Another little nugget for the helmet debate!
Comments
-
Really good point and something I hadn't really consider but, after reading your post, I can honestly say I would find it far less contemptable if a helmet-less rider did actually have the stones to man up and say "Yeah, I know it's a dumb risk but I enjoy the wind in my hair and just playing the odds..." instead of all this "it's actually debateable" whether a cotton cap or eps helmet provide more protection... which, to whomever said that & just for the record, it's actually not at all debateable.Hoopdriver wrote: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.0 -
8) I like this guy....Hoopdriver wrote:Cycling Bantam - you mean too thick, don't you, not to thick?
Well played mate!0 -
Did you happen to watch the stage? For the brief moments that the camera was panned in closely, you could very clearly see his helmet had shifted almost entirely off his head and had been able to offer little to no protection because it simply shifted on his head upon impact rather than absorbing and disipating the energy. You can see his entire forehead and hairline exposed... If you've got the stomach to watch it, I'm sure its online somewhere but I saw it in high def when it happened and that was once more than I'd ever wish on anyone. In all honesty though, there's no way that I or anyone else can say that cinching up the chin strap would've been in any way significant in a crash of that magnitude so as for real "evidence"... no, there won't ever be any true scientific evidence. It's entirely possible that the nature of his crash means that even a DOT full face wouldn't have been enough but if there's even a 0.001% chance that it could've saved him, it was 100% worth it.TailWindHome wrote:
Any evidence that this in anyway contributed to his death?0 -
The thing that every bare head proponent completely fails to account for is that, beyond your own personal choice, any justification you offer simply fails to compete with the basic physics of energy transfer... Your bare skull is going to transmit more energy to your brain upon impact than would a device designed to absord energy. Modern helmets work by converting the kinetic energy of the impact into thermal energy in their 'padding'... When EPS, for example, crushes it heats up and crushes in a controlled manner... when your skull crushes, it simply breaks, impacts your brain, and you die.
Bottom line.. You can argue whether or not modern helmet retention mechanisms are sufficient to secure the helmet in the correct location upon impact but you simply cannot argue that an impact to the helmet will not offer a reduction in the amount of energy transmitted to the brain as compared to an impact to the bare skull.0 -
meanredspider wrote:Except there's no qualitative element to this. My wife has cycled 3 miles in the last 5 years. If helmet compulsion were introduced and she had no lid, she'd have stopped "cycling". Big deal. Yet - shock horror - she'd be a statistic. Health impact = 0. I wonder how many people who actually cycled enough to gain any health benefit actually stopped because of helmet compulsion. Any "research" showing the reduction of miles cycled (rather than the number of people with a bike in their shed now no longer used)?
That's just silly. I used to be anti-cycling, I now do several thousand miles per year, but there was no guarantee that I would go from not cycling at all to cycling every day, and putting a simple barrier like enforced helmet wearing, might have been suficient that I as a confirmed non-cyclist would not have bought a bike and got into it.0 -
dueceone wrote:Bottom line.. You can argue whether or not modern helmet retention mechanisms are sufficient to secure the helmet in the correct location upon impact but you simply cannot argue that an impact to the helmet will not offer a reduction in the amount of energy transmitted to the brain as compared to an impact to the bare skull.
That's not the bottom line though, is it. The bottom line is that there's no doubt whatsoever that helmet-wearing increases the number of impacts suffered by wearers' (considered in aggregate) heads/helmets compared with not wearing a helmet. Whether or not the protective benefits of helmets are sufficient to balance that out is unproven.
Secondly, there are other safety measures you could take, such as riding more stable, slower bikes, or fatter tyres with less risk of slipping on bad surfaces, but you choose not to, putting yourself at greater risk, yet you are arguing for helmets, for which there is no proof that there is even a net benefit (ok there is a good chance there is, but that still doesn't prove we should wear one any more than it proves you should get a 'safer' bike).0 -
thelawnet wrote:That's just silly. I used to be anti-cycling, I now do several thousand miles per year, but there was no guarantee that I would go from not cycling at all to cycling every day, and putting a simple barrier like enforced helmet wearing, might have been suficient that I as a confirmed non-cyclist would not have bought a bike and got into it.
Well frankly that's just silly. If putting a hat on is enough to stop you cycling when you're likely to need lights, pump, coat, & glasses (and possibly other things) seems feeble to me.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
You don't need all that to pop to the shops though. If you need a helmet to pop to the shops people won't bother. They will then not bother with a bike and get in to cycling further. I'm not saying that is how everyone but I know people personally who would be affected like that.meanredspider wrote:thelawnet wrote:That's just silly. I used to be anti-cycling, I now do several thousand miles per year, but there was no guarantee that I would go from not cycling at all to cycling every day, and putting a simple barrier like enforced helmet wearing, might have been suficient that I as a confirmed non-cyclist would not have bought a bike and got into it.
Well frankly that's just silly. If putting a hat on is enough to stop you cycling when you're likely to need lights, pump, coat, & glasses (and possibly other things) seems feeble to me.0 -
-
thelawnet wrote:That's not the bottom line though, is it. The bottom line is that there's no doubt whatsoever that helmet-wearing increases the number of impacts suffered by wearers' (considered in aggregate) heads/helmets compared with not wearing a helmet. Whether or not the protective benefits of helmets are sufficient to balance that out is unproven.
Secondly, there are other safety measures you could take, such as riding more stable, slower bikes, or fatter tyres with less risk of slipping on bad surfaces, but you choose not to, putting yourself at greater risk, yet you are arguing for helmets, for which there is no proof that there is even a net benefit (ok there is a good chance there is, but that still doesn't prove we should wear one any more than it proves you should get a 'safer' bike).
That's an arguement along the lines of buying a 4x4 & driving at 20mph on the road. Or against seatbelts & airbags.
I'd like to see the data that says helmeted riders ride faster/more dangerously than those without helmets. After all, if you don't wear one, it's because you don't believe in them not because you think you'll ride more slowly and therefore be safer.
What is true is that many people wouldn't ride bikes at all if helmets weren't available - the absence of helmets would be a far larger barrier to cycling than helmet compulsion.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
CyclingBantam wrote:
You don't need all that to pop to the shops though. If you need a helmet to pop to the shops people won't bother. They will then not bother with a bike and get in to cycling further. I'm not saying that is how everyone but I know people personally who would be affected like that.meanredspider wrote:thelawnet wrote:That's just silly. I used to be anti-cycling, I now do several thousand miles per year, but there was no guarantee that I would go from not cycling at all to cycling every day, and putting a simple barrier like enforced helmet wearing, might have been suficient that I as a confirmed non-cyclist would not have bought a bike and got into it.
Well frankly that's just silly. If putting a hat on is enough to stop you cycling when you're likely to need lights, pump, coat, & glasses (and possibly other things) seems feeble to me.
Granted - but a 5 minute pop to the shops on your bike is making nobody more healthy. And my point is, when you are buying a bike, adding a lid is no barrier. I'm NOT in favour of compulsion though I just think that stats oft-quoted about the drop in cyclists and the health effects are likely exaggerated - it's the "pop to the shops" folk for whom the health benefits are extremely low.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
-
meanredspider wrote:CyclingBantam wrote:
You don't need all that to pop to the shops though. If you need a helmet to pop to the shops people won't bother. They will then not bother with a bike and get in to cycling further. I'm not saying that is how everyone but I know people personally who would be affected like that.meanredspider wrote:thelawnet wrote:That's just silly. I used to be anti-cycling, I now do several thousand miles per year, but there was no guarantee that I would go from not cycling at all to cycling every day, and putting a simple barrier like enforced helmet wearing, might have been suficient that I as a confirmed non-cyclist would not have bought a bike and got into it.
Well frankly that's just silly. If putting a hat on is enough to stop you cycling when you're likely to need lights, pump, coat, & glasses (and possibly other things) seems feeble to me.
Granted - but a 5 minute pop to the shops on your bike is making nobody more healthy. And my point is, when you are buying a bike, adding a lid is no barrier. I'm NOT in favour of compulsion though I just think that stats oft-quoted about the drop in cyclists and the health effects are likely exaggerated - it's the "pop to the shops" folk for whom the health benefits are extremely low.
Yes but you are missing my point. The pop to the shops has no health benefit. I know that. Plenty of people (in my opinion) buy bikes, not to cycle great distances but to simply bimble aout on. After bimbling about a bit they realise they like it and their cycling develops. If they don't bother in the first place because of "all the stuff you have to wear" you are cutting it off at source.
Like I say, I wear a helmet. I think it is a stupid idea to make them compulsary though.
How have I ended up back on here.... aarrgghh0 -
Let's get this helmet thing into context - in just about every survey, the biggest perceived "barrier" to cycling, by far, is...inconsiderate motorists.CyclingBantam wrote:
You don't need all that to pop to the shops though. If you need a helmet to pop to the shops people won't bother. They will then not bother with a bike and get in to cycling further. I'm not saying that is how everyone but I know people personally who would be affected like that.meanredspider wrote:thelawnet wrote:That's just silly. I used to be anti-cycling, I now do several thousand miles per year, but there was no guarantee that I would go from not cycling at all to cycling every day, and putting a simple barrier like enforced helmet wearing, might have been suficient that I as a confirmed non-cyclist would not have bought a bike and got into it.
Well frankly that's just silly. If putting a hat on is enough to stop you cycling when you're likely to need lights, pump, coat, & glasses (and possibly other things) seems feeble to me.
And having to put a seatbelt on doesn't seem to put people off driving, even if they're just popping off to the shops.0 -
Probably a lot more "non-cyclists" were tempted away by the bus, or other ways of getting to work that don't involve getting rained on, tedious & dirty maintenance, getting squashed by motorists or various other issues more annoying than having to wear a helmet.thelawnet wrote:meanredspider wrote:Except there's no qualitative element to this. My wife has cycled 3 miles in the last 5 years. If helmet compulsion were introduced and she had no lid, she'd have stopped "cycling". Big deal. Yet - shock horror - she'd be a statistic. Health impact = 0. I wonder how many people who actually cycled enough to gain any health benefit actually stopped because of helmet compulsion. Any "research" showing the reduction of miles cycled (rather than the number of people with a bike in their shed now no longer used)?
That's just silly. I used to be anti-cycling, I now do several thousand miles per year, but there was no guarantee that I would go from not cycling at all to cycling every day, and putting a simple barrier like enforced helmet wearing, might have been suficient that I as a confirmed non-cyclist would not have bought a bike and got into it.0 -
More very good points. In fact just yesterday in BR there was a story about a survey undertaken in Australia (where helmet wearing is compulsory, by the way) that nearly two thirds of commuters said they would like to be able to cycle to work but were put off - not by the helmet laws but by the thought of battling traffic, potholes, inconsiderate motorists.
Those were issues they wanted the government to address - not helmet laws. Helmets, in that story, as i recall, didn't even rate a mention.0 -
dueceone wrote:
8) I like this guy....Hoopdriver wrote:Cycling Bantam - you mean too thick, don't you, not to thick?
Well played mate!
for me - this sums the pair of you completely.
It's an utter waste of anyone's time to debate with people with this kind of attitude. I really could say more but honestly: I may as well shout at a wall for all the good it will do.Chunky Cyclists need your love too! :-)
2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
2011 Trek Madone 4.5
2012 Felt F65X
Proud CX Pervert and quiet roadie. 12 mile commuter0 -
I smacked my head really hard walking under a low beam the other day.
Fortunately, I remembered I own a cycle helmet so the pain immediately abated & I had no soreness, bruising or concussion.
Further proof of the protection provided by cycle helmets.0 -
shm_uk wrote:I smacked my head really hard walking under a low beam the other day.
Fortunately, I remembered I own a cycle helmet so the pain immediately abated & I had no soreness, bruising or concussion.
Further proof of the protection provided by cycle helmets.
remote force field effect! forgot it did that!0 -
Greg66 wrote:thelawnet wrote:The bottom line is that there's no doubt whatsoever that helmet-wearing increases the number of impacts suffered by wearers' (considered in aggregate) heads/helmets compared with not wearing a helmet.
Nicely made up.
Er no.
"Most importantly, considerable caution must be exercised in drawing conclusions about the likelihood of cyclists reducing their risk of head injury by wearing helmets as it is clear that such a practice affects their risk-taking behaviour (Adams, 1985; Evans, 1991). Discussion of this subject of behavioural adaptation no longer centres on whether it occurs but on how complete it is (OECD, 1990)."
http://www.mayerhillman.com/Articles/En ... r-foe.aspx0 -
meanredspider wrote:thelawnet wrote:That's just silly. I used to be anti-cycling, I now do several thousand miles per year, but there was no guarantee that I would go from not cycling at all to cycling every day, and putting a simple barrier like enforced helmet wearing, might have been suficient that I as a confirmed non-cyclist would not have bought a bike and got into it.
Well frankly that's just silly. If putting a hat on is enough to stop you cycling when you're likely to need lights, pump, coat, & glasses (and possibly other things) seems feeble to me.
Sorry, but.... I had no pump for the first year, not sure when I bought lights but it wasn't straight away, coat was 18 months, and glasses nearly 2 years.0 -
meanredspider wrote:CyclingBantam wrote:
You don't need all that to pop to the shops though. If you need a helmet to pop to the shops people won't bother. They will then not bother with a bike and get in to cycling further. I'm not saying that is how everyone but I know people personally who would be affected like that.meanredspider wrote:thelawnet wrote:That's just silly. I used to be anti-cycling, I now do several thousand miles per year, but there was no guarantee that I would go from not cycling at all to cycling every day, and putting a simple barrier like enforced helmet wearing, might have been suficient that I as a confirmed non-cyclist would not have bought a bike and got into it.
Well frankly that's just silly. If putting a hat on is enough to stop you cycling when you're likely to need lights, pump, coat, & glasses (and possibly other things) seems feeble to me.
Granted - but a 5 minute pop to the shops on your bike is making nobody more healthy.
The 5 minute pop to the shops is much more important than the 2 hour Sunday club ride in many ways - the former keeps cars off the road, the latter tends to clog them up. And sorry but any exercise is better than none, 5 minutes today is only the start, you need to start somewhere.0 -
thelawnet wrote:Greg66 wrote:thelawnet wrote:The bottom line is that there's no doubt whatsoever that helmet-wearing increases the number of impacts suffered by wearers' (considered in aggregate) heads/helmets compared with not wearing a helmet.
Nicely made up.
Er no.
"Most importantly, considerable caution must be exercised in drawing conclusions about the likelihood of cyclists reducing their risk of head injury by wearing helmets as it is clear that such a practice affects their risk-taking behaviour (Adams, 1985; Evans, 1991). Discussion of this subject of behavioural adaptation no longer centres on whether it occurs but on how complete it is (OECD, 1990)."
http://www.mayerhillman.com/Articles/En ... r-foe.aspx
I have to say that I'd treat a study on cycle helmets done 20-25 years ago with some suspicion. Somebody wearing a lid back then was far more likely to be wearing BECAUSE they were taking risks. The scenario these days has changed entirely. It's like doing a study of seatbelt wearers in the 50's or 60's to draw conclusions about seatbelt use today. It was only 1973 that it became compulsory to wear a lid on a motorbike.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
thelawnet wrote:Greg66 wrote:thelawnet wrote:The bottom line is that there's no doubt whatsoever that helmet-wearing increases the number of impacts suffered by wearers' (considered in aggregate) heads/helmets compared with not wearing a helmet.
Nicely made up.
Er no.
"Most importantly, considerable caution must be exercised in drawing conclusions about the likelihood of cyclists reducing their risk of head injury by wearing helmets as it is clear that such a practice affects their risk-taking behaviour (Adams, 1985; Evans, 1991). Discussion of this subject of behavioural adaptation no longer centres on whether it occurs but on how complete it is (OECD, 1990)."
http://www.mayerhillman.com/Articles/En ... r-foe.aspx
Read the quote carefully, and then re-read your passage carefully.
The former claims helmets affect risk taking behaviour. The latter claims wearing helmets "increases the number of impacts". Risks are not impacts.
You made your stuff up. As I said.0 -
thelawnet wrote:The 5 minute pop to the shops is much more important than the 2 hour Sunday club ride in many ways - the former keeps cars off the road, the latter tends to clog them up. And sorry but any exercise is better than none, 5 minutes today is only the start, you need to start somewhere.
I can't agree. 5 mins exercise on a bike does nothing for your health a potentially stops you doing 10-15 minutes on your feet. And a lot of folk (like my wife) never progress from that. If you are serious about exercise, you'd buy a lid if you were forced to. It's like saying kids don't play football because they've got to buy a ball. And, frankly, if fuel prices can't force people out of their cars, whether you have to buy a lid or not isn't going to make the difference. I think the study from Australia really gets to the heart of the issues of why people don't ride.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
As meanredspider so accurately points out, anyone wearing a helmet 25 years ago was almost certainly out to do something adventurous on their bike - the whole cycling and helmet wearing ethos was vastly different back then. I grew up in America in the 60s and nobody, but nobody wore helmets and it would be a safe bet that if you saw somebody putting one on, he was almost certainly about to so something rather special and eye-popping.
That is no longer the case. Helmets are worn as a matter of routine - as a simple and wise precaution against an unlikely mishap - by a great many cyclists, including myself. The wearing of a helmet no longer indicates risk-taking behaviour, any more than buying fire insurance for your home indicates a fondness for playing with matches.0 -
meanredspider wrote:thelawnet wrote:Greg66 wrote:thelawnet wrote:The bottom line is that there's no doubt whatsoever that helmet-wearing increases the number of impacts suffered by wearers' (considered in aggregate) heads/helmets compared with not wearing a helmet.
Nicely made up.
Er no.
"Most importantly, considerable caution must be exercised in drawing conclusions about the likelihood of cyclists reducing their risk of head injury by wearing helmets as it is clear that such a practice affects their risk-taking behaviour (Adams, 1985; Evans, 1991). Discussion of this subject of behavioural adaptation no longer centres on whether it occurs but on how complete it is (OECD, 1990)."
http://www.mayerhillman.com/Articles/En ... r-foe.aspx
I have to say that I'd treat a study on cycle helmets done 20-25 years ago with some suspicion.
Yes it's useful to discount studies whose conclusions you don't like, isn't it. Human nature has changed since 1990 of course. :roll:
More recent research: http://improbable.com/airchives/paperai ... -40dpi.pdf
0 -
Human nature may not have changed, but the nature of our activities has0
-
Greg66 wrote:thelawnet wrote:Greg66 wrote:thelawnet wrote:The bottom line is that there's no doubt whatsoever that helmet-wearing increases the number of impacts suffered by wearers' (considered in aggregate) heads/helmets compared with not wearing a helmet.
Nicely made up.
Er no.
"Most importantly, considerable caution must be exercised in drawing conclusions about the likelihood of cyclists reducing their risk of head injury by wearing helmets as it is clear that such a practice affects their risk-taking behaviour (Adams, 1985; Evans, 1991). Discussion of this subject of behavioural adaptation no longer centres on whether it occurs but on how complete it is (OECD, 1990)."
http://www.mayerhillman.com/Articles/En ... r-foe.aspx
Read the quote carefully, and then re-read your passage carefully.
The former claims helmets affect risk taking behaviour. The latter claims wearing helmets "increases the number of impacts". Risks are not impacts.
You made your stuff up. As I said.
So increased risk-taking behaviour doesn't lead to more accidents. :roll: Ok then.....
If that's what you want to believe, I also have a bridge for sale.0 -
This still going? Can't we all just choose for ourselves whether we want to wear a helmet or not? 0
