Please wear a helmet guys and gals
Comments
-
Imposter wrote:oblongomaculatus wrote:
Statistically, more people suffer head injuries as pedestrians than cyclists - slipping on ice, tripping over wonky paving, being knocked over crossing the road, etc, so if you take the better safe than sorry line to its logical conclusion you ought to put on a helmet whenever you go for a walk.
What a pointless stat, statistically there is a higher number of pedestrians than there is cyclists so of course more of them get killed/injured.
I remember reading about having helmets as compulsory for car drivers and it got refused as it would back it seem more dangerous than it is, even if it did save lives. Sure a helmet isn't a guaranteed life saver, but even if it makes 1% difference, surely its worth doing for the save of a few poundshttp://app.strava.com/athletes/686217
Come on! You call this a storm? Blow, you son of a bitch! Blow! It's time for a showdown! You and me! I'm right here! Come and get me!0 -
hatch87 wrote:Imposter wrote:oblongomaculatus wrote:
Statistically, more people suffer head injuries as pedestrians than cyclists - slipping on ice, tripping over wonky paving, being knocked over crossing the road, etc, so if you take the better safe than sorry line to its logical conclusion you ought to put on a helmet whenever you go for a walk.
I believe the report that cited that statistic compared cyclist miles versus pedestrian miles, thus neutralising the fact that there are more pedestrians than cyclists. I can't remember where I read it now or I'd post a link to the page which includes the actual figures.What a pointless stat, statistically there is a higher number of pedestrians than there is cyclists so of course more of them get killed/injured.0 -
You can make that argument for just about any piece of life saving kit ...hatch87 wrote:Sure a helmet isn't a guaranteed life saver, but even if it makes 1% difference, surely its worth doing for the save of a few pounds
What if you fell off your bike into a river - should you wear a lifejacket just in case?
Statistically you're 80% less likely to be involved in an RTC if you stay at home - surely it's worth doing that and save (burning off) the few pounds ? Better wear the helmet though - just incase you open a cupboard and a tin of beans falls out.
Am I taking the piss? A little yes, but stop ...
yes stop ..
Think ...
Why are you wearing a helmet? What are you trying to prevent? What is the likelyhood of that happening given the activities (both yours and others) at the time.
Honestly .... I can't see why ppl bang on about helmets being a must without adding in all the other body armour available to cyclists ... clearly they do not think through the purpose of their actions.0 -
Imposter wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:but quickly realised my left elbow was not right.
Correct. Your left elbow is on the left - and your right elbow is on the right. Remember to reverse this when looking in a mirror.
Strange. My right elbow is on the right, even in the mirror. Same with my right leg.0 -
Could it also be that many cyclists wear helmets and pedestrians as a rule do not? THat would certainly account for your pointless statistic...oblongomaculatus wrote:hatch87 wrote:Imposter wrote:oblongomaculatus wrote:
Statistically, more people suffer head injuries as pedestrians than cyclists - slipping on ice, tripping over wonky paving, being knocked over crossing the road, etc, so if you take the better safe than sorry line to its logical conclusion you ought to put on a helmet whenever you go for a walk.
I believe the report that cited that statistic compared cyclist miles versus pedestrian miles, thus neutralising the fact that there are more pedestrians than cyclists. I can't remember where I read it now or I'd post a link to the page which includes the actual figures.What a pointless stat, statistically there is a higher number of pedestrians than there is cyclists so of course more of them get killed/injured.0 -
oblongomaculatus wrote:Statistically, more people suffer head injuries as pedestrians than cyclists - slipping on ice, tripping over wonky paving, being knocked over crossing the road, etc, so if you take the better safe than sorry line to its logical conclusion you ought to put on a helmet whenever you go for a walk.
The population of cyclists does not reflect the population of pedestrians. Therefore, your 'logical' statement is illogical.0 -
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "the population of cyclists does not reflect the population of pedestrians."The population of cyclists does not reflect the population of pedestrians.0 -
oblongomaculatus wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "the population of cyclists does not reflect the population of pedestrians."The population of cyclists does not reflect the population of pedestrians.
Pedestrians include lots of people at all ages, Cyclists are generally fitter, younger, more male etc. You're comparing apples with oranges.0 -
Could it also be that many cyclists wear helmets and pedestrians as a rule do not? THat would certainly account for your pointless statistic...
You mean that more cyclists would have had serious head injuries if they hadn't been wearing a helmet, but because few if any pedestrians wear helmets it's not a fair comparison?
I think that was also factored in, and even then it was statistically more dangerous to be a pedestrian than a cyclist, according to the report.0 -
I didn't say it was impossible or even that it doesn't happen but as OP was keen to describe how this accident occurred I thought I'd point out that the scenario as described doesn't happen in my world. I'm happy that 40+ years of falling off bikes at various speeds in various locations has never resulted in an injury that a helmet would have mitigated, and as I get older my riding seems to involve less not more exposure to risk. There is a risk but hey-ho I'm more than happy to take that gamble. Don't let it bother you - you don't know me, we'll never meet; if the Stats thing disappears due to my untimely death an dthat means the domain & hosting renewal isn't paid next year, that might be the extent of your dismay.Hoopdriver wrote:
I never knew it was impossible to fall on a country road - or at least that it was impossible to hurt yourself. Die in the country, as they say, it's healthier...CiB wrote:I do virtually all of my riding in the countryside where traffic lights, busy junctions and kerbs are a rarity. Would you mind if I pass wrt you advice? Thanks.
What is it about helmet wearing that turns people into hectoring bossy types who get can't believe that someone may not share their same level of risk perception based on any combination of stupidity, belligerence, experience and not really caring? There was a kid stabbed at my son's school not so long back. I don't recall anyone informing us that stab-vests should always be worn just in case. Yet any suggestion that a helmet isn't the automatic first piece of cycling kit brings out the torch-bearers & pitchfork carriers.
Ps - good post oblong chap.0 -
What a shame that another valid opinion and a heartfelt appeal from the OP accompanying a real life event has turned into the proverbial willy waving contest.0
-
You think they factored that in? I'd love to see how.oblongomaculatus wrote:Could it also be that many cyclists wear helmets and pedestrians as a rule do not? THat would certainly account for your pointless statistic...
You mean that more cyclists would have had serious head injuries if they hadn't been wearing a helmet, but because few if any pedestrians wear helmets it's not a fair comparison?
I think that was also factored in, and even then it was statistically more dangerous to be a pedestrian than a cyclist, according to the report.0 -
OMG another helmet thread descends into....
And I fell for it an actually read some of the posts on it. Why, oh why oh why didn't I just not bother? :roll:0 -
GiantMike wrote:oblongomaculatus wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "the population of cyclists does not reflect the population of pedestrians."The population of cyclists does not reflect the population of pedestrians.
Pedestrians include lots of people at all ages, Cyclists are generally fitter, younger, more male etc. You're comparing apples with oranges.
I see what you mean. Fair point. Doddery little old ladies stumbling over kerbs distort the figures because there is no equivalent type of cyclist? Actually, there, is, I've seen a fair few of them wobbling all over the road.
Of course, this is why it's so hard to "prove" anything with statistics. All the same, I think my general point is valid - Cycling is nowhere near as risky as we are sometimes told, and that a helmet is, for the vast majority, not needed, and probably offers much more limited protection than the wearer thinks.0 -
[can of worms] I can't believe that it's morally right to be able to hire a Boris Bike in central London and not have a helmet offered at the same time. These are the people most likely to have an accident.[/can of worms]0
-
You think they factored that in? I'd love to see how.
So would I, it was ages ago and I can't remember the details now, only that it seemed a well argued and compelling report that I found difficulty picking holes in.
I imagine they would need to know what percentage of cyclists don't wear a helmet. Say it's 50% compared to 100% of pedestrians not wearing one. Then you could adjust your figures of accidents per mile accordingly. Something like that, anyway.0 -
GiantMike wrote:Imposter wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:but quickly realised my left elbow was not right.
Correct. Your left elbow is on the left - and your right elbow is on the right. Remember to reverse this when looking in a mirror.
Strange. My right elbow is on the right, even in the mirror. Same with my right leg.
Your mirror is obviously unique then. Because whenever if I stand in front of a mirror and wave my right hand, the bloke looking back at me always waves his left...0 -
I expect that TfL or whoever runs the Boris Bikes is quite happy to allow the weekly carnage to continue as it raises plenty of cash and people are expendable. Either that or despite everything there isn't any or enough evidence to suggest that helmets are needed. Maybe.GiantMike wrote:[can of worms] I can't believe that it's morally right to be able to hire a Boris Bike in central London and not have a helmet offered at the same time. These are the people most likely to have an accident.[/can of worms]
0 -
Slowbike wrote:
Why are you wearing a helmet? What are you trying to prevent? What is the likelyhood of that happening given the activities (both yours and others) at the time.
Honestly .... I can't see why ppl bang on about helmets being a must without adding in all the other body armour available to cyclists ... clearly they do not think through the purpose of their actions.
There is one fundamental flaw in the above.
Risk assessment requires you to look at two things:
Likelihood of an event happening (you cover that)
and
Impact of that risk happening (you ignore that).
The brain is a rather important organ and damage to it can have a huge impact on your life either terms of losing it or maintaining quality of it. So whilst the likelihood of an accident involving your head is probably VERY small, in relation to total miles covered by cyclists in the UK, the impact may drive people to believe that a helmet is worth wearing.
Other parts of the body, generally, do not carry the same level of importance and hence the likelihood of an accident involving an elbow (say) will be higher than that for a head but the impact is much less severe. So the argument for body armour lessens. In fact you could argue that certain body armour could increase the likelihood of an accident by restricting movement or visibility.
That said I beleive it is a matter of personal choice and should not be subject to legislation.
There was a statistical analysis of skiing injuries in order to determine how effective a ski helmet is in protecting the head. The results showed that helmets are effective but that head injuries are so rare in skiing there was little point in wearing a helmet. I wear a ski helmet but not so much for the protection from injury but because they keep my, very bald, head warm.0 -
Knew I had it somewhere to hand. When we have a helmet debate I like to post this. No-one ever bothers to comment on it or point out any fallacies it may have but I like it, and send it to my old mother occasionally when she remembers that she thinks helmets are vital even though she's never worn one in her life even when she used to ride us to school across the fields.
Here we go... Enjoy.Coming from New Zealand, I can speak with first-hand experience of a 100% compliance regime of helmet wearing.
It makes no difference whatsoever to the KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) rate. At all. What it did do is overnight drastically reduce the numbers of people riding, particularly among teenagers and for trips to the shops etc. Exactly the sort of trip the government needs to be promoting by bike. Weekend long rides are good for our overall health as a nation but do nothing to reduce traffic, carbon emissions or balance of payments to oil-producing nations.
But explaining 20 years of evidence with a 3M+ size statistical survey pales into nothing compared to anecdote. "My mate had a crash and his head would have been ripped clean orf if not for his £100 Giro" is much easier to sell down the pub than the evidence-based fact that KSI rates per million km cycled across 3m people did not change at all following 100% helmet uptake.
Risk transference, rotational brain injury, reduction of Safety In Numbers all have some part to play in making helmets a bad idea when viewed at a population level. Anecdote is a ***** to argue against because it's so personal.
What is absolutely not an argument is comparison with M/C helmets. MC helmets are rock-hard, so they deflect and slide on the road. Modern bike helmets are full of holes for cooling, are very soft (you can dent them with your thumb) and don't slide at all. When you hit tarmac they grip the surface and twist. Hello rotational brain / neck injury. BMX lids are hard-shell, because they don't need the cooling and thus are acceptable to riders, and therefore do a good job in a very risky sport. 20 years ago all bike helmets were like BMX lids, but consumers didn't buy them. So Bell / Giro et al lobbied to have the standards lowered to the point where 200gm of Swiss cheese foam gets an ANSI/CE mark as being 'safe'. But 'safe' means adequately decelerating a 5KG mass dropped from 2m onto a flat smooth surface. The idea that a 6' cyclist weighing 80kg going over the bars at 30MPH equates to 5kg dropped from 2m is so laughable as to be, er, laughable. THAT is why so many helmets break in very minor crashes - because the standard is a joke tailored by manufacturers to fit what consumers will spend £80 on.
I'll wear a helmet for a trip to the shops or the ride to work when I start wearing one in the shower or at the swimming pool, or in the car. That should be the rebuttal to anyone who thinks helmets on bikes are A Good Thing: straight back atcha – Do you wear one in the bath too? In a taxi? When it's a bit snowy outside? Why not eh?
People advocating helmet use based on the fact that some aspects of cycling are risky don't extend the analogy to other pursuits. Why not wear one in your car - after all, F1 racers do. Or wear a helmet while walking up Ben Nevis - after all, mountain climbers wear helmets.
Cycling encompasses a hugely varying spectrum of pursuits and participants. From world-cup DH racing to my Nan coasting to church on Sunday at 8am.
Riddle me this, helmet champions:
a) The likelihood of being in an accident in the first place
b) That accident being likely to cause death or SHI
c) Likelihood that a helmet would have made a jot of difference
All 3 must align to justify wearing a lid. Thankfully you'd have to ride 8hrs a day, 365 days a year for around 3,000 years before statistically being likely to suffer a KSI cropper, and almost all of the time a helmet would not have stopped that HGV or TV celeb chef doing you in.
This is why in the 60's / 70's / 80's there was no epidemic of cycling deaths. Why our mums were fine with us disappearing for a day with our BMX mates. This is why when helmets became compulsory or prevalent, there was no noticeable decline in KSI.
Because CYCLING IS SAFE. Safer than being in a car. Just as if not safer than walking.
<nails colours to mast> I actually do take issue with people wearing helmets for everyday cycling. It is not harmless. It sends out a highly visible message to everyone that cycling IS dangerous - why else do you need a flipping huge, expensive helmet? That alone discourages people from cycling, or letting their children cycle. It tells motorists that they need take less care around you, because, y'know, you are wearing a helmet. You're safe. You'll be OK if something goes wrong. Because of herd mentality it means the parents who don't insist their children wear them are seen as not caring about their kids. When in fact forcing children to wear helmets is teaching them to take silly risks - they think they will be OK because mum says I need to wear my helmet to be safe.
Nothing has done cycling more harm than helmets. Governments love them because they can then abdicate responsibility to the cyclist. The media almost always report that the dead cyclist "was not wearing a helmet" - cue tut-tutting and 'he brought it on himself' from the uninformed public. The fact that he suffered other massive injuries and would have died regardless is just too hard to convey and doesn't invoke any sense of moral judgment on the reader's behalf.
The helmet manufacturers should be heartily ashamed of themselves, as should bike shops profiting from the fear-mongering used to sell them. How screwed-up is the logic of a sales person saying "Here, buy this health-benefit inducing bike, but wear this or you will die".
Gaa. Nothing annoys me more than basic science and evidence being ignored. And anyone advocating helmets as A Good Thing for day-to-day cycling ignores all the evidence to the contrary.0 -
CiB wrote:Knew I had it somewhere to hand. When we have a helmet debate I like to post this. No-one ever bothers to comment on it or point out any fallacies it may have but I like it, and send it to my old mother occasionally when she remembers that she thinks helmets are vital even though she's never worn one in her life even when she used to ride us to school across the fields.
Here we go... Enjoy.
The point about rotational injury is well made but out of date. Polystyrene will drag and cause rotational injury but most, if not all, modern helmets have a hard plastic shell which slides reducing the risk (there's that word again) of rotation injury.
Older helmets did not have the hard plastic outer.0 -
Gee, a comment - rant? - from somebody from as far away as New Zealand. Must be right then.CiB wrote:Knew I had it somewhere to hand. When we have a helmet debate I like to post this. No-one ever bothers to comment on it or point out any fallacies it may have but I like it, and send it to my old mother occasionally when she remembers that she thinks helmets are vital even though she's never worn one in her life even when she used to ride us to school across the fields.
Here we go... Enjoy.Coming from New Zealand, I can speak with first-hand experience of a 100% compliance regime of helmet wearing.
It makes no difference whatsoever to the KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) rate. At all. What it did do is overnight drastically reduce the numbers of people riding, particularly among teenagers and for trips to the shops etc. Exactly the sort of trip the government needs to be promoting by bike. Weekend long rides are good for our overall health as a nation but do nothing to reduce traffic, carbon emissions or balance of payments to oil-producing nations.
But explaining 20 years of evidence with a 3M+ size statistical survey pales into nothing compared to anecdote. "My mate had a crash and his head would have been ripped clean orf if not for his £100 Giro" is much easier to sell down the pub than the evidence-based fact that KSI rates per million km cycled across 3m people did not change at all following 100% helmet uptake.
Risk transference, rotational brain injury, reduction of Safety In Numbers all have some part to play in making helmets a bad idea when viewed at a population level. Anecdote is a ***** to argue against because it's so personal.
What is absolutely not an argument is comparison with M/C helmets. MC helmets are rock-hard, so they deflect and slide on the road. Modern bike helmets are full of holes for cooling, are very soft (you can dent them with your thumb) and don't slide at all. When you hit tarmac they grip the surface and twist. Hello rotational brain / neck injury. BMX lids are hard-shell, because they don't need the cooling and thus are acceptable to riders, and therefore do a good job in a very risky sport. 20 years ago all bike helmets were like BMX lids, but consumers didn't buy them. So Bell / Giro et al lobbied to have the standards lowered to the point where 200gm of Swiss cheese foam gets an ANSI/CE mark as being 'safe'. But 'safe' means adequately decelerating a 5KG mass dropped from 2m onto a flat smooth surface. The idea that a 6' cyclist weighing 80kg going over the bars at 30MPH equates to 5kg dropped from 2m is so laughable as to be, er, laughable. THAT is why so many helmets break in very minor crashes - because the standard is a joke tailored by manufacturers to fit what consumers will spend £80 on.
I'll wear a helmet for a trip to the shops or the ride to work when I start wearing one in the shower or at the swimming pool, or in the car. That should be the rebuttal to anyone who thinks helmets on bikes are A Good Thing: straight back atcha – Do you wear one in the bath too? In a taxi? When it's a bit snowy outside? Why not eh?
People advocating helmet use based on the fact that some aspects of cycling are risky don't extend the analogy to other pursuits. Why not wear one in your car - after all, F1 racers do. Or wear a helmet while walking up Ben Nevis - after all, mountain climbers wear helmets.
Cycling encompasses a hugely varying spectrum of pursuits and participants. From world-cup DH racing to my Nan coasting to church on Sunday at 8am.
Riddle me this, helmet champions:
a) The likelihood of being in an accident in the first place
b) That accident being likely to cause death or SHI
c) Likelihood that a helmet would have made a jot of difference
All 3 must align to justify wearing a lid. Thankfully you'd have to ride 8hrs a day, 365 days a year for around 3,000 years before statistically being likely to suffer a KSI cropper, and almost all of the time a helmet would not have stopped that HGV or TV celeb chef doing you in.
This is why in the 60's / 70's / 80's there was no epidemic of cycling deaths. Why our mums were fine with us disappearing for a day with our BMX mates. This is why when helmets became compulsory or prevalent, there was no noticeable decline in KSI.
Because CYCLING IS SAFE. Safer than being in a car. Just as if not safer than walking.
<nails colours to mast> I actually do take issue with people wearing helmets for everyday cycling. It is not harmless. It sends out a highly visible message to everyone that cycling IS dangerous - why else do you need a flipping huge, expensive helmet? That alone discourages people from cycling, or letting their children cycle. It tells motorists that they need take less care around you, because, y'know, you are wearing a helmet. You're safe. You'll be OK if something goes wrong. Because of herd mentality it means the parents who don't insist their children wear them are seen as not caring about their kids. When in fact forcing children to wear helmets is teaching them to take silly risks - they think they will be OK because mum says I need to wear my helmet to be safe.
Nothing has done cycling more harm than helmets. Governments love them because they can then abdicate responsibility to the cyclist. The media almost always report that the dead cyclist "was not wearing a helmet" - cue tut-tutting and 'he brought it on himself' from the uninformed public. The fact that he suffered other massive injuries and would have died regardless is just too hard to convey and doesn't invoke any sense of moral judgment on the reader's behalf.
The helmet manufacturers should be heartily ashamed of themselves, as should bike shops profiting from the fear-mongering used to sell them. How screwed-up is the logic of a sales person saying "Here, buy this health-benefit inducing bike, but wear this or you will die".
Gaa. Nothing annoys me more than basic science and evidence being ignored. And anyone advocating helmets as A Good Thing for day-to-day cycling ignores all the evidence to the contrary.0 -
You're going to discount a comment/report/rant based on the geographical distance from the Originator?!Hoopdriver wrote:Gee, a comment - rant? - from somebody from as far away as New Zealand. Must be right then.0 -
Must have been a bad day yesterday for crashes because I had one as well!
I was in a 50m TT and travelling at 28mph when I hit a pot hole and came down. My head hit first followed unsuccessfully by my shoulder. My TT helmet is a write off and I reckon it saved me from a serious head injury, maybe more. Unfortunatly my collarbone didn't do so well as my head!
My point is, I don't agree with compulsion but with persuasion. Don't wear one if you don't want to but if you don't and you survive a crash then don't complain you weren't warned.Norfolk, who nicked all the hills?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3013/243 ... 8d.jpg?v=0
http://img362.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... 076tl5.jpg
http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/3407 ... e001af.jpg0 -
Hoopdriver wrote:Gee, a comment - rant? - from somebody from as far away as New Zealand. Must be right then. See my earlier point about pitchforks and torch-bearers. I don't care if you wear one. There seems to be a lot of angst aimed at those of us who've survived thus far without.
Carry on.
BTW NZ because they introduced a mandatory helmet law. See?0 -
A review of research (updated in 2000) reached the following conclusion:Conclusions
The wearing of helmets by cyclists is a controversial and very emotive subject. It is not always easy to
disentangle fact from conjecture and views can be strongly polarised. Also, people often find it
difficult to make a logical assessment of relative risk.
Although there has been much research into cycle helmets, too much of this is suspect with regard to
assumptons made and control groups used. It does not relate well to real-world circumstances. Most
research has been predictive in nature and based on small samples. Little has looked at the results that
have actually been achieved in large population samples when helmet use has increased significantly.
No research has put the risk of head injury when cycling into perspective with the risk from other
common activities and the overall effect on life expectancy and health.
It seems reasonable to expect that reductions in injuries brought about through the wearing of cycle
helmets would be reflected in the general accident statistics in places where helmet use has become
significant. This should particularly be the case if the more optimistic predictions for injury reduction
are correct. However, whole population statistics from Australia, New Zealand, the United States and
Canada show no distinguishable change in fatalities, and statistics for London show no such change
for any severity of injury, as helmet use has increased substantially.
This suggests that the real-world performance of cycle helmets may be falling well short of the
predictions that have been made.
Revised June 2000
Source: http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/effectiveness.pdf0 -
No, just the way it was presentedSlowbike wrote:
You're going to discount a comment/report/rant based on the geographical distance from the Originator?!Hoopdriver wrote:Gee, a comment - rant? - from somebody from as far away as New Zealand. Must be right then.0 -
I couldn't give a stuff if you wear a helmet or not. I am not for compulsion.CiB wrote:Hoopdriver wrote:Gee, a comment - rant? - from somebody from as far away as New Zealand. Must be right then. See my earlier point about pitchforks and torch-bearers. I don't care if you wear one. There seems to be a lot of angst aimed at those of us who've survived thus far without.
Carry on.
BTW NZ because they introduced a mandatory helmet law. See?0 -
Wow, wish I hadn't said anything now. I'm no telling any one to wear a helmet, just sharing my experience. Everyone is entitled to make their own choice. I'm glad I was wearing on yesterday.0
-
Ah well - there you go you see ... you were ASKING everyone to wear a helmet .. whilst it's polite to ask and nothing wrong with that, it can quite often lead to compulsion - either through peer pressure* or law.Slim Boy Fat wrote:Wow, wish I hadn't said anything now. I'm no telling any one to wear a helmet, just sharing my experience. Everyone is entitled to make their own choice. I'm glad I was wearing on yesterday.
I do wonder how many ppl have carried out experiments on the effect of impact on the head ... I've had two memorable knocks (neither involving cycling) - both my own silly fault - neither activity is known for wearing helmets and I doubt a helmet would've made much difference. Both encounters resulted in me being "stunned" - as in not unconscious, no visible damage but requiring a minute or two to "compose" myself.
Did I sustain any lasting damage? Not that I can tell ...
*You can't enter many sportives without wearing your helmet ...0
