure - Kieren-Burns, cycling is safe. So is skiing. So is rock climbing. In my time I have done plenty of all of the above. That doesn't mean that you should ignore certain obvious risk factors and not take adequate steps to negate them.

Go ahead and ride bare-headed. I really don't care. It's your noggin, do as you please. Pound tent pegs with it if you like. It's nothing to me. I just do not like seeing facile arguments used to discourage sensible precautions such as wearing a helmet.

but why is it a sensible precaution?

and before you get all het up - ask yourself how often someone needs a helmet when cycling, or is involved in an accident... because that is the crux of your argument.

Hoopdriver

How often do I need a helmet? Not often. In the past thirty five years I've come off twice - but both times my helmet took nasty blows and had to be replaced. I broke bones, but not my head. But that was only twice in thirty five years and many, many tens of thousands of miles - so yeah, sure, the odds are hugely in favour of my not needing a helmet on any given ride.

Another example, one perhaps less emotionally charged, but analogous I think: I buy and ride on very good tyres. I do not recall the last time I had a flat. Very seldom. Why then do I bother with having a pump, tube and patch kit? Why do you? Or do you not?

wgwarburton

Paulie W wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

.... I do think anyone who sallies forth on a bike without a helmet is just plain dumb. I am not for forcing them to wear them - not at all - but I think they are dumb. ....

You really are very stupid arent you?!

Being stupid is forgiveable- it's not his fault, after all.

Being rude is not.

Cheers,
W.

Paulie W

Hoopdriver wrote:

Sure - Kieren-Burns, cycling is safe. So is skiing. So is rock climbing. In my time I have done plenty of all of the above. That doesn't mean that you should ignore certain obvious risk factors and not take adequate steps to negate them.

Go ahead and ride bare-headed. I really don't care. It's your noggin, do as you please. Pound tent pegs with it if you like. It's nothing to me. I just do not like seeing facile arguments used to discourage sensible precautions such as wearing a helmet.

As I mentioned earlier I wear a helmet and think that on balance it is probably the right thing to do but I am not completely unmoveable from that position or unable to see the opposite view.

I recognise that there is an argument about how helmet wearing impact on a cyclist's own behaviour, i.e. he/she may subconsciously take more risks, and on the behaviour of other road users, i.e. drivers may take less care around helmeted cyclists than those not wearing helmets.

I also recognise there is some research that suggests that wearing a helmet may exacerbate head injuries in some contexts.

I also understand that many cyclists would align their activity (from a risk perspective) with exercises like walking to work or running for the bus or driving a car rather than with rock climbing or skiing or other 'dangerous' activities. You see the comparison with pedestrians as ridcuolous and part of me agrees with you: I feel in more danger (although very little danger in fact) on my bike on the road than I ever do crossing it on foot but statistics seem to suggest that beinga pedestrian is every bit as 'dangerous' as being a cyclist.

The aesthetic and comfort issues you have focused on have been barely mentioned in this discussion but you have focused in on them.

Paulie W

WGWarburton wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

.... I do think anyone who sallies forth on a bike without a helmet is just plain dumb. I am not for forcing them to wear them - not at all - but I think they are dumb. ....

You really are very stupid arent you?!

Being stupid is forgiveable- it's not his fault, after all.

Being rude is not.

Cheers,
W.

Being stupid is not forgiveable when it is done willfully.

Aguila

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

Sure - Kieren-Burns, cycling is safe. So is skiing. So is rock climbing. In my time I have done plenty of all of the above. That doesn't mean that you should ignore certain obvious risk factors and not take adequate steps to negate them.

Go ahead and ride bare-headed. I really don't care. It's your noggin, do as you please. Pound tent pegs with it if you like. It's nothing to me. I just do not like seeing facile arguments used to discourage sensible precautions such as wearing a helmet.

but why is it a sensible precaution?

and before you get all het up - ask yourself how often someone needs a helmet when cycling, or is involved in an accident... because that is the crux of your argument.

Sorry Kieren, this is a daft statement. How often does someone driving need a seatbelt? I've had zero accidents in 20 years of driving so would have been fine without one but I'm certainly not going to stop wearing it.

The comparison with helmets is not fully valid because clear evidence of benefit is lacking, but you canot dismiss using a protective device just because you probably wont need it.

wgwarburton

Paulie W wrote:

...Being stupid is not forgiveable when it is done willfully.

Fair point.

Cheers,
W.

Hoopdriver

Kieren - I hear what you are saying about the possibility that wearing a helmet can modify cyclists' behaviour and that in certain instances the helmet may exacerbate injuries. I've heard this before. Much the same argument was put forth back in olden days about the wearing of seat belts, something that now seems axiomatic.

Ah - and Paulie W - I have said nothing in my posts that has been rude, or presented in offensive language. I do believe that it is dumb to go riding without a helmet. That is my opinion and I am entitled to have it and to express it.

Your rather silly counter (I won't all it an argument) of: "You really are very stupid aren't you?" neither addresses the issue under discussion, or puts you in a very clever light.

Paulie W

Hoopdriver wrote:

Kieren - I hear what you are saying about the possibility that wearing a helmet can modify cyclists' behaviour and that in certain instances the helmet may exacerbate injuries. I've heard this before. Much the same argument was put forth back in olden days about the wearing of seat belts, something that now seems axiomatic.

Ah - and Paulie W - I have said nothing in my posts that has been rude, or presented in offensive language. I do believe that it is dumb to go riding without a helmet. That is my opinion and I am entitled to have it and to express it.

Your rather silly counter (I won't all it an argument) of: "You really are very stupid aren't you?" neither addresses the issue under discussion, or puts you in a very clever light.

My perception of your stupidity - which remains let me say - derives from the fact that you seem unable to recognise that presenting your argument in the way that you do - 'riding without a helmet is dumb' - alienates even those who agree with your basic proposition that cyclists are best advised to wear a helmet and kills the debate rather than moves it forward. Let's not pretend that you entered this debate to engage in productive discussion - you clearly didnt.

CiB

Hoopdriver wrote:

Ah - and Paulie W - I have said nothing in my posts that has been rude, or presented in offensive language. I do believe that it is dumb to go riding without a helmet.

Your supreme confidence in your judgement being the only truth and that anyone who disagrees regardless of circumstance makes that person dumb, is in fact the very definition of rudeness.

Gordon Bennett.

Hoopdriver

Once again guys - cool your jets. I never claimed to possess the one and only truth. It is you that placed me on that pedestal. I merely said I believe that it is dumb to ride without a helmet; and I do believe it.

I also said the libertarian in me believes that helmets should not be compulsory.

It is you that cannot get past that first statement - and the fact that someone holds a position that differs from your own. One can disagree with you, and express it, without being rude and I have done so. I do believe it is dumb to ride without a helmet, but at no time in any of my posts have I singled out an individual person and characterized THEM as dumb.

You on the other hand, have not extended that courtesy to me - and apparently because I have had the temerity to disagree with you on a given point

Keith1983

I think that after spending quite a bit of my time reading and indeed in taking part in this debate I have realised it is at this point in time completely pointless.

To summarise;

Some people see fit to wear a helmet when riding, some don't.

Nobody can present any conclusive evidence either way.

There is no law saying one way or another.

so taking that into consideration the whole thread can be put to bed simply by saying;

each to their own.

hfidgen

But... but... but...

Pointless unwinnable arguments are the reason the internet was invented!!! And to display pictures of cats, of course.

Kieran_Burns

Aguila wrote:

Sorry Kieran, this is a daft statement. How often does someone driving need a seatbelt? I've had zero accidents in 20 years of driving so would have been fine without one but I'm certainly not going to stop wearing it.

The comparison with helmets is not fully valid because clear evidence of benefit is lacking, but you cannot dismiss using a protective device just because you probably wont need it.

but it isn't though is it?

There was very clear evidence that wearing a seatbelt would save you from serious injury, this clear evidence is not available for helmet wearing.

As to your last statement - I CAN dismiss wearing a protective device when the chances of requiring it are negligible.

Otherwise I would be wearing that bloody silly sumo-suit everywhere I went for fear of damaging myself every time I got out of bed.

Kieran_Burns

hfidgen wrote:

But... but... but...

Pointless unwinnable arguments are the reason the internet was invented!!! And to display pictures of cats, of course.

and porn

fnegroni

IMHO, the comparison of seatbelts to cycling helmets is invalid.

Not because seatbelts are more effective in case of accident. Seatbelts, just like helmets, are useful but limited and although the can reduce the consequences of an impact, they don't fully remove it. Hence why airbags are now pretty much standard on all cars.

Seatbelts though are not in any way shape or form equivalent to cycling helmets:

a) seatbelts don't protect from head injuries: in a car accident, head injuries are caused by either the occupant hitting the side window or the car's protruding interior objects, or objects stored inside the vehicle hitting the occupant, or external objects hitting the occupant. The head is still very much exposed. Only an airbag can protect a head. And airbags are *not* compulsory.
Would you refuse treatment in A&E if someone was involved in an accident and suffered head injury while driving a car without airbags?

b) cars travel at a far higher speed, and pose far higher decelerations on the body of the occupant in case of accident, in pretty much ANY accident. Therefore seatbelts are designed to be effective in the majority of accidents indipendently on the type of accident or injury sustained.
Helmets only protect in accidents involving potential head injuries

c) seatbelts are permanently mounted on the vehicle, do not affect the comfort of the occupant, and are practical: they can fit a variety of people by way of integrated adjustments. Did I mention they do not have to be transported and that they can be reused?

Cycling helmets have to be compared to driving helmets.

The same inconvenience and limited applicability applies.

If they made driving helmets compulsory, the same debate would emerge among motorists.

The only way a cycling helmet can be effective is if it were designed like a motorcycle helmet.
In which case, it would become obvious to anyone that it is an overkill solution looking for a problem to solve.

Hoopdriver

I don't understand your argument there.

Obviously there are differences between seatbelts and bicycle helmets in form and function, but both are designed to enhance the safety of their users. Seatbelts can and do protect against head injuries, although airbags arguably do that particular job better - although there again, some people have been quite badly injured y airbags themselves.

Cars travel faster - generally - than bicycles, although not necessarily down steep hills. But of course a motorist is also protected by a couple of tonnes of bodywork, where a cyclist is fully exposed. A car does not rely on balance to keep it upright and short of a cat-5 tornado is not likely to be overturned by winds etc. All of these things can happen to a cyclist, who has no safety equipment other than gloves, a helmet and hopefully a modicum of skill to get them out of trouble.

A motorcycle helmet would indeed be overkill on a bicycle. They are built to provide protection in circumstances similar to - but faster and riskier than - those presented by cycling, hence their more robust construction, and a motorcyclists' perceived need for wearing leathers. They encounter many of the same hazards as cyclists but at greater speeds.

Argument (c) that seatbelts are comfortable and practical would have been - and indeed was - very controversial and argumentative back in the bad old days when seatbelts were a highly debatable safety feature in automobiles. But we've all pretty well moved past that one now.

wgwarburton

Hoopdriver wrote:

I don't understand your argument there....

Are you even trying? It's really not that hard.

Cheers,
W.

CyclingBantam

I have not read through the whole thread yet but a couple of Keith's posts have frustrated me a little.

The question he is putting across is, should it be scientifically proven that helmets would reduce the risk, people would be stupid to wear them.

If that is the case, why does Keith not ride around in a deep sea diving suit? I quarantee that will allow him better protection than his current clothes and helmet?

The reason is simple, because he uses his head to decide what is a reasonable precaution to the risk he is putting himself in for. That is all helmet wearing is, people are, and should be, allowed to assess the risk themselves.

Also, I forget the rather agressive poster earlier who was calling non helmet wearers w@nkers. Firstly, I found your posts quite difficult to read as your language doesn't make sense or read well. I managed to get the gist but unfortunately, throwing in language you believe is complex and will make you appear intelligent when you don't use it correctly, really does backfire a little bit.

Secondly, you were talking about the stupidity of riding down hills at 30mph+ without a helmet.

If you think a helmet will help if you come off at that speed you really need to look at what helmets are there to protect against which is actually low speed impacts. Ideal for pedestrian falls ironically enough. Now why shouldn't they have to wear them. The argument is exactly the same as for cyclists. The fact we ride with cars is irrelavent, being hit by a car, a helmet is the least of your worries.

For the record, I almost always wear a helmet and the sole reason is, I am worried about a low speed fall. I think it would be an incredibly stupid decision to make it compulsary.

Keith1983

CyclingBantam wrote:

The question he is putting across is, should it be scientifically proven that helmets would reduce the risk, people would be stupid to wear them.

I presume you mean stupid not to wear them?

My first issue with this is that I at no point referred to anybody as stupid. Secondly this only forms part of my thinking. The point I wished to make was that if it was proven that they reduce the risk and if the risk is significant then surely there could be no argument over it being beneficial to wear them.

jamesco

fnegroni wrote:

Cycling helmets have to be compared to driving helmets.

The same inconvenience and limited applicability applies.

If they made driving helmets compulsory, the same debate would emerge among motorists.

The only way a cycling helmet can be effective is if it were designed like a motorcycle helmet.
In which case, it would become obvious to anyone that it is an overkill solution looking for a problem to solve.

A cyclist is not surrounded by airbags and a ton of steel, hence the importance of having some head protection in case of any impact. It doesn't have to be full-face to be effective.

The straw-man arguments against wearing helmets are like zombies - even when they're killed they keep coming back... If you don't want to ride with a helmet then that's okay by most everyone (and why should you be bothered by those who think otherwise), there's no need to justify it. But if you're gonna argue that helmets are harmful or useless, then logic just isn't on your side.

Hoopdriver

CyclingBantam

My language might appear complex to you, and if you have difficulty understanding any of the 'bigger' words in it I am certainly sorry, but I can assure you that those big words and what appeared to you to be complex sentence structures were all used correctly. I have been a journalist for a good many years on some very demanding publications and was fortunate enough to have been taught grammar in school and later to have learned my craft as a writer from an old-school chief sub-editor who was very hot on precision in language, correct grammar and punctuation.

It is a pity these things are not taught anymore in school.

I also know enough - and am sufficiently concerned with accuracy - to quote someone accurately. At no point did I ever refer to anyone as a w@anker, but said that I believed riding without a helmet was dumb.

And I think misquoting someone in print - when the original is there before you - is similarly dumb.

bails87

Hoopdriver
He's referring to dueceone who called people w*nkers.

Dueceone used the word exponential when that doesn't seem to be what he meant.

Also the person you're angry with didn't [mis]quote you at all.

Precision in writing, and all that.