Helmets don't make you safer !
Comments
-
nice first post.0
-
My high spleen is always having collisions
0 -
This shit made the front page wtf0
-
Arrrrrrrrg! It's a Tech invasion!! Run for your lives!!Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0
-
Completely agree, no 'safer' whatsoever! Saw a survey that said wearing a blonde wig was better and wobbling occasionally. Apparently drivers saw woman wobbling as much more vulnerable - not sure how they would respond if I wore my spleen on my head though.....0
-
The only inclusion that I can make from this thread, is that the OP is a moron.Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
Risk compensation, both by the cyclist and driver. It is an incredibly complex area and way, way too complicated for our current political system, where a single issue group campaigns noisily in "four legs good, two legs bad" mode, our press report it without analysis or criticism and thick politicians thunder "something must be done!".
What about wearing a blonde wig on top of the helmet? Best of both worlds.0 -
Oh here we go, yet another helmet debate thread. Well, I guess it must be a few weeks since the last one fizzled out.
Oh, hang on, a new poster? With a name remarkably similar to a forumite well known for, errr, contentious and not always very well thought out posts? Choosing one of the most clichéd and contentious topics?
I suspect if they check the IP it'll look a bit close to one of the usual BB/ cake stop suspects, perhaps a fan of one Alexander Vinokourov?
You'll have to try harder.
Or the really worrying possibility is that I'm wrong....0 -
You are wrong. I joined a week or two ago and have no idea who you are talking about. I'd suggest that your post was wildly more contentious than mine.bompington wrote:Oh here we go, yet another helmet debate thread. Well, I guess it must be a few weeks since the last one fizzled out.
Oh, hang on, a new poster? With a name remarkably similar to a forumite well known for, errr, contentious and not always very well thought out posts? Choosing one of the most clichéd and contentious topics?
I suspect if they check the IP it'll look a bit close to one of the usual BB/ cake stop suspects, perhaps a fan of one Alexander Vinokourov?
You'll have to try harder.
Or the really worrying possibility is that I'm wrong....
By all means check my IP address though.0 -
funnily enough, there is a BMJ paper on helmet provision doing the rounds, written by Ben Goldacre (a cyclist and author of Bad Science column in the grauniad) which is a really good analysis of the pro/anti helmet debate and whether to legislate or not"I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, how good is that"
--Jens Voight0 -
bompington was referring to the OP (original post) G-tech. Whose similarity to another notorious forum member had already been noticed by a very clever and handsome forum member.rpherts wrote:
You are wrong. I joined a week or two ago and have no idea who you are talking about. I'd suggest that your post was wildly more contentious than mine.bompington wrote:Oh here we go, yet another helmet debate thread. Well, I guess it must be a few weeks since the last one fizzled out.
Oh, hang on, a new poster? With a name remarkably similar to a forumite well known for, errr, contentious and not always very well thought out posts? Choosing one of the most clichéd and contentious topics?
I suspect if they check the IP it'll look a bit close to one of the usual BB/ cake stop suspects, perhaps a fan of one Alexander Vinokourov?
You'll have to try harder.
Or the really worrying possibility is that I'm wrong....
By all means check my IP address though.
Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0 -
Yeah, fair enough. I just realised your comment referenced it too ;-)seanoconn wrote:bompington was referring to the OP (original post) G-tech. Whose similarity to another notorious forum member had already been noticed by a very clever and handsome forum member.0 -
A helmet could save your life. FACT!G-Tech wrote:Drivers tend to take less care when faced with a cyclist wearing a helmet. They give more room to those who do without.
On what do you base that? What evidence do you have to back that up? I cycle in London everyday, and I can tell you I'll be keeping my helmet firmly on. Furthermore, I don't think bus or taxi drivers here (or anywhere for that matter) discriminate against cyclists wearing helmets to those that don't.G-Tech wrote:Plus if you're unlucky enough to be involved in a high spleen collision a helmet won't prevent a significant brain injury.
If I were involved in a high "spleen" collision, I'd still prefer my odds of survival, however small, wearing a helmet.
What a pointless post :roll:0 -
So could a lifejacket ....TheSmithers wrote:A helmet could save your life. FACT!0 -
Slowbike wrote:
So could a lifejacket ....TheSmithers wrote:A helmet could save your life. FACT!
Yes but if you and your bike are hit from the side or rear you probably won't have time to pull the cord to inflate your life jacket before impact with bonnet or ground.0 -
Simple attach the rip cord to you cross bar and it will inflate every time you fall off your bike. Think we are on to something here
I am going to ask for legislation to be passed that make the wearing of a life jacket compulsory if you ride a bike - and just in case it fails that you wear a rubber ring as a fail safe - oohh and flippers to stop you feet slipping off the pedals in the wet (people with clipless pedals and cleats will of course be exempt from the flippers but they should wear arm bands to protect them from comedy dismounts).0 -
jonomc4 wrote:Simple attach the rip cord to you cross bar and it will inflate every time you fall off your bike. Think we are on to something here
I am going to ask for legislation to be passed that make the wearing of a life jacket compulsory if you ride a bike - and just in case it fails that you wear a rubber ring as a fail safe - oohh and flippers to stop you feet slipping off the pedals in the wet (people with clipless pedals and cleats will of course be exempt from the flippers but they should wear arm bands to protect them from comedy dismounts).
But won't the flippers fail the UCI 3:1 ratio for aero advantage? Let's be honest, if Wiggo's Bonts were rejected I can't see flippers being accepted.
Furthermore, I am worried that these riders who have Di2 could cause sparks when impacting with cars and their fuel tanks. In your leglislation can you ensure you include a mudflap on all Di2 bikes - the mudflap must touch the ground and include an earthing strip.0 -
izza wrote:jonomc4 wrote:Simple attach the rip cord to you cross bar and it will inflate every time you fall off your bike. Think we are on to something here
I am going to ask for legislation to be passed that make the wearing of a life jacket compulsory if you ride a bike - and just in case it fails that you wear a rubber ring as a fail safe - oohh and flippers to stop you feet slipping off the pedals in the wet (people with clipless pedals and cleats will of course be exempt from the flippers but they should wear arm bands to protect them from comedy dismounts).
But won't the flippers fail the UCI 3:1 ratio for aero advantage? Let's be honest, if Wiggo's Bonts were rejected I can't see flippers being accepted.
Furthermore, I am worried that these riders who have Di2 could cause sparks when impacting with cars and their fuel tanks. In your leglislation can you ensure you include a mudflap on all Di2 bikes - the mudflap must touch the ground and include an earthing strip.
Doh! all those professional bikey types in that there TDF have clipless pedals - so no need for flippers - see thought of that! - But grounding for all Di2 bikes makes perfect sense - well thought of. Maybe we should have a man with a red flag walk in front of the TDF leader?0 -
Slowbike wrote:
So could a lifejacket ....TheSmithers wrote:A helmet could save your life. FACT!
Your point being?0 -
jonomc4 wrote:izza wrote:jonomc4 wrote:Simple attach the rip cord to you cross bar and it will inflate every time you fall off your bike. Think we are on to something here
I am going to ask for legislation to be passed that make the wearing of a life jacket compulsory if you ride a bike - and just in case it fails that you wear a rubber ring as a fail safe - oohh and flippers to stop you feet slipping off the pedals in the wet (people with clipless pedals and cleats will of course be exempt from the flippers but they should wear arm bands to protect them from comedy dismounts).
But won't the flippers fail the UCI 3:1 ratio for aero advantage? Let's be honest, if Wiggo's Bonts were rejected I can't see flippers being accepted.
Furthermore, I am worried that these riders who have Di2 could cause sparks when impacting with cars and their fuel tanks. In your leglislation can you ensure you include a mudflap on all Di2 bikes - the mudflap must touch the ground and include an earthing strip.
Doh! all those professional bikey types in that there TDF have clipless pedals - so no need for flippers - see thought of that! - But grounding for all Di2 bikes makes perfect sense - well thought of. Maybe we should have a man with a red flag walk in front of the TDF leader?
I think you're onto something there. However, the leader of the TdF surely would have to have a yellow flag, Cavendish will want Usain Bolt waving a green flag and whilst Boonen won't care as to colour of flag he will want his flagbearer dropping white powder out of their pockets whilst they run.0 -
Helmets don't make you safer !
Tell that to the countless number who have come off and saved by the helmet. Me included.
A bare head hitting the ground at any speed is worse than one hitting with protection.
I cannot believe the utter Bull Sh** and ill-informed comments about Helmet use spread by those who are anti-helmet / anti safety and don't know what they are on about.
"its crap becuase they are tested up to 12mph" is also a argument that is totally flawed. Motorcycle helmets are tested at 3 meters, about 17 mph ........ got you thinking?
"The typical road or trail bike crash involves a drop to pavement. The important energy in that crash is supplied by gravity, not by forward speed. Although forward speed can contribute some additional energy, the main force is the attraction of gravity, and the impact severity is determined by the height of your head above the pavement when the fall begins. It is gravity that determines how fast your helmet closes with the pavement. Some of the crash energy is often "scrubbed off" by hitting first with other body parts.
The typical bicycle crash impact occurs at a force level equating to about 1 meter (3 feet) of drop, or a falling speed of 10 MPH.
The rider's forward speed before the crash may be considerably higher than that, but the speed of the head closing with the ground, plus a component of the forward speed, less any energy "scrubbed off" in other ways, normally average out at about 10 MPH."
So on the TDF Next time there's a 40MPH+ Crash... look out for the guy not wearing a helmet as most of his head will be across the road. 0 -
It is all about personal choice. There is a similar argument raging in the sailing world about life jackets. Given I can swim I feel I don't need to wear one all the time. Picture two scenes. The first at an idilic anchorage on a sunny day eating lunch on a boat. The second is an offshore race in big seas and strong winds with low water temperatures. Most people can decide what is appropriate. Cycling is no different. It is about personal choice and then accepting the consequences of your choice.0
-
If I hit my head on the ground I'd rather do it with a helmet on. Only an idiot wouldn't.0
-
fortyone,
Your post strikes me as an attempt at understatement coming on as wisdom, but it is really bo**ocks and anxiety trying to disguise itself. As everyone who has worn a helmet and hit their head will tell you it's best not to hit your head at all.
The OP is quite right, Helmets do not make you safer. Try this link http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html You will read that compulsion in wearing helmets in New Zealand since 1994 has not resulted in any drop in head injuries. This while compelling riders to wear the things has halved the aggregate total of KMs travelled by bike. If helmets were worth a damn this would not have been the case. For the avoidance of doubt here I am not making a point about compulsion. I am making the point that helmets do not work.
While it seems obvious that if you are going to take a blow to the head it would be better to protect your head with a helmet it is less obvious if the wearing of said helmet is a key cause in taking said blow.WeAdmire.net
13-15 Great Eastern Street
London EC2A 3EJ0 -
I said a bit on this subject on another thread some time ago, and don't really want to go into all that again, but having said that...
Everything we do carries a potential risk, and we balance that risk against possible catastrophic consequences. But the chances of dying next time you get on your bike are very, very small. In 2012, 118 cyclists died in Britain 107 as a result of a collision with a vehicle (one case of which, incidentally, is being treated as murder). As it is estimated that Britain's cyclists collectively travelled 3,371,428, 504 miles that year, that works out at one death per 28,571,428 miles, or put another way, 35 per one billion miles. I think that makes it a low risk activity; As a relatively high milage cyclist covering about 12,000 miles a year, I would have to ride for some 2,380 years without a helmet before I could "expect" to have a fatal accident, even assuming that all those fatalities were from head injures, and that none were wearing helmets, and they would all have survived if they had been (most unlikely). I choose not to wear a helmet because I find them uncomfortable (all hats, actually, I don't wear a sun hat for the same reason; even gentle pressure on my scalp tends to induce a headache). So what I'm balancing is the very slight risk of dying (assuming a helmet will always save your life if you crash, which can't be true) against a slight increase in comfort and overall feeling of well being. I'm fine with that, others may not be. It should be a personal choice.
Finally, and I made this point in that other thread, for those that think that however slight the risk, you should wear a helmet just in case, those 35 deaths per billion miles for cyclists compares with 42 deaths per billion miles for pedestrians, so if you think it's not worth the risk of getting on a bike without a helmet, you should by that logic also be wearing one when you go for a walk.
Figures I quote are from this site:
http://cyclinguphill.com/safe-cycling-s ... asualties/0 -
oblongomaculatus wrote:I said a bit on this subject on another thread some time ago, and don't really want to go into all that again, but having said that...
Everything we do carries a potential risk, and we balance that risk against possible catastrophic consequences. But the chances of dying next time you get on your bike are very, very small. In 2012, 118 cyclists died in Britain 107 as a result of a collision with a vehicle (one case of which, incidentally, is being treated as murder). As it is estimated that Britain's cyclists collectively travelled 3,371,428, 504 miles that year, that works out at one death per 28,571,428 miles, or put another way, 35 per one billion miles. I think that makes it a low risk activity; As a relatively high milage cyclist covering about 12,000 miles a year, I would have to ride for some 2,380 years without a helmet before I could "expect" to have a fatal accident, even assuming that all those fatalities were from head injures, and that none were wearing helmets, and they would all have survived if they had been (most unlikely). I choose not to wear a helmet because I find them uncomfortable (all hats, actually, I don't wear a sun hat for the same reason; even gentle pressure on my scalp tends to induce a headache). So what I'm balancing is the very slight risk of dying (assuming a helmet will always save your life if you crash, which can't be true) against a slight increase in comfort and overall feeling of well being. I'm fine with that, others may not be. It should be a personal choice.
Finally, and I made this point in that other thread, for those that think that however slight the risk, you should wear a helmet just in case, those 35 deaths per billion miles for cyclists compares with 42 deaths per billion miles for pedestrians, so if you think it's not worth the risk of getting on a bike without a helmet, you should by that logic also be wearing one when you go for a walk.
Figures I quote are from this site:
http://cyclinguphill.com/safe-cycling-s ... asualties/
.... forgetting the fact you (and many others) based that on number of deaths. How many cycling accidents happened where the cyclist didn't die because his/her head was protected by a helmet ? :roll:
Same goes for car accidents where driver life was saved by seat belt, airbag and other safety measures.
Only just last week I spoke to a neighbour who was knocked off his bike by a car turning left off the main road he was travelling on. His helmet split apart as he hit the floor - Life most probably saved. If he wasn't wearing a helmet that would have been his skull.
I cannot believe how stupid some people are on here. Probably the same cyclists who jump red lights "becuase its safe" and ride 2 abreast on country roads. :x0 -
rickeverett wrote:
.... forgetting the fact you (and many others) based that on number of deaths. How many cycling accidents happened where the cyclist didn't die because his/her head was protected by a helmet ? :roll:
So how many? I don't have those figures and neither I suspect does anyone else, because It's almost impossible to be sure that a helmet was the difference between living and dying in any particular instance. A split helmet does not prove that and may just mean that it was a flimsy and easily broken item. I compared pedestrian deaths with cyclist deaths because there is a constant in both cases, ie, someone has died, though the figures seem to show much the same thing with serious injuries. Of course, you can assume that none of the pedestrians were wearing helmets. You can also assume that some of the cyclists were and it didn't save them. I am not denying that in some cases wearing a helmet can make the difference between living and dying, my point was that your chances of dying in a cycling accident are, statistically tiny whether you wear one or not.
And for the record, I do not jump red lights, ride two abreast on country roads, ride on the pavement or at night without lights, or any of the other things cyclists do which they are not supposed to.0 -
rickeverett,
".... forgetting the fact you (and many others) based that on number of deaths. How many cycling accidents happened where the cyclist didn't die because his/her head was protected by a helmet ?"
You strike me as a true believer - like the Armstrong fanboys who looked for every means of denying the obvious. Some even after he had admitted it. You are not dealing in "facts", you are dealing in anecdotes about other people's experiences. Do you have any of your own? Have you for example ever cycled 1000 miles in a month let alone 12,000 miles in a year in the way oblongomaculatus says he does?
Otherwise no one is forgetting the "facts" might be distorted because those who are saved were not counted. Why? Probably because there haven't been any where the wearing of a helmet saved the life of the wearer. For the avoidance of doubt I think oblongomaculatus is being too balanced and reticent in apparently conceding that someone might have been saved by their helmet. You clearly think it is a given that helmets save lives. If so read the relevant threads on this board and refute the evidence of population level stats in Australia and New Zealand for a start. Until then best to shut up about "facts".
"Same goes for car accidents where driver life was saved by seat belt, airbag and other safety measures."
You are the nth person and his dog to try and develop an equivalence between seat belts in motor vehicles and helmets. There isn't one.
"Only just last week I spoke to a neighbour who was knocked off his bike by a car turning left off the main road he was travelling on. His helmet split apart as he hit the floor - Life most probably saved. If he wasn't wearing a helmet that would have been his skull."
No it wouldn't have, the closest you can get is that it may have been his skull and his skull not being made of polystyrene is unlikely to have cracked in the same way. Even in the less likely event he had hit his head had he not been wearing the helmet.
"I cannot believe how stupid some people are on here. Probably the same cyclists who jump red lights "becuase its safe" and ride 2 abreast on country roads."
That's probably because understanding is not a bedfellow of stupidity...and you are demonstrably stupid. And with regard to being stupid I notice you throw accusations of stupidity round like confetti. I think you are over compensating.
And since you raise the issue of traffic lights: Unlike oblongomaculatus I look for traffic not lights and act accordingly. I have been badly smashed up, broken bones smashed up, many times at traffic light controlled junctions. In every case the lights were green in my favour. I have never come close to being hit jumping red lights. My experience precisely matches that of the reported experience of cyclists killed at traffic light controlled junctions in London between January 1999 and October 2006. The numbers between Jan 99 and Oct 06 run something like 100 killed at light controlled junctions out of a grand total of 135. All of the 100 were obeying the lights, none of the cyclists killed were jumping the lights. There is a Road Transport Laboratory report, commissioned by Transport for London, that looked into the phenomenon of traffic light compliant cyclists being killed. The conclusion was it is safer to jump lights as a cyclist than to obey them. You can obtain a copy with a freedom of information request to Transport for London.WeAdmire.net
13-15 Great Eastern Street
London EC2A 3EJ0 -
weadmire wrote:I think oblongomaculatus is being too balanced and reticent in apparently conceding that someone might have been saved by their helmet.
Yes, I was probably being a bit reticent, because it's a difficult thing to prove (one way or another). You're dealing with what might have happened... and anything might have happened! But I do I think that most impacts to the head in bike crashes are either too slight to cause a fatality with or without a helmet, or so severe that they would be fatal with or without a helmet. Somewhere in between those two extremes there will be impacts which would be fatal without a helmet and survivable with one. I suspect that the range would be a rather narrow one, but can't prove it, as it's not something you can test adequately. For a start, you'd need live human volunteers...
I don't wear a helmet for three reasons; I personally find them uncomfortable; the risk of injury is so slight as to make them unnecessary; The way helmets have become ubiquitous reinforces the belief that you MUST wear specialist safety equipment for every type of cycle ride. Jeremy Clarkson, of all people, put this last point rather well in the Top Gear cycling film the other week. Pointing at a passing London cyclist, he said, "Look! He's wearing normal clothes! He's going to DIE!"0 -
weadmire wrote:rickeverett,
".... forgetting the fact you (and many others) based that on number of deaths. How many cycling accidents happened where the cyclist didn't die because his/her head was protected by a helmet ?"
You strike me as a true believer - like the Armstrong fanboys who looked for every means of denying the obvious. Some even after he had admitted it. You are not dealing in "facts", you are dealing in anecdotes about other people's experiences. Do you have any of your own? Have you for example ever cycled 1000 miles in a month let alone 12,000 miles in a year in the way oblongomaculatus says he does?
Otherwise no one is forgetting the "facts" might be distorted because those who are saved were not counted. Why? Probably because there haven't been any where the wearing of a helmet saved the life of the wearer. For the avoidance of doubt I think oblongomaculatus is being too balanced and reticent in apparently conceding that someone might have been saved by their helmet. You clearly think it is a given that helmets save lives. If so read the relevant threads on this board and refute the evidence of population level stats in Australia and New Zealand for a start. Until then best to shut up about "facts".
"Same goes for car accidents where driver life was saved by seat belt, airbag and other safety measures."
You are the nth person and his dog to try and develop an equivalence between seat belts in motor vehicles and helmets. There isn't one.
"Only just last week I spoke to a neighbour who was knocked off his bike by a car turning left off the main road he was travelling on. His helmet split apart as he hit the floor - Life most probably saved. If he wasn't wearing a helmet that would have been his skull."
No it wouldn't have, the closest you can get is that it may have been his skull and his skull not being made of polystyrene is unlikely to have cracked in the same way. Even in the less likely event he had hit his head had he not been wearing the helmet.
"I cannot believe how stupid some people are on here. Probably the same cyclists who jump red lights "becuase its safe" and ride 2 abreast on country roads."
That's probably because understanding is not a bedfellow of stupidity...and you are demonstrably stupid. And with regard to being stupid I notice you throw accusations of stupidity round like confetti. I think you are over compensating.
And since you raise the issue of traffic lights: Unlike oblongomaculatus I look for traffic not lights and act accordingly. I have been badly smashed up, broken bones smashed up, many times at traffic light controlled junctions. In every case the lights were green in my favour. I have never come close to being hit jumping red lights. My experience precisely matches that of the reported experience of cyclists killed at traffic light controlled junctions in London between January 1999 and October 2006. The numbers between Jan 99 and Oct 06 run something like 100 killed at light controlled junctions out of a grand total of 135. All of the 100 were obeying the lights, none of the cyclists killed were jumping the lights. There is a Road Transport Laboratory report, commissioned by Transport for London, that looked into the phenomenon of traffic light compliant cyclists being killed. The conclusion was it is safer to jump lights as a cyclist than to obey them. You can obtain a copy with a freedom of information request to Transport for London.
Ŵell looks like your the ultimate dick cyclist then. Red light is a law for all road users. Just fucking obey it. They are killed by vehicles, not by waiting at a light... In many cases turning into the path. One can argue the cyclist shouldn't be going up the inside of a lorry etc in the first place.
London is different to other parts of the country. Drivers and cyclists are more dickish down there to begin with. Promoting a London culture of disobeying laws of the road just to suit you is wrong.
Your attitude is the classic arrogant cyclist people are beginning to despise. Which in turn is leading to more anti cyclist behaviour and media.
And yes. Helmets do make you safer. I guess by your logic, motorcyclists, all professional cyclists in tdf etc, people in winter sports, racing drivers and everyone else who wares a helmet will do just fine without one.0
