Should cyclists legally wear a helmet ?

weadmire

Slowmart: "You "expect" the VW driver performed that manoeuvre , but hasn't been established as fact?"

I am not sure this is a question. It is likely I rode past this VW a few minutes before the drama unfolded. I ride down Commercial Street at least three times a day three times a week and twice a day otherwise, it is part of my commute. I have said the road was rammed with traffic on the night. To ride down the outside of this traffic is daunting. I rode down the inside and I understand the woman did likewise. As I rode on the night in question you could see and almost feel a number of cars contemplating escape down the side roads to the left. Most of these are dead ends. I believe the VW turned left down Hanbury Street hitting the cyclist. It was not likely to be a high speed collision because it was difficult for any of the car to accelerate.

Slowmart: "The someone you spoke to? Emergency worker treating the casualty or someones cousins brother?"

A fellow commuter who often rides this stretch at around the same time as me and with whom I have been having casual conversations since his days as a courier. He saw the aftermath of the incident and the car being lifted. Our first conversation started when he admired a bike I owned in 2003 at a set of lights at the end of Tower Bridge. He is a casual acquaintance.

Slowmart: "No doubt the reported concussion was minimised by wearing a helmet? Second guessing the potential injuries without the helmet is pointless without the facts."

Please answer my question concerning the effect helmets have on the size and weight of your head and the resulting difficulty this will cause your reflexes.

Slowmart: "No doubt the reported concussion was minimised by wearing a helmet? Second guessing the potential injuries without the helmet is pointless without the facts."

Ditto above.

Slowmart: "Would you insist a child in your family wear a cycle helmet as you seem dubious about the benefits?"

I have four children and they can follow my early example of wearing helmets or not as they please, certainly I did not insist as they were growing up. All of them cycle and none of them habitually wears a helmet.

Slowmart: "As for third party insurance..."

Unless you are a lawyer it is likely I have much more experience of civil actions than you do. For a start civil actions are not heard by juries in the UK as you seem to assume.

Who do you think you are addressing when you type this sort of self important tosh? Certainly not me, I think you have what you perceive as an audience in mind. Similarly so the stuff about cycling in London. I can say I have cycled in London just about every working day for the last 21 years. I very much doubt you are qualified to tell me anything about it. For that matter I doubt you are qualified to tell anyone about it.

In 21 years I have hit four pedestrians, they have all been quite fit and young and all of them have been on the roadway not looking around them. I expect it to be at least another 20 years or more before I might hit someone vulnerable because the vulnerable tend to know they are vulnerable and behave accordingly. No need for insurance.

Slowmart: "A human head directly hitting a kerb or road furniture at 12mph is better off in a helmet than not?... can we agree...? "

No we cannot agree. A human head hitting the kerb is cliché. Please consider a human head not hitting a kerb because the human in question can control their head better without the mass and size of a helmet interfering with things.

And now please answer my questions.

weadmire

Coilnthecop,

Looks like a shoulder first to me followed by an ear if the helmet had not got in the way. Certainly not the top of the rider's head and probably the result of tha extra mass of the helmet taking the combination of the rider's head and helmet into the ground. Please try harder.

Colinthecop

weadmire wrote:

Please try harder.

Sod that, that was my best shot. :roll:

I'll go back to being a lurker.

weadmire

Colinthecop,

When you have exhausted yourself with google and images of crashes perhaps you would like to answer the questions I asked Slowsider, slowmart and any other pro helmet reader of these forums. Tell us why do so many people think they are a waste of time? And similarly why are so many riders who have had very few whacks so ardent in their promotion of the use of helmets?

So far these questions are being avoided - straighten us all out please.

Colinthecop

weadmire wrote:

straighten us all out please.

Oh come on, that's not fair... I spend my working life sorting out others peoples problems. Mainly because Jeremy Kyle isn't available.

Do I have to do it here too...? Especially when it's my day off.

weadmire

Colinthecop,

"Let off?"

Asked with such charm .... you are free to go...

slowmart

weadmire wrote:

Slowmart: "You "expect" the VW driver performed that manoeuvre , but hasn't been established as fact?"

I am not sure this is a question. It is likely I rode past this VW a few minutes before the drama unfolded. I ride down Commercial Street at least three times a day three times a week and twice a day otherwise, it is part of my commute. I have said the road was rammed with traffic on the night. To ride down the outside of this traffic is daunting. I rode down the inside and I understand the woman did likewise. As I rode on the night in question you could see and almost feel a number of cars contemplating escape down the side roads to the left. Most of these are dead ends. I believe the VW turned left down Hanbury Street hitting the cyclist. It was not likely to be a high speed collision because it was difficult for any of the car to accelerate.

Slowmart: "The someone you spoke to? Emergency worker treating the casualty or someones cousins brother?"

A fellow commuter who often rides this stretch at around the same time as me and with whom I have been having casual conversations since his days as a courier. He saw the aftermath of the incident and the car being lifted. Our first conversation started when he admired a bike I owned in 2003 at a set of lights at the end of Tower Bridge. He is a casual acquaintance.

That is waffle and not based on the facts of the incident in question. Or did your acquaintance see the rider trapped by her helmet as suggested.

Slowmart: "No doubt the reported concussion was minimised by wearing a helmet? Second guessing the potential injuries without the helmet is pointless without the facts."

Please answer my question concerning the effect helmets have on the size and weight of your head and the resulting difficulty this will cause your reflexes.

Slowmart: "No doubt the reported concussion was minimised by wearing a helmet? Second guessing the potential injuries without the helmet is pointless without the facts."

Ditto above.

See below re dexterity

Slowmart: "Would you insist a child in your family wear a cycle helmet as you seem dubious about the benefits?"

I have four children and they can follow my early example of wearing helmets or not as they please, certainly I did not insist as they were growing up. All of them cycle and none of them habitually wears a helmet.

Fair one.

Slowmart: "As for third party insurance..."

Unless you are a lawyer it is likely I have much more experience of civil actions than you do. For a start civil actions are not heard by juries in the UK as you seem to assume.

Agreed and my apologies, however the burden of proof is lower in the civil court and in todays society, where there's blame there's a claim good luck in your view you don't need insurance.

Who do you think you are addressing when you type this sort of self important tosh?

What are you talking about

Certainly not me, I think you have what you perceive as an audience in mind. Similarly so the stuff about cycling in London. I can say I have cycled in London just about every working day for the last 21 years. I very much doubt you are qualified to tell me anything about it. For that matter I doubt you are qualified to tell anyone about it.

What is your point?


Any news on the "significant legal case" you mentioned . Any informed response on the case law example of diminished damages….?

In 21 years I have hit four pedestrians, they have all been quite fit and young and all of them have been on the roadway not looking around them. I expect it to be at least another 20 years or more before I might hit someone vulnerable because the vulnerable tend to know they are vulnerable and behave accordingly. No need for insurance.

Its certainly great to know you consider its another 20 years before you hit a vulnerable person. Any chance in sharing the lottery numbers for tonight? See above my comments on our litigious society.

Slowmart: "A human head directly hitting a kerb or road furniture at 12mph is better off in a helmet than not?... can we agree...? "

No we cannot agree. A human head hitting the kerb is cliché. Please consider a human head not hitting a kerb because the human in question can control their head better without the mass and size of a helmet interfering with things.

Why is it a cliche? Kerbs are quite evident in most built up areas. Why dispute the outcome? Granted its a narrow question but you seem intent in providing narrow scenarios. As for control re your head in an accident, a helmet either in mass or weight should not materially diminish your dexterity. Thats an arguable point that won't be settled between us.

slowsider

weadmire wrote:

Slowsider,

Hard to know what to make of that.

You report repeated collisions with pedestrians, and it's always their fault and you always come off worst. You are able to observe that they are young and fit and not looking about them, but still you hit them. Presumably it is not the same pedestrian each time, so the common denominator is you. Try something different - speed, positioning, avoidance, warning. If you keep doing the same thing you will keep getting the same result.

weadmire wrote:

Colinthecop,

When you have exhausted yourself with google and images of crashes perhaps you would like to answer the questions I asked Slowsider, slowmart and any other pro helmet reader of these forums. Tell us why do so many people think they are a waste of time? And similarly why are so many riders who have had very few whacks so ardent in their promotion of the use of helmets?

So far these questions are being avoided - straighten us all out please.

Have I said I'm pro-helmet ?? My response was to your assertion that it was not possible for the rider's head to be lower than his arse during an involuntary dismount. Colcop has provided yet another debunking of your point. Stand over your rhetoric.

weadmire

Slowsider,

I was probably getting my "Slows" confused, bear in mind there's a sider, a rider and a mart. But strictly speaking I did not say you were pro helmet though I can understand that you think I did, apologies. I have you as a direct and open minded contrarian fellow who might be keen to get to the bottom of the nonsense of helmets once and for all. The question I would like you to answer is why you repeatedly misrepresent what I said. I have explained what I meant by under in the context of Kajjal's "vertical" claims. I am sure you understand the difference between speed and velocity for example but you continue to misrepresent. Please tell us why.

You could post 100 images like the pair you came up with and similarly the one colinthecop provided, so far they support my contention that in a fall caused by a "sudden mechanical" kajjal's words you could not get your a*se "vertically" above your head even if you tried. the images you have posted all show a cyclist with a helmet apparently but not certainly about to get one in the side of the head after their shoulder has hit the ground first. These support my contention that riders wearing helmets will have a harder time keeping their heads off the ground than riders without helmets. Please try and find a helmetless rider in a similar position it might be more convincing.

With regard to your advice about pedestrians, thank you. I'd say four offs in and around London in 21 years is pretty good. After the first one I have been pretty careful about looking out for them, would they were as careful about looking out for me.

weadmire

Slowmart,

Someone who offers melodramatic opinions on conducting legal cases without knowing one of their most basic characteristics wants to talk about "waffle"?

Please answer the questions I posed earlier, to help you I have reproduced them below:

On the front page of this “campaign” forum there are presently four topics about cycling helmets, there have been hundreds of such threads, perhaps thousands of them in cycling forums round the world. This one has been top or top three of all the campaign topics for some time and it is by some way the most active. If cycling helmets were clearly effective why would their use be controversial to the point of spawning thousands of posts to such forums?

Taking the helmet and head as one – something helmet promoters do all the time, as in if that hadn't been my helmet it would have been my head - do you acknowledge wearing a helmet is more likely to cause you to hit your helmeted head?

Slowmart, I see among the emotional dross of your last post a pearl: your acknowledgement that helmets will only protect heads up to an impact speed of 12mph. Would you expect to die in a real world circumstance if you hit your head at 12mph?

Dr Tom Crisp, among other things the one time orthopaedic consultant to the British Para Olympic squad, had his testimony that we have a hard wired reflex to protect our heads accepted in a significant legal case I was closely involved with. Do you accept this is so?

Do you accept that wearing helmets might modify both the behaviour of the wearer of said helmet and drivers who observe helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists?

weadmire

SmoggySteve wrote:

are you suggesting a driver might think twice before tw@tting a cyclist with his car based on whether or not he has a helmet on? And also, are you suggesting a cyclist will react to incidents different depending on this factor. So he neither values his bike nor the rest of his body?

Smoggysteve,

In posing the question above you reveal your ignorance about risk compensation. google it and get back to us. Then please answer the other questions put to you.

slowmart

weadmire wrote:

Slowmart,

Someone who offers melodramatic opinions on conducting legal cases without knowing one of their most basic characteristics wants to talk about "waffle"?

Please answer the questions I posed earlier, to help you I have reproduced them below:

Try reading my posts and you will see my answers............. :roll:


Perhaps the italics confused you or does it potentially reveal why you've hit so many pedestrians? Oh sorry it was everyone else fault- those four incidents

smoggysteve

weadmire wrote:

SmoggySteve wrote:

are you suggesting a driver might think twice before tw@tting a cyclist with his car based on whether or not he has a helmet on? And also, are you suggesting a cyclist will react to incidents different depending on this factor. So he neither values his bike nor the rest of his body?

Smoggysteve,

In posing the question above you reveal your ignorance about risk compensation. google it and get back to us. Then please answer the other questions put to you.

Weadmire

if you are goung to talk to people like crap, best not to put an address on your posts in case some decides to come around and knock you the F*@# out :-)

weadmire

Smeggysteve,

Sounds as though you have been educating yourself about risk compensation. I doubt you have knocked the "F*@# out" of anything. The next time will be the first time and the next time will not be if and when you turn up at my studio. Trust me. With that in mind I see you still have someway to go with this idea of risk compensation. Thinking about it turn up I will be pleased to help.

weadmire

Slowmart,

An attempt at patronage and gravitas from someone pedaling anxiety and melodrama about a legal process they are clearly ignorant of. Impressive. Not.

You did not answer the questions I asked, you attempted to avoid them by trying to commentate on the replies I made to the questions you asked. The bargain, the expressed and implied mutuality of these exchanges, is that you should answer mine if I answer yours. Now please answer mine:

1/ On the front page of this “campaign” forum there are presently four topics about cycling helmets, there have been hundreds of such threads, perhaps thousands of them in cycling forums round the world. This one has been top or top three of all the campaign topics for some time and it is by some way the most active. If cycling helmets were clearly effective why would their use be controversial to the point of spawning thousands of posts to such forums?

2/ Taking the helmet and head as one – something helmet promoters do all the time, as in if that hadn't been my helmet it would have been my head - do you acknowledge wearing a helmet is more likely to cause you to hit your helmeted head?

3/Dr Tom Crisp, among other things the one time orthopaedic consultant to the British Para Olympic squad, had his testimony that we have a hard wired reflex to protect our heads accepted in a significant legal case I was closely involved with. Do you accept this is so?

4/ Do you accept that wearing helmets might modify both the behaviour of the wearer of said helmet and drivers who observe helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists?

Answer them and I expect you will benefit from the process, just like Kajjal and Smoggysteve. It will be a formative process, you will start to understand why helmets are not worth a damn. Or you might if you have the maturity to learn.

smoggysteve

weadmire wrote:

Smeggysteve,

Sounds as though you have been educating yourself about risk compensation. I doubt you have knocked the "F*@# out" of anything. The next time will be the first time and the next time will not be if and when you turn up at my studio. Trust me. With that in mind I see you still have someway to go with this idea of risk compensation. Thinking about it turn up I will be pleased to help.

I would imagine in the course of my line if work I have come across gobby tw@ts like yourself on more occasions than I care to remember. All I will say is look over your shoulder fella.

weadmire

Smoggysteve,
You sound e'rso e'rso hard! The whole forum is trembling. Perhaps with the exception of those who know who you are.

weadmire

Smoggysteve,
Should we take it that you will not be answering my questions?

slowmart

weadmire wrote:

Slowmart,

An attempt at patronage and gravitas from someone pedaling anxiety and melodrama about a legal process they are clearly ignorant of. Impressive. Not.

So even with your so called experience of civil litigation you refuse to accept the increasing requirement for third party insurance?

You did not answer the questions I asked, you attempted to avoid them by trying to commentate on the replies I made to the questions you asked. The bargain, the expressed and implied mutuality of these exchanges, is that you should answer mine if I answer yours. Now please answer mine:

1/ On the front page of this “campaign” forum there are presently four topics about cycling helmets, there have been hundreds of such threads, perhaps thousands of them in cycling forums round the world. This one has been top or top three of all the campaign topics for some time and it is by some way the most active. If cycling helmets were clearly effective why would their use be controversial to the point of spawning thousands of posts to such forums?

The issue is they are not "clearly effective". Hence the debate about the benefits.

2/ Taking the helmet and head as one – something helmet promoters do all the time, as in if that hadn't been my helmet it would have been my head - do you acknowledge wearing a helmet is more likely to cause you to hit your helmeted head?

This goes back to my original response :roll: , please expand your question volume or mass which was answered? Or is there another aspect to your question?

3/Dr Tom Crisp, among other things the one time orthopaedic consultant to the British Para Olympic squad, had his testimony that we have a hard wired reflex to protect our heads accepted in a significant legal case I was closely involved with. Do you accept this is so?

As i have asked, whats the "substantial legal case" you were involved with? This has been asked before, what are you hiding as you seem elusive with a response. I also raised the point of the courts, without juries, awarding diminshed damages where the cyclist suffered head injuries when no helmet was being worn. Hard wired reflex towards the head or not the context in this case heard in the High Court didn't carry the weight you have suggested.

4/ Do you accept that wearing helmets might modify both the behaviour of the wearer of said helmet and drivers who observe helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists?

As i have previously stated but I'll repeat the point, just for you. In the context of perceived risk a rider may ride more quickly by assuming he is more protected by wearing a helmet. Again a subjective point and again a circular argument as with the increased speed and perception of reduced risk reinforces the likelihood of an accident occurring. As for car drivers having any awareness of cyclists let alone if the rider in question was riding with a helmet then the answer is no.

Answer them and I expect you will benefit from the process, just like Kajjal and Smoggysteve. It will be a formative process, you will start to understand why helmets are not worth a damn. Or you might if you have the maturity to learn.

I appreciate its always worth challenging accepted views and there are conflicting views on the so called benefits or not of helmets.

I accept the evidence both for and against is questionable but self interest from either sides shapes their own agenda. For me its about personally perceived risk after weighing up the facts and the likelihood of injury and making your own decision which brings us back to the original post.

ugo.santalucia

Enough is enough... I've given the two of you 3 days ban and I don't want this tone and words to be used again

weadmire

The sin bin seemed harsh, I wasn't making the threats.

Slowmart,

Thank you for agreeing “the evidence is questionable..” But if it's questionable why do you proselytise the use of the things and for emphasis apparently conflate their use with the suggestion of 3rd party insurance which is probably equally useless for the vast majority of cyclists?

With regard to the behaviour of drivers as in “As for car drivers having any awareness of cyclists let alone if the rider in question was riding with a helmet then the answer is no.”
Please follow this link with regard to the risk compensation activities of motor vehicle drivers: http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/arc ... 10906.html

In sum:

We have your admission helmets are only good to about 12mph - The advantages of wearing one are very limited.

You have agreed wearing one will make you more likely to hit your head, (head here to mean the combination of head and helmet) it could not be otherwise, the combination of head and helmet is both larger and more massive than otherwise.

You agree wearing one might make you a little more reckless.

And yes we have a reflex that is likely to protect our heads, even if you want to contest Dr Crisp's claims our day to day experience tells us this is so.

Add that lot together and is there any wonder the promotion of helmet wearing by people who are anxious is contested by people who know better? We then have the answer to the question about why cycling forums have so many helmet threads.

If helmets, as they are, work it is likely they only save wearers from the damage/increased risk they cause. Or to put it another way they are useless.

slowmart

weadmire wrote:

The sin bin seemed harsh, I wasn't making the threats.

Slowmart,

Thank you for agreeing “the evidence is questionable..” But if it's questionable why do you proselytise the use of the things and for emphasis apparently conflate their use with the suggestion of 3rd party insurance which is probably equally useless for the vast majority of cyclists?

Welcome back!

I didn't conflate the issue of helmets and insurance as I disagreed with your point on third party insurance. I agree its a highly profitable revenue stream for insurance companies but what insurance product isn't? Unfortunately todays society of ambulance chasing solicitors ensures we should all examine our potential liabilities and act accordingly.

And you still haven't answered my point on reduced damages where a cyclist has not wore a helmet and suffered head injuries.

It boils down to perception of risk. Be it third party insurance or wearing a helmet. While no conclusive evidence exists about the benefits of wearing a helmet the question I ask myself is " if someone where to hit me on the head would i prefer to have a helmet on or not?" In simple terms I would like that helmet on. While we can discuss the likelihood and % chance of hitting your head in an accident however I feel it is a mute point. After all it would be great to know what type of accident you were going to have.

napoleond

I landed on my head in a race, the helmet bore the full brunt but I broke my back and collar bone. Shudder to think what would have happened with no helmet.

Oh god. Why did I just reply on this thread?

kajjal

NapoleonD wrote:

I landed on my head in a race, the helmet bore the full brunt but I broke my back and collar bone. Shudder to think what would have happened with no helmet.

Oh god. Why did I just reply on this thread?

I was advised my friend didn't land directly on his head when I saw him do it so you know what to expect

bompington

NapoleonD wrote:

I landed on my head in a race, the helmet bore the full brunt but I broke my back and collar bone. Shudder to think what would have happened with no helmet.

Oh god. Why did I just reply on this thread?

But you can't have landed on your head, weadmire has proved that's physically impossible. Or at least, if you did, it was because the enormous weight of your helmet dragged your head down. Or something like that.

weadmire

Slowmart,

“And you still haven't answered my point on reduced damages where a cyclist has not wore a helmet and suffered head injuries.”

What is your point? You seem to be saying you want to wear a helmet because it will enable you to make the obvious reply to a solicitor's witless question. If that is your main concern, ie you are more concerned about being asked about your helmet than you are about the dubious benefits of wearing one, you are accepting my arguments about their value.

To anyone concerned about being asked stupid questions by solicitors I suggest challenging said solicitors about their ignorance. There is no conclusive evidence helmets work, a lack of such conclusive evidence is of course evidence they don't work. If they worked in the way it is reasonable to expect, their efficacy would be obvious and people like me would have long since lost the argument. Patiently explain this to the solicitor instead of reinforcing the nonsense of helmets by encouraging them in thinking helmet wearing is relevant. Answer their question with a question. If they are too stupid to get the point look up Dr Tom Crisp and see if he will help you.

NapoleonD ,

“Oh god. Why did I just reply on this thread?” Is that an invitation for me to speculate? For good measure, and in the spirit of entertainment, I will if you want me to. Meanwhile it sounds like an interesting whack please let us have the details.

Kajjal,

I thought we had lost you. What about giving us that description of how your “cousin's uncle” as slowmart put it came to land “vertically” on his head after a “sudden mechanical.”

Bompington,

We, you and me, have been here before have we not? Weren't you a helmeteer contributor the last time a helmet wearing moderator closed down a helmet thread? The closedown came shortly after a “2ndCat” racer inadvertently admitted he did not wear a helmet and did not hit his head in his youth but wore a helmet and hit his head in his er .... 2nd cycling coming? He lost his temper when I pointed out he was agreeing with me. Shortly afterwards someone called in the moderators, was it you?

bompington

I landed on my head again this morning, this time after a pedal caught a rock while off-road walking the dog. I have no doubt that I only did so because I was wearing a helmet, whose 300-odd grams must have completely upended my 90kg bodyweight.
Oh, hang on, I remember now - I wasn't wearing one as I was just walking the dog. Landed in mud BTW, fairly glad of that.

Anyway, I am not a "helmeteer", I (usually) wear one for reasons that I consider sufficient, but am well aware of the statistics calling their use into question.

One thing I am not, though, is single-mindedly obsessive about proving a point to the extent of hotly trying to defend nonsense physics.
If I had the power, I would gladly call in the mods when wearers of helmets of the tin foil variety start spamming threads - but I don't, and I didn't in this case, and I fully support your inalienable right to talk mince.

weadmire

Hmm,

You landed on your head as a pedal caught in a rock while walking the dog, hit your head because you were wearing a helmet, but you weren't wearing a helmet, confuse the weight of your head with the weight of your entire body while apparently being a little paranoid about wearers of tin foil helmets who start spamming threads to the point where you will come over moderator rather than moderate.

Meanwhile you think I talk mince. You've lost me.

bompington

weadmire wrote:

You've lost me.

@ for that

weadmire

bompington wrote:

weadmire wrote:

You've lost me.

@ for that

@ pleasure? Surely you don't think you are losing the argument to the point of being relieved by the thought of my departure? Nah, not possible, my argument is mince!