How many of you ride without a helmet?
Comments
-
Ok, tiny_pens when I had my accident, I was out training for a big race, someone decided to turn into my lane on the opposite side and wasn't looking out. It was over in a second. I remember distinctly think, 'oh cr*p remember to tuck and roll my head out of the way'. What a load of rubbish, clearly you have super fast reactions. The attending doctor in the hospital, the consultant and the subsequent visits to the chiropractor all said that I saved myself from serious injury because of my helmet.
I'm sorry I cannot for the life of me understand why you wouldn't wear a helmet. I not saying that you that a helmet won't save your life, it certainly goes a long way in my opinion.0 -
Shouldn't we all wear kevlar body armour and a condom as well?'I started with nothing and still have most of it left.'0
-
-
re chriscdesign
Why not approach this from the alternative point of view. Will a helmet save my life?
Even the manufacturers acknowledge that in the balance of probability - no.
Secondly - in what situations might a helmet save my life?
Have you ever considered the situations where a helmet could cause you more injuries than not wearing one? As an example My crash helmet won't fit under a car when on my head. An aquaintence of mine died when he fell off and slid under a parked car. His helmet got trapped and his neck snapped.
I'm glad that you weren't killed in your accident (this would be a one sided discussion otherwise ;-). What other protective equipment do you wear. A neck brace? Spine protector? If not why not? If I answered the question honestly I would say that I hadn't considered the issue enough because I just didn't want to wear lots of stuff that makes me hot and sweaty. In other words I have avoided the issue as I just don't want to think about the dangers and experience (probably wrongly) encourages my blind approach.
My point from before was more that people are motivated by non rational reasons. The FUD principle is a well known sales principle when selling to parents. I'm old enough to remember leather cycling helmets. They were still sold for years after polysterene helmets were widely available and worn by the pros for many years when it became compulsary to wear helmets in racing. Why do you think that is?0 -
I will continue to wear mine, dunno why but I guess it's because I paid money for it and am tight..
However the stats say they don't do much at all http://cyclehelmets.org/1012.html#10 -
I refer you to the countless tales of people having incidents whilst unclipping. How often are you clipped in when walking to the shops ?LeicesterLad wrote:chriscdesign wrote:Having been the windscreen of a car, 40kph+ off aerobars, I can say un-reservedly YES. I would rather ride naked than not wear a helmet.
I haven't had time to read this thread but I would challenge anybody as to why they don't wear a helmet. It's nothing to do with speed, it's all about impact. You could topple over and smack your head on the curb and do serious damage.
Why should you not wear a helmet? Please give a logical, well thought out argument to this please?
You could topple over and smack your head on the curb and do serious damage whilst out walking to the shop, but you don't tend to wear a helmet.
True, you could topple and smack your head when walking to the shops, but if you do, I'd suggest that you're p*ssed, a tw*t, of shouldn't be leaving the house on your own, either way, it's your own fault.Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
Wow, only one page on and even more comments which reinforce my comment on page 7
Personally, I view a helmet like a condom, I'd rather have one and not need one, than need one and not have one.
tiny_pens.......... are you a ninja ? YOur reflexes would indicate that you are !Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
There are two commonly encountered arguments in this debate and found in this thread which are both fallacious. The first is the anecdotal "I had an accident and without a helmet I would be dead" or "I know someone who an accident etc.". The number of these stories is clear evidence that people are deluding themselves, otherwise in the days before helmets there would have been widespread slaughter (which there wasn't).chriscdesign wrote:. The attending doctor in the hospital, the consultant and the subsequent visits to the chiropractor all said that I saved myself from serious injury because of my helmet.
The second fallacious argument is illustrated above: "my healthcare professional(s) say that without a helmet I would be dead/seriously injured". The fact is that they cannot possibly know whether that is true or not - they simply do not have any evidence or expertise on which to base that assertion. They might as well tell me that the fact that I survived my last big chute was because I wasn't wearing a helmet.
The only evidence of any value in this debate is based on statistical epidemiology - ie, whether the survival rate or the incidence of serious head injury of those wearing helmets per mile or per accident exceeds that of those not wearing helmets. And as far as I know, the evidence provided by such statistical studies is inconclusive - in other words the benefit of wearing a helmet is, in reality, either marginal or non-existent. Everything else, including anecdote and the opinions of doctors, nurses and chiropractors is insignificant.0 -
Spot on.meanredspider wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:You could topple over and smack your head on the curb and do serious damage whilst out walking to the shop, but you don't tend to wear a helmet.
Let's do a poll of how many people have fallen off their bike (and how often) versus how many people have fallen over (to pre-empt the usual points)
- Walking to the shops
- Walking downstairs
- Some other fatuous suggestion
Since Risk = Severity x Likelihood and neither the severity nor the likelihood is the same, therefore neither is the risk. Wearing a lid is a risk mitigation. It's entirely up to you what level of risk you accept
And for what it's worth, I always wear a helmet.0 -
merak wrote:
There are two commonly encountered arguments in this debate and found in this thread which are both fallacious. The first is the anecdotal "I had an accident and without a helmet I would be dead" or "I know someone who an accident etc.". The number of these stories is clear evidence that people are deluding themselves, otherwise in the days before helmets there would have been widespread slaughter (which there wasn't).chriscdesign wrote:. The attending doctor in the hospital, the consultant and the subsequent visits to the chiropractor all said that I saved myself from serious injury because of my helmet.
The second fallacious argument is illustrated above: "my healthcare professional(s) say that without a helmet I would be dead/seriously injured". The fact is that they cannot possibly know whether that is true or not - they simply do not have any evidence or expertise on which to base that assertion. They might as well tell me that the fact that I survived my last big chute was because I wasn't wearing a helmet.
The only evidence of any value in this debate is based on statistical epidemiology - ie, whether the survival rate or the incidence of serious head injury of those wearing helmets per mile or per accident exceeds that of those not wearing helmets. And as far as I know, the evidence provided by such statistical studies is inconclusive - in other words the benefit of wearing a helmet is, in reality, either marginal or non-existent. Everything else, including anecdote and the opinions of doctors, nurses and chiropractors is insignificant.
And for everytime you say the use of a helmet has not helped, you can just as easily say the injuries caused by wearing a helmet were not actually caused by wearing a helmet, but rather the impact.
This whole thread is like discussing whether a car is safer to have a crash in, or a bike. I'll take the cage thing offering some protection, rather than trying to look cool for my boyfriend.0 -
MountainMonster wrote:I'll take the cage thing offering some protection, rather than trying to look cool for my boyfriend.
Even if it chafes?0 -
MattC59 wrote:
tiny_pens.......... are you a ninja ? YOur reflexes would indicate that you are !
Aren't you?
I used to take an exercise class in a ninjitsu school premises when I lived in portsmouth. Does that count?
I guess it just depends on what type of rough and tumble you grew up with. Its like if you stand feet side by side and then someone pushes you in the middle of the back. You don't topple forwards and face plant, you just move your foot forwards without thinking. You don't need special training. Maybe its the difference between attending a rugby school or a football school?0 -
Exactly - evidence based on individual incidents in the real world is of little or no value a) because the conditions are uncontrolled and b) because there is no way of telling what the consequences of the same incident would have been with and without a helmet. This is just as true of claims about an individual accident that a neck injury or rotational brain injury was caused by a rider's helmet as it is of claims that a helmet saved a rider.MountainMonster wrote:merak wrote:
There are two commonly encountered arguments in this debate and found in this thread which are both fallacious. The first is the anecdotal "I had an accident and without a helmet I would be dead" or "I know someone who an accident etc.". The number of these stories is clear evidence that people are deluding themselves, otherwise in the days before helmets there would have been widespread slaughter (which there wasn't).chriscdesign wrote:. The attending doctor in the hospital, the consultant and the subsequent visits to the chiropractor all said that I saved myself from serious injury because of my helmet.
The second fallacious argument is illustrated above: "my healthcare professional(s) say that without a helmet I would be dead/seriously injured". The fact is that they cannot possibly know whether that is true or not - they simply do not have any evidence or expertise on which to base that assertion. They might as well tell me that the fact that I survived my last big chute was because I wasn't wearing a helmet.
The only evidence of any value in this debate is based on statistical epidemiology - ie, whether the survival rate or the incidence of serious head injury of those wearing helmets per mile or per accident exceeds that of those not wearing helmets. And as far as I know, the evidence provided by such statistical studies is inconclusive - in other words the benefit of wearing a helmet is, in reality, either marginal or non-existent. Everything else, including anecdote and the opinions of doctors, nurses and chiropractors is insignificant.
And for everytime you say the use of a helmet has not helped, you can just as easily say the injuries caused by wearing a helmet were not actually caused by wearing a helmet, but rather the impact.
The only evidence that has any validity is statistical and that is inconclusive. If helmets actually provided the risk mitigation that so many claim for them, then one would expect the statistical evidence to be clear but it is not. It seems intuitively obvious that a helmet should offer some protection, and that might well be the case, but evidence to back the proselytising claims of those who always wear a helmet and who think people who don't are mad or bad is lacking.
To each their own - these debates never get anywhere because they are based mainly on unsupported assertions, anecdote and confirmation bias, not on good data. For the record I sometimes wear a lid and sometimes not depending on my perception of the risk of the kind of riode I am on and whether I choose to mitigate that risk; accepting that my perception of the extent to which the lid mitigates risk might well be illusory.0 -
tiny_pens wrote:I guess it just depends on what type of rough and tumble you grew up with. Its like if you stand feet side by side and then someone pushes you in the middle of the back. You don't topple forwards and face plant, you just move your foot forwards without thinking. You don't need special training. Maybe its the difference between attending a rugby school or a football school?
Translates as "Helmets are for softies"...
Right up there with "I can't find one that matches my shoes" for validity0 -
??? An amazing train of thought, but par for the course for the helmet evangelists I suppose.ihazon303 wrote:tiny_pens wrote:I guess it just depends on what type of rough and tumble you grew up with. Its like if you stand feet side by side and then someone pushes you in the middle of the back. You don't topple forwards and face plant, you just move your foot forwards without thinking. You don't need special training. Maybe its the difference between attending a rugby school or a football school?
Translates as "Helmets are for softies"...
Right up there with "I can't find one that matches my shoes" for validity
I hope you worry yourselves silly on my behalf on other matters too, not just my health & that of my kids. My investment ISA is flagging a bit at the minute. Can we all share some deep concern for their financial future too? At this rate they might end up paying their own uni fees. That's a bigger concern than some arbitrary risk attached to pootling along a cycle path at walking pace without a lump of TV packaging strapped to their heads.0 -
And the biggest flak from ScottXR and others on this subject was directed at those of us who are willing to slaughter our children by exposing them to the near-certainty of death-by-cycle on cycle paths.ihazon303 wrote:CiB wrote:... some arbitrary risk attached to pootling along a cycle path at walking pace without a lump of TV packaging strapped to their heads.
I cycle on the road. This is the road section of the forum.
It's nice that others are so bothered about mine and many others' health, but there's no need to be. And there's no real need to be so downright unpleasant to people who have looked back at 40+ years of riding & tumbling off bikes, have considered the merits of helmets and come to the conclusion 'no thanks', not for normal cycling anyway. Like I said, MTB through the woods? Helmet - check. TT? Check? High speed club ride? Check. Commercial event with mandatory helmet use? No problem. Commute? Potter? Amble? Errr.. no ta.
If I'm killed to death, it won't bother you one jot. You don't know me, never met me, probably never will. The Stats page might disappear when the next year's hosting bill isn't paid, but that would be the extent of your loss.
0 -
The beginners forum is brilliant. If you're a beginner asking a fairly straightforward question, you get an assortment of morons who've been riding a bike for two weeks and think they know it all spouting garbage, a few people who know what they're talking about giving the wrong answer for their own amusement, a couple of people rejecting science and talking about how they feel and one knobjockey commenting on the utter crapness of the BR beginners forum and ignoring the original question entirely. I reckon the forum owners should just replace this section with an online magic 8-ball.I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0
-
You forgot to mention the people who just descend to personal abuse to feed their own egosSloppySchleckonds wrote:The beginners forum is brilliant. If you're a beginner asking a fairly straightforward question, you get an assortment of morons who've been riding a bike for two weeks and think they know it all spouting garbage, a few people who know what they're talking about giving the wrong answer for their own amusement, a couple of people rejecting science and talking about how they feel and one knobjockey commenting on the utter crapness of the BR beginners forum and ignoring the original question entirely. I reckon the forum owners should just replace this section with an online magic 8-ball.
0 -
SloppySchleckonds wrote:The beginners forum is brilliant. If you're a beginner asking a fairly straightforward question, you get an assortment of morons who've been riding a bike for two weeks and think they know it all spouting garbage, a few people who know what they're talking about giving the wrong answer for their own amusement, a couple of people rejecting science and talking about how they feel and one knobjockey commenting on the utter crapness of the BR beginners forum and ignoring the original question entirely. I reckon the forum owners should just replace this section with an online magic 8-ball.
this is my favourite answer on the whole thread... 0 -
It is also full of idiots that assume that anyone who has 'only been riding a bike for 2 weeks' is 9 years of age, has stabilisers fitted, no life experience whatsoever. The said idiots therefore are better at everything in the world and anybody else isn't allowed to have a view on a subject. In reality however, the newbie cyclist could be a mid-thirties family man, a landlord and a respected manager of his/her workplace, holding responsibility for a large team of professionals, with an ability to wipe their own arse and everything.SloppySchleckonds wrote:The beginners forum is brilliant. If you're a beginner asking a fairly straightforward question, you get an assortment of morons who've been riding a bike for two weeks and think they know it all spouting garbage, a few people who know what they're talking about giving the wrong answer for their own amusement, a couple of people rejecting science and talking about how they feel and one knobjockey commenting on the utter crapness of the BR beginners forum and ignoring the original question entirely. I reckon the forum owners should just replace this section with an online magic 8-ball.
Instead of trying to make these newbies looks 'stupid' to make yourself look 'cool', why not act your age and provide the knowledge you once needed. As a mod on another forum, yes there are others, I'd be appalled at such behaviour from a more experienced member 0 -
0 -
Ever notice how the vast majority of those who DON'T wear helmets are older riders? Strange isn't it? From the pro helmet arguments surely they'd all be dead?0
-
tiny_pens wrote:MattC59 wrote:
tiny_pens.......... are you a ninja ? YOur reflexes would indicate that you are !
Aren't you?
I used to take an exercise class in a ninjitsu school premises when I lived in portsmouth. Does that count?
I guess it just depends on what type of rough and tumble you grew up with. Its like if you stand feet side by side and then someone pushes you in the middle of the back. You don't topple forwards and face plant, you just move your foot forwards without thinking. .
Depends how hard and fast they push you, I've seen plenty of schoolyard faceplants from exacty this sort of thing, You've been framed relies on people not reacting quickly enough to becoming off balance.
I got left hooked yesterday, in your scenario I would have instinctively unclipped, put my foot to the floor and tutted quietly under my breath as captain pillock sped off into the distance. In reality I got airborne and ended up flat on my back in the middle of the road.
I was wearing my helmet (I sometines do - sometimes not, my decision is often made by whether I feel I'll need the lights that are mounted up there and the bike I'm on - road bike yes (yesterdays ride), folder no, commuting tank, sometimes) and the back of it hit the ground with a hell of a thud and smashed the light. I was happy yesterday I had it on & TBH it will probably make me more conscientious about wearing it more frequently until it gets hot and uncomfortable next summer and I can be riding in daylight at 6am and 10pm.. I've had other offs where it didn't make a scrap of difference whether I was wearing a helmet or not.
I could have done with a backplate and pelvic guard far more yesterday but no one has yet suggested we cycle in a suit of armour to avoid the jarring and bruising I've got coming out right now or more catastrophic damage to femoral arteries or lungs and hearts from broken pelvis/ribs etc.
each to their own.0 -
merak wrote:The only evidence of any value in this debate is based on statistical epidemiology - ie, whether the survival rate or the incidence of serious head injury of those wearing helmets per mile or per accident exceeds that of those not wearing helmets. And as far as I know, the evidence provided by such statistical studies is inconclusive - in other words the benefit of wearing a helmet is, in reality, either marginal or non-existent. Everything else, including anecdote and the opinions of doctors, nurses and chiropractors is insignificant.
But all of this is cack too. There's no reliable way to collect the evidence. How many people on here who have the anecdotal evidence of "I fell off and my helmet split in two" have reported this? How then can you even compare? How do you eliminate the confounding factors of people's behaviour and their decision to wear a lid or not? Or the environmental factors? etc etc. The stats argument is as crap as every other argument to the point that the anecdotal evidence begins to look attractive. Let's face it, you know when you've been lucky. After all, there's absolutely no anecdotal evidence (or overwhelmingly little) to suggest that a helmet is a Bad Thing. There's also quite a bit of intuitive input (after all, even TVs arrive in good nick thanks to their "TV packaging") to suggest that they might even be a Good Thing. But nothing is proven. We might as well argue whether God exists and, if so, which one....ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
meanredspider wrote:(after all, even TVs arrive in good nick thanks to their "TV packaging")
agree with your post and this post isn't aimed at you but a general comment on the TV packaging argument: to really equate it to a vehicular colision : drive a car into a boxed and 'packaged' TV at 30 mph or so and would you expect it to work again afterwards?
people expect far too much of helmets0 -
Don't wear one but should. That said not riding much at the moment.http://www.youtube.com/user/Eurobunneh - My Youtube channel.0
-
clanton wrote:Ever notice how the vast majority of those who DON'T wear helmets are older riders? Strange isn't it? From the pro helmet arguments surely they'd all be dead?
Ah...actually I never noticed that at all - quite the opposite in fact. Most of the helmet-less riders I see are adolescents or early twenties.0 -
Hoopdriver wrote:clanton wrote:Ever notice how the vast majority of those who DON'T wear helmets are older riders? Strange isn't it? From the pro helmet arguments surely they'd all be dead?
Ah...actually I never noticed that at all - quite the opposite in fact. Most of the helmet-less riders I see are adolescents or early twenties.
I bet they ride on pavements and jump red lights as well.I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0
