Nice article in the NY Times about helmets

meanredspider

Il Principe wrote:

Modern helmets must meet the European CE standard (12 mph) or the Snell B90/B95 standard (14 mph). So don't expect one to be a lot of good if you come off at 50 and somehow manage to land on your head.

Dammit. Didn't want to reply to this.

Another fallacy in the argument: Unless you're catapulted off into a tree (or something similarly immoveable), the thing you're most likely to hit is the ground - it doesn't really matter how fast you are travelling forward, the VERTICAL speed with which you hit the ground is the same - granny or Wiggo (in fact the granny, being upright, might actually hit the ground faster). The HORIZONTAL component of your speed will relieve you of your skin and may propel you into a tree but sh!t happens.

pangolin

That's a good point meanredspider, I'd not really thought of it like that.

But that does rely on you landing on a flat surface with no obstacles. Whenever I've done that (and I've done it with and without a helmet) I haven't landed on my head, because naturally you end up on your hands/elbows/knees etc.

The times I can imagine really hitting my head are when the horizontal component of my speed is rudely interrupted by a tree (or more likely a car in London). And the speed at which I can imagine not being able to get an arm in the way (or even have time to realise 'this is about to hurt') rapidly approach the speeds at which a helmet becomes less useful.

il_principe

Arguing with Helmet apologists is like arguing with religious people. There's no evidence that they do any good, but who cares when you're a believer.

pangolin

As a religious person, I would agree with meanredspider that you keep making spurious comparisons

UndercoverElephant

Il Principe wrote:

Arguing with Helmet apologists is like arguing with religious people. There's no evidence that they do any good, but who cares when you're a believer.

Where as helmet deniers are so much more rational?

jay197

Il Principe wrote:

Dammit. Didn't want to reply to this.

GOTCHA...!

Daz555

Cycling needs a new movement. THE ANTI HELMET DEBATE MOVEMENT.

Wear a helmet, don't wear a helmet? I DON'T CARE.

Tell me I should or should not be wearing a helmet? PLEASE DIE AND LEAVE ME ALONE.

That is all.

meanredspider

Il Principe wrote:

Arguing with Helmet apologists is like arguing with religious people. There's no evidence that they do any good, but who cares when you're a believer.

No - but there are certain facts of physics that remain true whether you believe or not. There's no reliable evidence for either side of the argument (unlike the religious debate) so whichever side you're on, it's just a matter of faith and, fortunately, a matter of choice.

DonDaddyD

When I'm driving and overtaking someone without a helmet, I get and feel a little bit more worried than I do when passing a peson who is wearing a helmet. I give exactly the same amount of room to both - an foot, size 8. But my perception of the two is widely different, I trust the helmet wearing to be more safe and sensible.

Just saying.

jay197

Il Principe wrote:

Arguing with Helmet apologists is like arguing with religious people. There's no evidence that they do any good, but who cares when you're a believer.

I thought road bike helmets, just like TimeTrial helmets, make you go faster? 8)

meanredspider

pangolin wrote:

That's a good point meanredspider, I'd not really thought of it like that.

But that does rely on you landing on a flat surface with no obstacles. Whenever I've done that (and I've done it with and without a helmet) I haven't landed on my head, because naturally you end up on your hands/elbows/knees etc.

The times I can imagine really hitting my head are when the horizontal component of my speed is rudely interrupted by a tree (or more likely a car in London). And the speed at which I can imagine not being able to get an arm in the way (or even have time to realise 'this is about to hurt') rapidly approach the speeds at which a helmet becomes less useful.

True - a seatbelt is unlikely to help you if you hit a tree at 30mph in a car. It's all about risk mitigation (my current job as it happens) - life is full of risks and we all make choices about them. I'm sat on a jumbo jet right now - none of the fitted safety devices are likely to help me if we crash. My seatbelt will help if we hit some really really bad turbulence but not a lot else. I'm all for choice in the Freat Helmet Debate and preach to no-one

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

When I'm driving and overtaking someone without a helmet, I get and feel a little bit more worried than I do when passing a peson who is wearing a helmet. I give exactly the same amount of room to both - an foot, size 8. But my perception of the two is widely different, I trust the helmet wearing to be more safe and sensible.

Just saying.

Your personal perception is statistically irrelevant though. You thinking they make you safer etc doesn't make it so.

My point is simply this - there's no evidence, so why do people persist in harping on at non-wearers? Seriously, the amount of grief I get from family, friends and colleagues for not wearing one. Of course none of them have bothered looking into the evidence (and hilariously several of the most fervent advocates are keen smokers, and do f*ck all on the way of exercise). I shouldn't let it wind me up, but it does. Why does cycling get singled out when there are plenty of other activities people could pick on?

Anonymous

Smoking - good one. Next time the missus gets going......

Kieran_Burns

Veronese68 wrote:

I was wearing a lid, wasn't speeding on a roadish bike. Lid didn't help, Fairly large child strapped to my right arm would have been useful though.
I'm still singing about mice and clogs. Great painkillers I'm on.

Perhaps you should've been wearing a lidl - then you could shop the passenger for opening the door on you?

Kieran_Burns

jay197 wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Arguing with Helmet apologists is like arguing with religious people. There's no evidence that they do any good, but who cares when you're a believer.

I thought road bike helmets, just like TimeTrial helmets, make you go faster? 8)

I'll advocate wearing one when the Flying Spaghetti Monster does.

All Hail his noodley appendage!

SimonAH

Gawd knows why I'm contributing to this, but anyway.

Personally I weigh up the risks vs the inconvenience.

Quick blast into town / the pub / the office commute - I don't bother with a lid.
Club ride or anything expected to be over, say, half an hour continuously in the saddle - usually wear a helmet. But not always TBH

Can I see a safety downside in wearing one? No. Can I see a safety upside in wearing one? Yes. Would Itotally rebel if you said I had to wear one by law? 'King right Kemosabe.

CiB

Ooh a helmet debate.

<Stands well clear this time...>

bails87

DonDaddyD wrote:

When I'm driving and overtaking someone without a helmet, I get and feel a little bit more worried than I do when passing a peson who is wearing a helmet. I give exactly the same amount of room to both - an foot, size 8. But my perception of the two is widely different, I trust the helmet wearing to be more safe and sensible.

Just saying.

Is that some sneaky trolling or do you really only give a foot of space when driving past cyclists?!

Also(assuming the latter), do you think one foot of space is enough when you don't trust a rider to be sensible?

Kieran_Burns

CiB wrote:

Ooh a helmet debate.

<Stands well clear this time...>

*I* started a "nice article in a paper" debate.

This lot derailed it.

Don't blame me.

UndercoverElephant

Kieran_Burns wrote:

CiB wrote:

Ooh a helmet debate.

<Stands well clear this time...>

*I* started a "nice article in a paper" debate.

This lot derailed it.

Don't blame me.

You knew what you were doing. You was begging for it.

cyclingprop

DonDaddyD wrote:

When I'm driving and overtaking someone without a helmet, I get and feel a little bit more worried than I do when passing a peson who is wearing a helmet. I give exactly the same amount of room to both - an foot, size 8. But my perception of the two is widely different, I trust the helmet wearing to be more safe and sensible.

Just saying.

Another two things:

1) What about if you overtake someone who IS a helmet?
2) You only give a cyclist a foot when overtaking?

wgwarburton

Hi,
The big problem with the helmet debate is the lack of solid evidence- you can interpret individual anecdotes, population studies or police/hospital accident reports as you like and draw the conclusions you want. It leaves people defending "their" position by attacking others. It's not even possible to point people in the direction of a balanced evaluation and suggest they draw their own conclusions. What I see as "balanced" and "compelling" appears biased and weak to an otherwise apparantly rational and intelligent person.

It's refreshing to see some reasonable positions being taken, though- the CTC's recent briefing is good, as it this sort of piece.

Cheers,
W.

Fireblade96

After my last serious bike crash, as I limped, bruised and bleeding towards the house, a little old lady stood by the side of the road asked how I was, but then added "well, at least you were wearing a helmet..."

My reply of "It didn't bl0ody help, I didn't hit my feckin' head!" might not have been what she was expecting...

airbag

DonDaddyD wrote:

Because it's silly not to. You are no less safer wearing a helemt. Not wearing one means you are less safe should you encounter a particular type of accident. It's like an airbag, they don't protect you from all kinds of collisions in a car, they do protect again some and having none means you are completely unprotected.

There is also another analogy, change airbag to something beginning with C.

Condoms? You're no less safe wearing a condom in most situations (I just know a vomit-inducing counterexample is headed my way), and they could save you from nasty things. But if a school teacher told you they felt the need to wear one in class, you'd think something had gone horribly wrong.

Oh yes, I shoved an xkcd reference into this thread, roughly and unsympathetically, and I'm not sorry.

jonomc4

Daz555 wrote:

Cycling needs a new movement. THE ANTI HELMET DEBATE MOVEMENT.

Wear a helmet, don't wear a helmet? I DON'T CARE.

Tell me I should or should not be wearing a helmet? PLEASE DIE AND LEAVE ME ALONE.

That is all.

+1

I wear a helmet in the wet and not on a sunny day - so sue me / kill me or whatever - just don't tell me what to do, that honour is left to my wife. Really I don't care or even notice if someone is or is not wearing a helmet.

Corporate Camper

On two consecutive weekends when I've been riding in the countryside around here, cyclists coming the other way have shouted "Helmet!" at me. Maybe it's a comment on my personality, rather than what I chose to wear on my head...

CiB

Corporate Camper wrote:

On two consecutive weekends when I've been riding in the countryside around here, cyclists coming the other way have shouted "Helmet!" at me. Maybe it's a comment on my personality, rather than what I chose to wear on my head...

That was me. Presume you haven't spotted the Botolph Claydon natives hiding in the trees lobbing old damaged helmets at passing cyclists? Ignore the warnings at your peril.

That'd be a nice bit of schadenfreude, being knocked off yer bike and killed to death by a well-aimed helmet. Neat.

jay197

Corporate Camper wrote:

On two consecutive weekends when I've been riding in the countryside around here, cyclists coming the other way have shouted "Helmet!" at me. Maybe it's a comment on my personality, rather than what I chose to wear on my head...

I DARE you to wear one of these next weekend , and see what they shout then

Kieran_Burns

CiB wrote:

Corporate Camper wrote:

On two consecutive weekends when I've been riding in the countryside around here, cyclists coming the other way have shouted "Helmet!" at me. Maybe it's a comment on my personality, rather than what I chose to wear on my head...

That was me. Presume you haven't spotted the Botolph Claydon natives hiding in the trees lobbing old damaged helmets at passing cyclists? Ignore the warnings at your peril.

That'd be a nice bit of schadenfreude, being knocked off yer bike and killed to death by a well-aimed helmet. Neat.

That would be irony not schadenfreude you ignoramus.

Corporate Camper

Kieran_Burns wrote:

CiB wrote:

Corporate Camper wrote:

On two consecutive weekends when I've been riding in the countryside around here, cyclists coming the other way have shouted "Helmet!" at me. Maybe it's a comment on my personality, rather than what I chose to wear on my head...

That was me. Presume you haven't spotted the Botolph Claydon natives hiding in the trees lobbing old damaged helmets at passing cyclists? Ignore the warnings at your peril.

That'd be a nice bit of schadenfreude, being knocked off yer bike and killed to death by a well-aimed helmet. Neat.

That would be irony not schadenfreude you ignoramus.

I often get confused about what is and isn't ironic, I blame Alanis Morissette for muddying the waters.