Please wear a helmet guys and gals

12357

Comments

  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 16,003
    Slowbike wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    The pedestrian in the shower has worked out for himself that all things considered he will be safe without a helmet.
    Yes - but what about the cyclist in the shower?! Or does that depend if he's got slicks or knobblies on ... ;)

  • murvis1er
    murvis1er Posts: 57
    edited July 2013
    oblongomaculatus wrote:
    I understand what you're saying but my point would be that the helmet is designed to deform making the very short time interval very slightly longer. Momentum change stays the same, but the force exerted on the brain from that change is less. The shock will be less with rate of deceleration being reduced as a result of the extra few ms of impact time.

    Yes, I'd agree with that, but would those few ms difference be enough to prevent the sort of brain injury we're talking about? Very difficult to say I'd have thought.

    Agreed, you'd have to test it. I've not seen any results but going by what I've learned from past lectures on auto impact testing in some cases it might be..

    I'd like to point out that I'm not advocating helmet laws. Personally I choose to wear one, and I'd advise wearing one, but as said in a previous post people can and should be able to make they're own informed decisions.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    Slowbike wrote:
    GiantMike wrote:
    75kg bloke at 34mph was survivable and I was walking the same day. But that's not the point. All helmets will have an impact scenario where they will not be able to offer protection, but they offer adequate protection in the most likely scenarios against the risk they are mitigating.

    On the basis of that statement you seem to be agreeing that the desire to wear a helmet is linked to the risk of a head injury during the activity.

    Yes. My desire to wear protective head gear is linked to my risk of head injury. For the same reason I don't wear a cycling helmet to protect me from radiation when I'm changing the fuel rods at Sellafield.
  • oblongomaculatus
    oblongomaculatus Posts: 616
    The pedestrian in the shower has worked out for himself that all things considered he will be safe without a helmet. Similarly you have weighed up the risks and options and decided not to wear a helmet.
    Makes no odds to me what you wear.

    Agreed. We all make that risk assessment and as we're all different we may come to different conclusions.

    The sort of riding we do may contribute to the decision. I don't do any of that high speed, downhill, off road stuff. If I did, I'd want all the safety gear available, including the full face helmet (with neck support), tough boots, gloves, shinpads, armguards, elbow and knee pads, maybe back/kidney protectors... the lot! The only falls I've ever had from my road bike were at 0mph (trouble unclipping) and that hurt more than enough, thanks. For the record I do about 12,000 miles a year (in all weathers), don't race, always ride alone, and when I go out on a bike it's for the pleasure of being out and about in the countryside. I keep to minor roads as much as possible, avoid motorways (because it's illegal to cycle on them, of course) keep off dual carriageways except for very short stretches when there is absolutely no alternative, because the volume and speed of the traffic on them is as bad as motorways and makes me feel stressed. I think this all adds up to a very low risk of an accident, so... no helmet.
  • oblongomaculatus
    oblongomaculatus Posts: 616
    I don't wear a cycling helmet to protect me from radiation when I'm changing the fuel rods at Sellafield.

    That sounds a cool job. Are you Homer Simpson by any chance? :wink:
  • murvis1er
    murvis1er Posts: 57
    Ballysmate wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    Ballysmate wrote:
    The pedestrian in the shower has worked out for himself that all things considered he will be safe without a helmet.
    Yes - but what about the cyclist in the shower?! Or does that depend if he's got slicks or knobblies on ... ;)


    ?
  • chris_bass
    chris_bass Posts: 4,913
    there is evidence to suggest people who wear helmets take more risks as they feel safer and therefore subconciously ride more recklessly. similarily drivers often give people wearing helmets less room when passing as they feel as though they are better protected. Drivers have also been noted to give women more room when passing. So you may be just safe wearing a pony tail wig as a helmet!
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • exlaser
    exlaser Posts: 268
    no thank you.
    Van Nicholas Ventus
    Rose Xeon RS
  • Hoopdriver
    Hoopdriver Posts: 2,023
    Chris Bass wrote:
    there is evidence to suggest people who wear helmets take more risks as they feel safer and therefore subconciously ride more recklessly. similarily drivers often give people wearing helmets less room when passing as they feel as though they are better protected. Drivers have also been noted to give women more room when passing. So you may be just safe wearing a pony tail wig as a helmet!
    On the first point, what evidence is that?

    On the second, the rather dubious research upon which that claim is based, seemed to conclude that drivers perceived helmet wearing riders to be more experienced and more confident on the road rather than better protected. And generally it is the more experienced riders rather than the neophytes who wear helmets.

    Thirdly it is not the danger of being struck by a car that is the primary driver behind a lot of helmet wearing- it is the chance pothole, the leash-less dog, the front tyre blowout, the oil slick, the black ice, the rain slickened manhole cover, the train track, the storm drain, any of a hundred other objects and pitfalls and the chance of rapping your noggin hard on the curb.
    http://www.My-Bicycle-and-I.com
  • chris_bass
    chris_bass Posts: 4,913
    Hoopdriver wrote:
    Chris Bass wrote:
    there is evidence to suggest people who wear helmets take more risks as they feel safer and therefore subconciously ride more recklessly. similarily drivers often give people wearing helmets less room when passing as they feel as though they are better protected. Drivers have also been noted to give women more room when passing. So you may be just safe wearing a pony tail wig as a helmet!
    On the first point, what evidence is that?

    On the second, the rather dubious research upon which that claim is based, seemed to conclude that drivers perceived helmet wearing riders to be more experienced and more confident on the road rather than better protected. And generally it is the more experienced riders rather than the neophytes who wear helmets.

    Thirdly it is not the danger of being struck by a car that is the primary driver behind a lot of helmet wearing- it is the chance pothole, the leash-less dog, the front tyre blowout, the oil slick, the black ice, the rain slickened manhole cover, the train track, the storm drain, any of a hundred other objects and pitfalls and the chance of rapping your noggin hard on the curb.

    i wasnt really posting this 100% seriously if i'm honest!

    but all those points you made can be avoided in most cases by taking more care while cycling.

    just for the record i always wear a helmet but i am more than happy for others to do as they see fit much with everything else in life.
    www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    Hoopdriver wrote:
    Thirdly it is not the danger of being struck by a car that is the primary driver behind a lot of helmet wearing- it is the chance pothole, the leash-less dog, the front tyre blowout, the oil slick, the black ice, the rain slickened manhole cover, the train track, the storm drain, any of a hundred other objects and pitfalls and the chance of rapping your noggin hard on the curb.
    Yep, all risks. All insignificant risks in my opinion though when it comes to my day to day cycling - commuting, popping to the shops/pub, out for a towpath ride with the kids etc.

    Now - barrelling down single track at 30mph or descending a mountain road at 60. They feel like a BIG risk to me personally, so I wear a lid.
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Hoopdriver wrote:
    Thirdly it is not the danger of being struck by a car that is the primary driver behind a lot of helmet wearing- it is the chance pothole, the leash-less dog, the front tyre blowout, the oil slick, the black ice, the rain slickened manhole cover, the train track, the storm drain, any of a hundred other objects and pitfalls and the chance of rapping your noggin hard on the curb.
    Really?! Where's the evidence to back up that statement ... ?
  • Hoopdriver
    Hoopdriver Posts: 2,023
    Slowbike wrote:
    Hoopdriver wrote:
    Thirdly it is not the danger of being struck by a car that is the primary driver behind a lot of helmet wearing- it is the chance pothole, the leash-less dog, the front tyre blowout, the oil slick, the black ice, the rain slickened manhole cover, the train track, the storm drain, any of a hundred other objects and pitfalls and the chance of rapping your noggin hard on the curb.
    Really?! Where's the evidence to back up that statement ... ?
    Well, read the posts.
    http://www.My-Bicycle-and-I.com
  • cedargreen
    cedargreen Posts: 189
    Reluctant to get involved in this 'discussion' as any helmet debate soon becomes more like trench warfare.

    My position, for what it's worth, is that I'm really not that interested in whether or how much protection is offered by cycle helmets. I never wore one as a youngster, on the basis that no-one even thought about wearing them and they didn't exist, aprt from leather 'hairnets' used occasionally by racers. And this wasn't in some primeval pre-car paleolithic era it was the late 70's/ early 80's. Then I wore one for a while, and now I occasionally wear one and usually don't.

    I can see why people wear them- they've been brought up with the idea that they're safer with one and I don't really want to get bogged down with how right or wrong that assumption is. But I think there's a bigger issue, and it's to do with the direction cycling in the UK is heading in. And outside London and a few other places like Cambridge it's heading nowhere fast- in huge parts of the UK cycling is almost non-existant, and the reason is fear from the speed and density of traffic and the perception that cycling is dangerous. And there are basically 2 responses to this situation. One is the 'safety' route- better cycle training, helmets, hi-viz, lights with the power blind, helmet cameras and so on and so on. But this is a cycling dead-end in which cycling will continue to be perceived as an extreme or eccentric activity.

    Cities and countries which have high levels of cycling of all kinds have not adopted this approach, but instead have tackled the 'elephant in the room' which is the danger from motor vehicles, through better infrastructure and stronger rights for cyclists. So Holland for example is the safest place in the world to cycle, and hardly anyone wears a helmet, because cycling is not perceived as dangerous. Of course there's massive resistance to this approach in the UK from the powerful road lobby. The AA were handing out free cycle helmets recently, which has nothing to do with concern for cyclists and everything to do with perpetuating the status quo where 'safety' is the sole responsibility of vulnerable road users. This view is so entrenched that lots of cyclists believe that not wearing a helmet is irresponsible, even if they don't believe in compulsion.

    My own reasons for not wearing one are more personal- I've never managed to find one that was comfortable, and in traffic, I feel I get better eye contact and recognition from drivers who perhaps see me more as a person on a bike rather than a 'cyclist'. And I look cooler.............(prepares to be flamed...)
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Hoopdriver wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    Hoopdriver wrote:
    Thirdly it is not the danger of being struck by a car that is the primary driver behind a lot of helmet wearing- it is the chance pothole, the leash-less dog, the front tyre blowout, the oil slick, the black ice, the rain slickened manhole cover, the train track, the storm drain, any of a hundred other objects and pitfalls and the chance of rapping your noggin hard on the curb.
    Really?! Where's the evidence to back up that statement ... ?
    Well, read the posts.
    A very poor sample size.
  • Hoopdriver
    Hoopdriver Posts: 2,023
    Slowbike wrote:
    Hoopdriver wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    Hoopdriver wrote:
    Thirdly it is not the danger of being struck by a car that is the primary driver behind a lot of helmet wearing- it is the chance pothole, the leash-less dog, the front tyre blowout, the oil slick, the black ice, the rain slickened manhole cover, the train track, the storm drain, any of a hundred other objects and pitfalls and the chance of rapping your noggin hard on the curb.
    Really?! Where's the evidence to back up that statement ... ?
    Well, read the posts.
    A very poor sample size.
    You've not read many helmet threads then, I take it?

    I have news for you. This is not the first helmet thread that has ever been done. There are plenty more over on the Commuter forum too.
    http://www.My-Bicycle-and-I.com
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Hoopdriver wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    Hoopdriver wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    Hoopdriver wrote:
    Thirdly it is not the danger of being struck by a car that is the primary driver behind a lot of helmet wearing- it is the chance pothole, the leash-less dog, the front tyre blowout, the oil slick, the black ice, the rain slickened manhole cover, the train track, the storm drain, any of a hundred other objects and pitfalls and the chance of rapping your noggin hard on the curb.
    Really?! Where's the evidence to back up that statement ... ?
    Well, read the posts.
    A very poor sample size.
    You've not read many helmet threads then, I take it?

    I have news for you. This is not the first helmet thread that has ever been done. There are plenty more over on the Commuter forum too.

    And you believe the members of this site are representative of cyclists as a whole?
  • jongooligan
    jongooligan Posts: 223
    I wear one for winter commuting but only as a place to mount a head high light. Trying to prevent head injuries with polystyrene is like trying to prevent punctures with tyres made from banana skin.
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    jongooligan wrote:
    Trying to prevent head injuries with polystyrene is like trying to prevent punctures with tyres made from banana skin.

    No, it isn't. Only an idiot would actually think that.
  • samsbike
    samsbike Posts: 942
    jongooligan wrote:
    I wear one for winter commuting but only as a place to mount a head high light. Trying to prevent head injuries with polystyrene is like trying to prevent punctures with tyres made from banana skin.

    +1 - the helmet is really useful to have a few lights.

    However, one of the potential advantages for wearing one, is that it reduces the opportunity for anyone to claim that by not wearing one you were negligent with respect to your own safety. I am not clear about the case law on this, but I suspect insurers will use anything to get out of paying.

    The standard is laughable, it would be interesting to see how well they fare in the real world (perhaps I should ask RIDE magazine, yes, I know for motorcycles but they have some interesting test rigs)
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    GiantMike wrote:
    jongooligan wrote:
    Trying to prevent head injuries with polystyrene is like trying to prevent punctures with tyres made from banana skin.

    No, it isn't. Only an idiot would actually think that.

    Sorry, that probably sounded quite aggressive.

    I meant to say, why do you think a polystyrene helmet wouldn't prevent a head injury?
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    samsbike wrote:
    The standard is laughable, it would be interesting to see how well they fare in the real world (perhaps I should ask RIDE magazine, yes, I know for motorcycles but they have some interesting test rigs)

    What are you defining as 'real world'? What do you think a cycle helmet should protect you from?

    I think it would be interesting too. Despite the 'laughable' standard of my helmet it saved my soft delicate head in a very real world incident. Twice. Just because a helmet is tested to a 'low' standard it doesn't mean that's the helmet's limit. In the same way there are lots of clever people with no qualifications.
  • chilling
    chilling Posts: 267
    jongooligan wrote:
    I wear one for winter commuting but only as a place to mount a head high light. Trying to prevent head injuries with polystyrene is like trying to prevent punctures with tyres made from banana skin.

    Why does your shiny 50" TV comes wrapped in polystyrene.? because it's so rubbish at protecting it whilst being shipped from the Far East, on the deck of a boat, in a container.
  • ct8282
    ct8282 Posts: 414
    chilling wrote:
    jongooligan wrote:
    I wear one for winter commuting but only as a place to mount a head high light. Trying to prevent head injuries with polystyrene is like trying to prevent punctures with tyres made from banana skin.

    Why does your shiny 50" TV comes wrapped in polystyrene.? because it's so rubbish at protecting it whilst being shipped from the Far East, on the deck of a boat, in a container.

    Yeah that's a good point. I think we can surely all agree that the cycle helmet is designed to spread any impact load. If a part of your skull impacts the Tarmac at say 20mph, the point of your skull that actually touches the Tarmac will essentially bear most of the load. A helmet will spread that force over a wider area, simple physics.

    Fact of the matter is this. If I take 2 porcelain dolls heads and put a helmet on one, then take a hammer to both, there is no disputing which will come off worse. If anyone doesn't believe that then try it for yourself.

    I'm not disputing any of the other arguments regarding things like whether having a helmet on makes you take greater risks or whether motorists behave differently towards people who aren't wearing a helmet, but simple physics apply when you smash something that has a protective cover or not.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    chilling wrote:
    jongooligan wrote:
    I wear one for winter commuting but only as a place to mount a head high light. Trying to prevent head injuries with polystyrene is like trying to prevent punctures with tyres made from banana skin.

    Why does your shiny 50" TV comes wrapped in polystyrene.? because it's so rubbish at protecting it whilst being shipped from the Far East, on the deck of a boat, in a container.

    Actually - the polystyrene pads the TV out so it has an AIR GAP ... its not designed to take point loading at all - thats why you get damaged boxes - but the TV inside is ok because the protruding object hasn't got as far as the TV.

    So, sorry - your analogy is complete tosh.
  • ct8282
    ct8282 Posts: 414
    Slowbike wrote:
    chilling wrote:
    jongooligan wrote:
    I wear one for winter commuting but only as a place to mount a head high light. Trying to prevent head injuries with polystyrene is like trying to prevent punctures with tyres made from banana skin.

    Why does your shiny 50" TV comes wrapped in polystyrene.? because it's so rubbish at protecting it whilst being shipped from the Far East, on the deck of a boat, in a container.

    Actually - the polystyrene pads the TV out so it has an AIR GAP ... its not designed to take point loading at all - thats why you get damaged boxes - but the TV inside is ok because the protruding object hasn't got as far as the TV.

    So, sorry - your analogy is complete tosh.

    I'm not going to dispute your point about the TV thing as I don't have any facts or experience on this point to argue, however let me ask you, and in fact everyone else this question.

    If I hang you upside and drop you on your head would you rather have a helmet on or not?
  • GiantMike
    GiantMike Posts: 3,139
    ct8282 wrote:
    If I hang you upside and drop you on your head would you rather have a helmet on or not?

    To be honest it wouldn't make much difference as the helmet is not designed to protect against a vertical load like that. The testing standard is based around the centre of the head (forehead to above ears and around the back). A helmet is not the soultion to all accidents and can't prevent all injuries, but it is designed to prevent the most common forms of cycling impact injuries.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    ct8282 wrote:
    If I hang you upside and drop you on your head would you rather have a helmet on or not?
    Ah - well I can speak from experience here - having done that when I was young - a 2-3 foot fall onto grass - no helmet ...
    hurt like hell - well, stunned I think is probably a better term.

    Helmet? No - I don't think it would've made any difference - I suffered no visible damage and I was back up the tree within 30 mins or so ...
  • thegreatdivide
    thegreatdivide Posts: 5,807
    Slowbike wrote:
    ct8282 wrote:
    If I hang you upside and drop you on your head would you rather have a helmet on or not?
    Ah - well I can speak from experience here - having done that when I was young - a 2-3 foot fall onto grass - no helmet ...hurt like hell - well, stunned I think is probably a better term.

    Helmet? No - I don't think it would've made any difference - I suffered no visible damage and I was back up the tree within 30 mins or so ...

    So that wasn't a high speed impact from 5 feet onto tarmac/bonnet of a car...
  • TheCoo'sTail
    TheCoo'sTail Posts: 113
    Each to their own I say. However after reading James Cracknell's book I always wear mine now. After reading about the aftermath of his accident and the difficulties his family have faced I'm not risking it. Whether or not a helmet would have protected him or will protect me I have no idea, but at least IMO I'm taking a reasonable precaution, it could be misguided who knows but for the sake of a few quid, a few seconds to put on and the possibility of looking a wee bit daft I reckon it's worth it.
    At the erse end o' a coo!

Categories