Another little nugget for the helmet debate!

davis

CiB wrote:

Some well-worded stuff

I love you. Will you be my dad?

Signed. Habitual-helmet-wearer, not that it protected me from rather unpleasant injury. I still wear a plastic hat, and I still know that, for me, it'll make little effective difference.


(this bit is not directed at CiB... just included here)

Life's a trade-off of risk versus benefit. People put different values in both the "risk" and "benefit" columns. It's personal assessment of risk, and therfore personal choice. Accept that, and carry on with your day

Personal choice about personal protection, yo?

jehannum5

WTF? How is it possible that there is an argument? I am a crit care nurse working in a neuro ICU, and a guy who rides to my shift. I can't see a reasonable argument about wearing helmets.

Not wearing a simple device that slows the kinetic energy imparted onto the skull and transmitted to the nerves in the brain seems like a simple intelligence test to me.

You can take the research as you will, look at the physics of the matter...and then come to a shift with me and see the devastation that results from head injuries.

Yes it's personal choice (unless compelled by law) but I shivered at the comment by some dude who didn't give a rats whether his kids wore helmets.....

The comment that ...oh it makes my head bigger therefore more likely to strike the road!!!! Jeezus... come on people...... There is no argument that doesn't result from cosmetics. I'm glad to see pro's ride with them now so thatit removes the 'cool' factor of riding with a cotton cap.

Let me tell you a helmet protects the brain more than a cotton cap...or is that not what the argument is about?

dueceone

TailWindHome wrote:

dueceone wrote:

Ask Wouter how worthwhile the extra comfort from his loosened chin strap was on stage 3 or if he wishes he'd just left the helmet at home... oh wait, that's right... Maybe a better question is come back in a few years and ask his as yet unborn son if he wishes his old man would've opted a bit more for protection over comfort.

Ignoring the poor taste of the rest of your comment, have you got anything to back up the claim in bold

Anything??? You mean apart from the 1000's of readily available photos on the internet which clearly show Wouter, along with just about every other pro rider, wearing their chin straps with several inches of gap...? In a depressing twist of circumstance, some friends and I were actually commenting on how loosely pro's wear their helmets while we were watching stage 2.

And while I'll agree the comment is a bit tasteless, it's apparently what it takes to drive home the level of risk at hand. That wasn't any crazy descent and nothing Wouter hadn't done 1000 times before and I've no doubt that he was a far better rider than anyone here will ever be... No matter how great you might think you are, the bottom line is that's what you're risking by not wearing a helmet or wearing one improperly.

wgwarburton

jehannum5 wrote:

WTF? How is it possible that there is an argument?

There is an argument because cycling is a safe activity which no more needs protective clothing than walking or driving, and yet people make claims like the ones in your post.

Have a look at this paper (just the high-level bullets, if you're short of time):
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf

I am a crit care nurse working in a neuro ICU, and a guy who rides to my shift. I can't see a reasonable argument about wearing helmets.

Have you looked? Often people assume it's dangerous and that helmets must mitigate the danger without checking if either are true. I may be jumping to conclusions, here, but the tone of your posts suggests you may not be familiar with the issues.

Not wearing a simple device that slows the kinetic energy imparted onto the skull and transmitted to the nerves in the brain seems like a simple intelligence test to me.

Yes, it seems like common sense, yet the reality appears more complex.

You can take the research as you will, look at the physics of the matter...and then come to a shift with me and see the devastation that results from head injuries

Each of which is a tragedy. We should focus on more effective prevention than bicycle helmets, though, since forcing people to wear them doesn't appear to help..

The comment that ...oh it makes my head bigger therefore more likely to strike the road!!!! Jeezus... come on people...... There is no argument that doesn't result from cosmetics. I'm glad to see pro's ride with them now so thatit removes the 'cool' factor of riding with a cotton cap.

Don't focus on cosmetics, there's much more to it than that. The pros are obliged to wear helmets and it's arguable that cycle racing is more likely to require protection that riding for transport (cf Motor racing vs driving to work)..

Let me tell you a helmet protects the brain more than a cotton cap...or is that not what the argument is about?

That's not really what the argument's about. It's also debatable, oddly enough, which is one reason the debate continues...

Cheers,
W.

andrewjoseph

I'll make a comment on the safety aspects of riding v walking.

What type of walking/riding are thinking of here? An easy stroll/ride to the shops or jogging/riding hard for several hours?

Nipping down the shops for a pack of biscuits is not generally hazardous to the health when either walking or riding, and unless you are walking on the road, then riding is still more dangerous as you are amongst traffic.

Joggers usually wear more safety gear when running on the road (lights, hi vis jackets etc.), or run in places away from traffic.

Cyclists riding hard on the road are exposing themselves to several degrees more danger than someone bimbling along going to post a letter. They are travelling faster, with greater degrees of lean in corners. They are out for longer, exposing themselves to risk for greater periods.

This is not even taking mountain biking into account.

So walking 5 minutes to the shops is a great deal safer than cycling hard for several hours.

The point I am trying to make is that comparing walking to cycling may not be that helpful, unless you clarify the type of riding/walking.

If you are on the road or travelling fast, you are exposed to much greater risk than just walking.

I do agree though that seeing pro's with loose chinstraps sends out a poor image.

meanredspider

WGWarburton wrote:

There is an argument because cycling is a safe activity which no more needs protective clothing than walking or driving, and yet people make claims like the ones in your post.

That statement is complete nonsense though. Walk, cycle & drive into a wall or solid object at 15mph (a good average cycling speed) and see what happens. First problem is that you don't walk at 15mph - nearer 5mph.

There's no comparison between the 3 activities. In the first (walking), you simply don't generate anything like the kinetic energy and you are much more stable and agile. Nor do you spend anything like as much time in traffic. In the third (driving), you are surrounded by protection (crumple zones, intrusion bars, airbags, seatbelts, padded areas etc etc) - like one giant helmet.

Next, people will start refering to the stats (and other "damned lies") about the risks but it's equally a nonsense to compare accident risks in a broad basis. Take pedestrians: it includes young children (that you'd never allow to cycle), the old, frail and those with other challenges (drunk for instance) in the risk numbers - people that you tend not to see on a bike. These distort the "risk" figures.

Another flaw in the "data" is that pedestrian injuries tend to be either trivial or serious - the serious injuries (being knocked down) are obviously collected. Car accidents are often reported if only through insurance & there are legal requirements to do so where injuries occur. Cycling is in the no-man's land where relatively serious accidents go unreported.

"Data" can't be relied upon in these discussions.

EKE_38BPM

Buns,
Step away from the helmet threads. Just let it go.
You're not going to convince the pro-helmet brigade that cycling is safe and helmets are not needed. The pro-helmet brigade are not going to convince you that you need a helmet, bullet proof safety goggles, full finger gaunlets, elbow pads, knee pads, shin pads, chest protector, spine protector, box and condom to even think about looking at a bike.

So, in the interests of your health, don't start, look at or post to any helmet threads. You are more likely to suffer a heart attack brought on by the stress of a helmet thread than you are to suffer a head injury from cycling.

Hoopdriver

There is no rational argument for not wearing a helmet while cycling - only a personal preference and fair enough; that is each person's right and frankly that's as it should be. What I do object to is the often ludicrous arguments and intelligence-insulting justifications the bare-headed brigade trot out in defense of their choices.

Be honest. You don't wear a helmet because you don't wanna. You like the wind in the hair feeling and what have you, and having (presumably) assessed the risks decided it's not worth the bother, or that such things would never happen to you. Fair enough. Let it go at that.

These tedious rationalizations that helmets are useless and unnecessary and unproven in their ability to protect the head are just plain silly, and an insult to the intelligence.

Stand proud. Say you don't wear them because you just don't wanna, argue your point on libertarian grounds and, as a helmet-wearer, I'd happily stand in your corner with you. That's a valid point. Not these muddled rationalizations.

EKE_38BPM

Would Mega Octopus Shark win againt The Mighty Kong if Kong was forced to wear a helmet? I think the extra bouyancy would mess with Kong's CoG and put him at a disadvantage (assuming water depth > Kong's height) more than the helmet would protect him from the teeth and suckers..

jamesco

Hoopdriver wrote:

There is no rational argument for not wearing a helmet while cycling - only a personal preference and fair enough [+ snipped good stuff]

+1

Kieran_Burns

Hoopdriver - I think you're missing the point that people are arguing basically two fundamental issues:

Helmets ARE needed because cycling is unsafe
Helmets aren't NEEDED because cycling is safe

The pro- wearing corner consider cycling a sufficiently dangerous activity that a helmet will save you from a future of dribbling into a bib

The other corner consider the risks so low that combined with the small percentage of body actually covered, the minimal impact resistance afforded by a strip of expanded polystyrene, the low percentage chance of being in a accident where a helmet WOULD help as to make its actual use vanishingly small.

and ne'er the twain shall meet.

EKE_38BPM

Kieran_Burns wrote:

The pro- wearing corner consider cycling a sufficiently dangerous activity that a helmet will save you from a future of dribbling into a bib

The other corner consider the risks so low that combined with the small percentage of body actually covered, the minimal impact resistance afforded by a strip of expanded polystyrene, the low percentage chance of being in a accident where a helmet WOULD help as to make its actual use vanishingly small.

and ne'er the twain shall meet.

Mods, lock the thread!

shm_uk

I fell down some stairs once, but because I own a cycle helmet I didn't land on my head.

Further proof helmets work.

Hoopdriver

Cycling is a safe activity - made all the safer by taking suitable precautions. Simple.

Flying is statistically speaking among the safest forms of transport out there - yet there are safety belts, life rafts, life preservers, oxygen masks etc. And a good thing too.

The odds of a Cunard liner sinking are astronomically small - you've better chance, by far of being struck by lightning - yet they have lifeboats, life vets and mandatory lifeboat drills within a stipulated time of every sailing.

I've been cycling for 47 years and many tens of thousands of miles all over the world. I know very well it is a safe and pleasurable activity - and as part of that, I wear a helmet, cycling gloves and glasses for personal protection, and carry tube, pump, patch kit and a few tools for the bike. Not because I think I am going to need them - but just in case.

I have insurance on my house too - not because I am expecting fires, floods and earthquakes at every turn, but because it is a wise precaution. Simple.

tailwindhome

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Buns,
Step away from the helmet threads. Just let it go.

He can't

wgwarburton

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Buns,
Step away from the helmet threads. Just let it go.

I didn't post on this one until G66 mentioned my nickname!

I've also not bothered to respond to the self-evidently ill-informed nonsense posted by MRS and hoopdriver (OK, once- but not debating, just pointing out that he didn't seem to be making any effort to see other people's POV!).
Instead I've highlighted to a couple of apparently intelligent and reasonable contributors (Keith83 & jehannum5) that they may not have the full picture.

You're not going to convince the pro-helmet brigade that cycling is safe and helmets are not needed. The pro-helmet brigade are not going to convince you that you need a helmet, bullet proof safety goggles, full finger gaunlets, elbow pads, knee pads, shin pads, chest protector, spine protector, box and condom to even think about looking at a bike.

So, in the interests of your health, don't start, look at or post to any helmet threads. You are more likely to suffer a heart attack brought on by the stress of a helmet thread than you are to suffer a head injury from cycling.

Thanks for your concern :-) . Unfortunately, last time round there was a pro-helmet poster who did a bit of digging and discovered that there was more to the issue than he thought... Sadly, this has only encouraged me...
I'm also keen to avoid sleepwalking into compulsion. Sadly, I fear that is a real risk, though hopefully a small one.

Still, if you think I've been fanning the flames on this thread, I'll take that on board! I don't think I've been making knee-jerk responses but I could easily be kidding myself...

Cheers,
W.

shouldbeinbed

10 pages and counting. not a record yet but an impressive example yet again of the delusion of the strength of 'your' persuasive powers over other people and god knows how many previous threads worth of experience.

you new ones are great, abusive and bringing aeroplanes into it

S added to ensure Hoopdriver doesn't think this is all directed at him/her, its not the american? person is a classic

EKE_38BPM

No Buns, I don't think you were fanning the flames (much), but I imagine your BP getting higher and higher every time says "You must wear a helmet".
If you smell toast when on a helmet thread and you start to lose muscle control on one side of your face, dial 999 whilst you can still talk.

Paulie W

dueceone wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

dueceone wrote:

Ask Wouter how worthwhile the extra comfort from his loosened chin strap was on stage 3 or if he wishes he'd just left the helmet at home... oh wait, that's right... Maybe a better question is come back in a few years and ask his as yet unborn son if he wishes his old man would've opted a bit more for protection over comfort.

Ignoring the poor taste of the rest of your comment, have you got anything to back up the claim in bold

Anything??? You mean apart from the 1000's of readily available photos on the internet which clearly show Wouter, along with just about every other pro rider, wearing their chin straps with several inches of gap...? In a depressing twist of circumstance, some friends and I were actually commenting on how loosely pro's wear their helmets while we were watching stage 2.

And while I'll agree the comment is a bit tasteless, it's apparently what it takes to drive home the level of risk at hand. That wasn't any crazy descent and nothing Wouter hadn't done 1000 times before and I've no doubt that he was a far better rider than anyone here will ever be... No matter how great you might think you are, the bottom line is that's what you're risking by not wearing a helmet or wearing one improperly.

Wouter Weylandts was wearing a helmet. It is certainly possible that he may not have been wearing that helmet properly - I agree that pros are often seen not doing so - but are you implying that he must have had a loose chin strap because otherwise he would have survived the impact? What must have been apparent to all who saw it was that any normal cycling helmet, done up properly or otherwise, would not have saved Wouter from death or crippling injuries - the impact was simply too great and cycling helmets are not designed for that kind of accident.

Wouter's accident cannot be used to say helmets just arent worth it but nor can it be used to bolster the claims you are making.

Hoopdriver

Shouldbeinbed - Que?

Seat belts on planes aren't about crash safety? Really?

And what of the life vests, life rafts, escape chutes and oxygen masks? What are they for? Do tell, I'm dying to hear.

And life rafts and vests and lifeboat drills on ships are not about protecting you from harm at the point of sinking? Huh? THey are merely to keep you afloat, you say, until rescue arrives. I'm sorry to disillusion you but if you are not afloat, you will most certainly have harm.

And insurance? No need for that either, I suppose. Waste of time and money and only for the skittish hand-wringing few.

Go back to bed. Get well soon.

davis

Hoopdriver wrote:

Que?
Seat belts on planes aren't about crash safety? Really?

No. They're not. They're there mostly to make people feel better, and to give the crew a device to make passengers behave when they've been stuck in a metal tube for 14 hours.

Hoopdriver

I agree with the above - Wouters accident cannot be used to say helmets aren't worth it, or to bolster the claims they are. Bicycle helmets were never designed for those speeds and that kind of impact. Pros are cycling way outside the envelope the rest of us are in.

tailwindhome

dueceone wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

dueceone wrote:

Ask Wouter how worthwhile the extra comfort from his loosened chin strap was on stage 3 or if he wishes he'd just left the helmet at home... oh wait, that's right... Maybe a better question is come back in a few years and ask his as yet unborn son if he wishes his old man would've opted a bit more for protection over comfort.

Ignoring the poor taste of the rest of your comment, have you got anything to back up the claim in bold

Anything??? You mean apart from the 1000's of readily available photos on the internet which clearly show Wouter, along with just about every other pro rider, wearing their chin straps with several inches of gap...? .

Any evidence that this in anyway contributed to his death?

CyclingBantam

Hoopdriver wrote:

Shouldbeinbed - Que?

Seat belts on planes aren't about crash safety? Really?
And what of the life vests, life rafts, escape chutes and oxygen masks? What are they for? Do tell, I'm dying to hear.

And life rafts and vests and lifeboat drills on ships are not about protecting you from harm at the point of sinking? Huh? THey are merely to keep you afloat, you say, until rescue arrives. I'm sorry to disillusion you but if you are not afloat, you will most certainly have harm.

And insurance? No need for that either, I suppose. Waste of time and money and only for the skittish hand-wringing few.

Go back to bed. Get well soon.

Do you really think a plane seatbelt is to protect you in the event of a crash? I presume this was a slip however you are always so careful with your words...

EKE_38BPM

For crash protection in an aeroplane it would be better if the seats were rear facing rather than having forward facing seats and seat belts.

Nothing will help you in the event of most air crashes, massive speed and highly flammable fuel don't make for a 'safe' crash.

Damn it, I posted on a helmet thread again!

rjsterry

davis wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

Que?
Seat belts on planes aren't about crash safety? Really?

No. They're not. They're there mostly to make people feel better, and to give the crew a device to make passengers behave when they've been stuck in a metal tube for 14 hours.

They probably are also of some use in minor incidents - very bumpy landings, heavy turbulence, etc. - where the plane isn't in significant danger, but people could still get bashed about a bit.

davis

rjsterry wrote:

davis wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

Que?
Seat belts on planes aren't about crash safety? Really?

No. They're not. They're there mostly to make people feel better, and to give the crew a device to make passengers behave when they've been stuck in a metal tube for 14 hours.

They probably are also of some use in minor incidents - very bumpy landings, heavy turbulence, etc. - where the plane isn't in significant danger, but people could still get bashed about a bit.

Hmm, fair point. I'd managed to ignore the "trivial" stuff and skipped straight to the more dramatic possibilities of a crash. I blame the git who snuck into my house last night and drank a bottle of wine, leaving the place in a right tip after training a badger to crap in my mouth.

CyclingBantam

rjsterry wrote:

davis wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

Que?
Seat belts on planes aren't about crash safety? Really?

No. They're not. They're there mostly to make people feel better, and to give the crew a device to make passengers behave when they've been stuck in a metal tube for 14 hours.

They probably are also of some use in minor incidents - very bumpy landings, heavy turbulence, etc. - where the plane isn't in significant danger, but people could still get bashed about a bit.

Exactly. Not Crashes though. Maybe Cycling helmets should be used in case of plane crashes...

Hoopdriver

Yup - indeed seatbelts are most useful in minor mishaps. Ever been on a plane in clear air turbulence and seen unbelted pax bounce off the roof? I have. But then I probably fly more than you. People can, and have, even been killed that way.

As for crashes - well, what about the plane that splashed down in the Hudson. Everybody walked away unscathed. Do you seriously believe that seatbelts played no role in that happy outcome: that had nobody troubled themselves to wear a seatbelt it would have ended the same way?

Obviously nothing is going to protect you in a 600mph crash - any more than a cycling helmet could reasonably be expected to save the life of a cyclist who hits the bitumen at 60mph.

It's about degrees - and common sense.

meanredspider

Must have been one of 'Bun's forebears at the helm of the Titanic...

"Sailing an iron ship is a safe activity! Let's not bother with enough lifeboats"

I'm not particularly interested in examples where helmets failed to protect the wearer in extremis (Ayrton Senna wasn't protected by his lid either - doesn't begin to suggest they are useless for motorsport). I'd like at least an example of where a cycling lid has made matters worse. Until then, I'll continue to wear mine. And happy that other don't - their choice a their perception of the risk involved.

And despite what 'Buns inferes, I'm very well informed on the subject these days. I'm also very well qualified to assess what's written and judge its validity. And frankly there's simply not enough quality data either way to validate the claims being made.