Please wear a helmet guys and gals
Comments
-
A helmet might not help much in a big accident, but I cracked two helmets the two times I've been knocked off my bike by cars (each time lots of skin off on elbows/knees - still have scar), and though I have no "proof" to show who my skull would have stood up to the impact on hitting the tarmac without the helmet I rather not take the chance.
But it's not the law, so people can do what ever they want.0 -
...the possibility of looking a wee bit daft
I'd forgotten, that's another reason I don''t like them: you look like you've got a formula 1 tortoise on your head.
0 -
Slowbike wrote:
Ah - well I can speak from experience here - having done that when I was young - a 2-3 foot fall onto grass - no helmet ...ct8282 wrote:If I hang you upside and drop you on your head would you rather have a helmet on or not?
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 ...
Seriously. Think about this. If I was genuinely about to drop you on your head onto tarmac and I offered you the chance to put a helmet on first......
Put both your hands on a table. I will put an inch of cycling helmet foam on one of them and you have to choose which one I will take a hammer to. Tell me you'd say 'I don't mind, they'll both hurt the same'.0 -
oblongomaculatus wrote:...the possibility of looking a wee bit daft
I'd forgotten, that's another reason I don''t like them: you look like you've got a formula 1 tortoise on your head.
I'm not saying you have one, but a lot of cyclists are prepared to ride around with big guts and still claim it's their helmet that is making them look silly.
But you have raised an interesting point about tortoise shells though. Even though it's not compulsory, they all wear them!0 -
thegreatdivide wrote:Slowbike wrote:
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.ct8282 wrote:If I hang you upside and drop you on your head would you rather have a helmet on or not?
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...
Er ... who was talking about that - a specific question was asked and answered with an answer from real life experience. If the question was irrelevant then have a go at CT8282 ... unless that's who you were responding too ... ?0 -
Am I missing something here?oblongomaculatus wrote:PeteMadoc wrote:oblongomaculatus wrote:
Version 1: You're out on a ride, wearing your helmet, you fall off and hit your head on the ground. Your helmet cracks but your head doesn't, so go go home thanking your helmet, with only a slight headache to show for your mishap.
Version 2: As above, but no helmet. The impact with the ground causes your scalp to spit, and as scalp wounds bleed easily and profusely, you make your way to hospital for some stitches. While you're there you tell the doctor about your headache. He asks if there are any other symptoms, you mention you're feeling sick and in the last few minutes your vision has become blurred. Then you collapse, due to a burst blood vessel inside your head. Fortunately, because you have taken your superficial scalp wound to hospital, you are in the right place to have the swift treatment that saves your life.
The same could be applied to any form of head protection in any sport. Ridiculous argument to make.
And in theory it would be just as true. Not really talking about sport, though. As I said, given the frequency and speed of crashes in competitive cycling, a helmet is a good idea there. The casual, low speed cycling most of us do most of the time isn't the same thing. Anyone who had a crash in a race would be checked out thoroughly by a doctor as a matter of course. In the hypothetical situation I described the cyclist makes the decision not to do that himself, based on the fact that there's no blood, he feels basically OK (at first) and because "his helmet saved him".
One piece of safety kit I do think is a good idea is a mirror. They may not be very cool, especially on a road bike, but they dramatically improve your awareness of what's around you, which means you're much better placed to avoid an accident in the first place.
So first of all you say helmet is not that good so should go without because if you crash you cut yourself which forces you to go to hospital which saves your life, then you say a mirror is good, wtf? All that will do is show you your about to be hit, I am sure the mirror will hardly protect my head should I hit a pothole and crash or have some muppet pull across in front of me like the other day?
You stated versions here's mine.
Someone hits us on the head with wooden mallet, I wear helmet you don't, lets see who hurts most and needs to go to hospital.
Almost as ridiculous as your versions? 0 -
oldwelshman wrote:Someone hits us on the head with wooden mallet, I wear helmet you don't, lets see who hurts most and needs to go to hospital.
You really should use a granite mallet.
Don't forget that, although Oblong will have a crushed skull and brain damage, he'll be in hospital, which is the best place to deal with such injuries. You, on the other hand, will be OK and nowhere near the safety of a hospital. And you'll have a headache.0 -
I think your looking at the wrong end of speed when looking at potential for injury. I wear helmet 99% of time, b ut three years ago was unlucky enough to crash at over 50mph with no helmet!! I got into a speed wobble due to pedal falling off and could do nothing, I thought I was a gonnaoblongomaculatus wrote: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. but due to speed after initial impact I was airbourne again and most injuries were road rash not impact.
Last year I had slow speed crash in a race and separated ACL joint in shoulder as it took full weight on impact.
Also I do not advocate pedestrians wear helmets but a few years ago someone I knew was punched just once, outside a pub, and he fell sideways and hit kerb and he died. I know the chance of that and circumstances rare but it happened. The chances of sideways fall whilst cycling are significantly higher so my choice is to wear helmet to reduce impact if I did fall sideways.
Industries do DFMEA and other analysis and reliability calculations which assess such risks when they design things which need regulatory approval, and this could be done very easily for cycling, probably already has but I can't be arsed to find results, I just chose to wear helmet. 0 -
the possibility of looking a wee bit daft
Having read some of the posts on here it appears that very few seem to be concerned about looking 'a wee bit daft'. 0 -
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.
Sorry but this is complete tosh.
I used to work in EPS and EPE and EPP packaging and PS is used specifically because it is good at absorbing shock.
Yes, it spaces the TV out and provides an air gap, but this is a secondary advantage. These things are drop tested from certain heights to ensure that there is no damage to the product. The EPS deforms, hey presto, job done.
This is why EPS is used in cycle and motorcycle helmets - it is the best product available for the job.0 -
I say again, put your hands out on a table, put this polystyrene stuff/foam, whatever it is, on one hand and then tell me which hand you rather I take a hammer to.
Those who choose the non covered hand are hardcore.
I have no problems with someone choosing not to wear a helmet as that's entirely their choice. However, I don't care what anyone says, if I land on my head on tarmac without a helmet there WILL be an increased chance of more damage to my head than if I was wearing one. That FACT cannot be disputed.
The question of the risk of having an accident being different if one wears a helmet or not is a different matter, however simple scientific fact states that if you put a protective barrier over something and then smash it you will have less damage than without a protective barrier.
Why do people wear bullet proof vests? Why do cricket players wear face masks and a box to cover their danglies? Why do ice hockey players wear protective items? Why do motorcyclists wear helmets? Why do F1 drivers wear helmets? Why do all professional and most amateur cyclists wear helmets?
Simples. A protective barrier protects that area of the body to a forceful blow or impact. This cannot be disputed, period.0 -
I don't dispute that - I normally wear a helmet - I say normally because most of my riding is at speeds of >15mph (well I aim it to be anyway!) and can be on busy roads at some point in the ride. I accept that a helmet may not save me from an impact with that HGV passing way too close at 55mph - but it may help.ct8282 wrote:The question of the risk of having an accident being different if one wears a helmet or not is a different matter, however simple scientific fact states that if you put a protective barrier over something and then smash it you will have less damage than without a protective barrier.
Why do people wear bullet proof vests? Why do cricket players wear face masks and a box to cover their danglies? Why do ice hockey players wear protective items? Why do motorcyclists wear helmets? Why do F1 drivers wear helmets? Why do all professional and most amateur cyclists wear helmets?
Simples. A protective barrier protects that area of the body to a forceful blow or impact. This cannot be disputed, period.
When I choose not to wear a helmet it's because the style of riding is totally different - it'll be a quiet ride - say down to the shops on routes with little/no traffic or down the cyclepath. Speeds will be significantly lower and the risk of an accident is reduced along with that. I accept that the risk is still there - but then I'm not overly cautious and tend not to protect myself against what I consider to be highly unlikely incidents. It is purely personal preference and done for nothing more than convenience and comfort.0 -
Slowbike wrote:I don't dispute that - I normally wear a helmet etc etc etc.
To be fair, ct8282's reaction was to your first hand experience of falling out of a tree and claiming a lack of helmet made no difference. It was assumed that, given the option of falling on your head with or without a helmet, you wouldn't care either way.Slowbike wrote: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 ...0 -
ct8282 wrote:I say again, put your hands out on a table, put this polystyrene stuff/foam, whatever it is, on one hand and then tell me which hand you rather I take a hammer to.
Those who choose the non covered hand are hardcore.
I have no problems with someone choosing not to wear a helmet as that's entirely their choice. However, I don't care what anyone says, if I land on my head on tarmac without a helmet there WILL be an increased chance of more damage to my head than if I was wearing one. That FACT cannot be disputed.
The question of the risk of having an accident being different if one wears a helmet or not is a different matter, however simple scientific fact states that if you put a protective barrier over something and then smash it you will have less damage than without a protective barrier.
Why do people wear bullet proof vests? Why do cricket players wear face masks and a box to cover their danglies? Why do ice hockey players wear protective items? Why do motorcyclists wear helmets? Why do F1 drivers wear helmets? Why do all professional and most amateur cyclists wear helmets?
Simples. A protective barrier protects that area of the body to a forceful blow or impact. This cannot be disputed, period.
YES! YES! Post of the day!0 -
ct8282 wrote:I have no problems with someone choosing not to wear a helmet as that's entirely their choice. However, I don't care what anyone says, if I land on my head on tarmac without a helmet there WILL be an increased chance of more damage to my head than if I was wearing one. That FACT cannot be disputed.
Why do all professional and most amateur cyclists wear helmets?
Simples. A protective barrier protects that area of the body to a forceful blow or impact. This cannot be disputed, period.
Bullshit. Where is your evidence to prove your FACT? What about the twisting effect a helmet imparts to your head and neck when you hit the ground?
Racing cyclists wear helmets because they're compelled to do so by their governing authorities, otherwise they wouldn't.0 -
bernithebiker wrote:ct8282 wrote:I say again, put your hands out on a table, put this polystyrene stuff/foam, whatever it is, on one hand and then tell me which hand you rather I take a hammer to.
Those who choose the non covered hand are hardcore.
I have no problems with someone choosing not to wear a helmet as that's entirely their choice. However, I don't care what anyone says, if I land on my head on tarmac without a helmet there WILL be an increased chance of more damage to my head than if I was wearing one. That FACT cannot be disputed.
The question of the risk of having an accident being different if one wears a helmet or not is a different matter, however simple scientific fact states that if you put a protective barrier over something and then smash it you will have less damage than without a protective barrier.
Why do people wear bullet proof vests? Why do cricket players wear face masks and a box to cover their danglies? Why do ice hockey players wear protective items? Why do motorcyclists wear helmets? Why do F1 drivers wear helmets? Why do all professional and most amateur cyclists wear helmets?
Simples. A protective barrier protects that area of the body to a forceful blow or impact. This cannot be disputed, period.
YES! YES! Post of the day!
I knew there would be someone who would come up with a 'What if?' or 'What about?' and along comes Jon.
Amazing! 0 -
jongooligan wrote:ct8282 wrote:I have no problems with someone choosing not to wear a helmet as that's entirely their choice. However, I don't care what anyone says, if I land on my head on tarmac without a helmet there WILL be an increased chance of more damage to my head than if I was wearing one. That FACT cannot be disputed.
Why do all professional and most amateur cyclists wear helmets?
Simples. A protective barrier protects that area of the body to a forceful blow or impact. This cannot be disputed, period.
Bullshit. Where is your evidence to prove your FACT? What about the twisting effect a helmet imparts to your head and neck when you hit the ground?
Racing cyclists wear helmets because they're compelled to do so by their governing authorities, otherwise they wouldn't.
I say again... third time... I throw you head first onto solid, hard, nasty, spikey, gritty, Tarmac. I will give you the option to put a helmet on. Are you really saying you would choose not too? Really.
Then you are hardcore my friend. That, or just crazy.0 -
If you have no dependents, fair enough, wear no helmet if you prefer.
If you have a family and take your responsibility to them seriously, then wear one. Even if it's just to keep the missus happy it's worth it, surely?0 -
Am I missing something here?
So first of all you say helmet is not that good so should go without because if you crash you cut yourself which forces you to go to hospital which saves your life, then you say a mirror is good
I'm saying I find a mirror genuinely useful for helping me know what's going on around me. How can that be a bad thing? It's particularly handy when changing lanes when it's not safe to turn round and look, for example if the road surface is poor and you risk wobbling at the crucial moment. And if you see trouble coming up behind you you can take evasive action in time to prevent being hit. I've done this on several occasions, in fact.
As for your other point further down about speed, there will be a strong element of chance in any crash as to what part of you hits the ground at what angle, whether it hits a flat bit of road or the corner of a kerb, etc. I'd say if you crashed at 50mph and all you suffered was road rash, you were very, very lucky.0 -
Good point! But don't you think tortoises look rather silly?GiantMike wrote:oblongomaculatus wrote:...the possibility of looking a wee bit daft
I'd forgotten, that's another reason I don''t like them: you look like you've got a formula 1 tortoise on your head.
I'm not saying you have one, but a lot of cyclists are prepared to ride around with big guts and still claim it's their helmet that is making them look silly.
But you have raised an interesting point about tortoise shells though. Even though it's not compulsory, they all wear them!
(fyi, no I don't have a big gut! I'm built like those 198 guys currently cruising around France. It's all the cycling I do - even if it is at about half their speed!)0 -
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.a ... &year=2009
Hmmm. Second table down..... Cyclist deaths by helmet use 1994 to 2009.
To make it easier I have taken the liberty of copying the table for you.... The table hasn't copied well so it basically goes, year, number of deaths without helmet, percentage, number of deaths with helmet, percentage, total
Year No helmet use Helmet use Total*
Num % Num % Num
1994 776 97 19 2 796
1995 783 95 34 4 828
1996 731 96 27 4 761
1997 785 97 23 3 811
1998 741 98 16 2 757
1999 698 93 42 6 750
2000 622 90 50 7 689
2001 616 84 60 8 729
2002 589 89 54 8 663
2003 535 85 58 9 626
2004 602 83 87 12 722
2005 676 86 77 10 784
2006 730 95 37 5 769
2007 646 92 50 7 699
2008 654 91 59 8 716
2009 574 91 53 8 630
*Total includes other and/or unknowns
So, in 2009 there were a total of 630 deaths recorded, of which 574 (91%) were not wearing a helmet and 53 (8%) were. (For the keen eyed among you the remaining 1% was unknown as to whether or not they had a helmet on or not)
I think that speaks for itself really.
(Data is from America and I do not know if this is nationwide or from one state etc. However, that is irrelevant)0 -
ct8282 wrote:http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=bicycles&year=2009
Hmmm. Second table down..... Cyclist deaths by helmet use 1994 to 2009.
Evidence like this will, at least, make me think about wearing a helmet, unlike most of the uninformed rants on here.0 -
jongooligan wrote:ct8282 wrote:http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=bicycles&year=2009
Hmmm. Second table down..... Cyclist deaths by helmet use 1994 to 2009.
Evidence like this will, at least, make me think about wearing a helmet, unlike most of the uninformed rants on here.
Yeah, it's compelling data. At the end of the day, I'm not fussed if other people wear a helmet or not. It's entirely their choice and I respect their right to that choice. I have considered everyone's points in this argument/debate/discussion and of course I am in no position to judge, but the data from that particular link really does speak for itself.
I'd much rather take the odds that go with wearing a helmet, and the concept of my bare head coming into contact at speed with the road surface, the curb, or anything else for that matter just doesn't compute in my mind at all. Rightly or wrongly, the prospect of cycling without a helmet just seems completely ludicrous to me. Even if my head didn't impact with blunt force trauma I still don't like the thought of my head scraping along the tarmac as not only do I like my skull but I also like the skin and hair that surrounds it.
Anyhow, If some of you decide to wear a helmet as a result of the data from that link then in my mind that can only be a good thing.0 -
ct8282 wrote:http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=bicycles&year=2009
Hmmm. Second table down..... Cyclist deaths by helmet use 1994 to 2009.
To make it easier I have taken the liberty of copying the table for you.... The table hasn't copied well so it basically goes, year, number of deaths without helmet, percentage, number of deaths with helmet, percentage, total
Year No helmet use Helmet use Total*
Num % Num % Num
1994 776 97 19 2 796
1995 783 95 34 4 828
1996 731 96 27 4 761
1997 785 97 23 3 811
1998 741 98 16 2 757
1999 698 93 42 6 750
2000 622 90 50 7 689
2001 616 84 60 8 729
2002 589 89 54 8 663
2003 535 85 58 9 626
2004 602 83 87 12 722
2005 676 86 77 10 784
2006 730 95 37 5 769
2007 646 92 50 7 699
2008 654 91 59 8 716
2009 574 91 53 8 630
*Total includes other and/or unknowns
So, in 2009 there were a total of 630 deaths recorded, of which 574 (91%) were not wearing a helmet and 53 (8%) were. (For the keen eyed among you the remaining 1% was unknown as to whether or not they had a helmet on or not)
I think that speaks for itself really.
(Data is from America and I do not know if this is nationwide or from one state etc. However, that is irrelevant)
I know there is a thread for this but...
this data is meaningless without numbers of cyclists who wear helmets in total and those who dont if only 53 people wore helmets in 2009 then 100% of them died! not good! (i know this isnt the case but its the most extreme example)
also, you arent comparing similar populations, people who dont wear helemts might be more likely to crash/fall off/do more risky things/listen to music/be male/be old/be young/etc etc so its not comparable.
there are far more variable than helmet or not that effect this data.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Anyone getting any hassle from family about doing dangerous stuff just needs to get a motorcycle. Everything else you do is a complete breeze after that!Bordersroadie wrote:If you have no dependents, fair enough, wear no helmet if you prefer.
If you have a family and take your responsibility to them seriously, then wear one. Even if it's just to keep the missus happy it's worth it, surely?
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.0 -
The stats on their own say nothing at all.ct8282 wrote:So, in 2009 there were a total of 630 deaths recorded, of which 574 (91%) were not wearing a helmet and 53 (8%) were. (For the keen eyed among you the remaining 1% was unknown as to whether or not they had a helmet on or not)
I think that speaks for itself really.
It fails to address how many people are actually wearing helmets. It fails to address the types of cyclist who wear helmets, competency, and cycing activity in relation to non helmet wearers.
Get the same stats for Holland and you'll see the same skewed figures - because hardly anyone wears helmets. They have better safety record than the UK of course despite their reluctance to wear a helmet.
The Dutch have it right. Helmets are not the answer to cycling safety (yes I do wear one). Infrastructure is the answer to cycling safety. The focus by some on helmets diverts from the real solutions we need in my opinion.
To quote Mr Boardman - "bullet proof vests are not the solution to gun crime."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.0 -
Infrastructure and tollerance ...Daz555 wrote:Infrastructure is the answer to cycling safety. The focus by some on helmets diverts from the real solutions we need in my opinion.
To quote Mr Boardman - "bullet proof vests are not the solution to gun crime."
This morning (whilst driving) there was an ambulance on my the side of the road - tractor and a long stream of cars coming the other way - tractor had passed where the ambulance was - enough room for the ambulance, me & the other cars - providing the other cars kept to their left - no other obstructions. So I moved to the middle of the road - going slowly ... and as I was alongside the ambulance a woman in a blue merc decided she was going to swing towards me - a strange and seemingly aggressive move - why? Did she think I should wait? I could've done, but with a bit of tolerance from the oncoming traffic there was no need too.
I happened to be in my 4x4 so didn't feel threatened by her actions at all - it was a bit laughable - if she'd caused the collision I guess the ins cos would've done knock for knock which would've been a bit annoying.
The question is - although not inconveniencing her at all she seemed to feel annoyance of my road positioning and acted out on her annoyance in an aggressive manoeuvre - if she'd done that to a cyclist then the cyclist could've sustained serious injuries.
What we need in the UK is a bit more tolerance - like when drivers stop to let pedestrians cross the (busy) road in safety.
Though I did get hot under the collar when I saw a young lad driving his Golf and using his mobile coming over a blind summit ...0 -
Bloody hell, I'm new to this and stunned by the strength of feeling.
I don't think helmets should be compulsory.
I think it is ludicrous to suggest they provide no benefit.
People should decide for themselves when / if they want to wear a helmet based on risk / convenience.
If I nip to the shop on my bike - generally no helmet or any other cycling gear (more convenient and low risk)
If I go for a training ride, I wear cycling clothes, SPD Shoes and a helmet.
I could have an accident going to the shop but it is less likely so I take the risk...0 -
I don't wear a helmet. Instead I wear a peaked cap which keeps the sun out my eyes which means I can see what is in front of me.Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
Think how stupid the average person is.......
half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.0
