Any regular road riders not wear helmets?

paul2718

Slo Mo Jones wrote:

paul2718 wrote:

I think it does follow. Consider playing with a piece of polystyrene and a hammer. The material a cycle helmet is made from is intended to absorb impact by crushing, and it does a very good job in that mode.

I think that where a helmet breaks it may be a consequence of a poor fit or loose strap, so it's definitely worth thinking about. If the inner surface of the helmet were touching the skull all over how could it snap first?

I think two layer helmets with a structural composite shell would be a significant improvement, separating the structural integrity from the impact absorption. I don't see why weight or ventilation would be an insuperable problem. Cost might be an issue, but I would pay significantly for significant head protection.

Christ. This was painful to read, being so full of both wrongness and guesswork.

Prove it. Show that you can snap polystyrene without bending it.

Do you know how helmets for motorcycling and motorsport are constructed? And why?

Paul

bikes`n`guns

I sometimes wear a helmet, cause since the pros started wearing them, it makes me look cool.

Cept on hot days, or sunny spring days, when I wear my cotton cap, cause it looks even cooler.

Cycling is nothing to do with safety or performance, it`s all about looking good. 8)

Crouching Peeky

In answer to the OP, I wear a helmet. The reason I wear a helmet is personal risk assesment. Do I think it would hurt more or less if I whack my head on the road with or without a helmet. No way of accurately knowing, but common sense tells me it's likely to hurt less if I wear a lid.
To me it's as simple as that. Does it make me look a tit, almost certainly but then so does wearing lycra.

keef66

I do wear a helmet when I'm out on the road bike. I hope I never test it's ability to protect my head, but because of the way I ride I think that one day I'll come a cropper. When that happens the helmet may offer some protection.

When I went over the bars on a hired MTB in Tenerife the abrasive volcanic rock took a big chunk out of my elbow but my head, which landed first, was unscathed thanks to the helmet.

I still wouldn't want to see it made mandatory though.

bobtbuilder

To answer the OP's question, I don't wear a helmet. I ride between 5,000 - 6,000 miles per year.

Slo Mo Jones

paul2718 wrote:

Slo Mo Jones wrote:

paul2718 wrote:

I think it does follow. Consider playing with a piece of polystyrene and a hammer. The material a cycle helmet is made from is intended to absorb impact by crushing, and it does a very good job in that mode.

I think that where a helmet breaks it may be a consequence of a poor fit or loose strap, so it's definitely worth thinking about. If the inner surface of the helmet were touching the skull all over how could it snap first?

I think two layer helmets with a structural composite shell would be a significant improvement, separating the structural integrity from the impact absorption. I don't see why weight or ventilation would be an insuperable problem. Cost might be an issue, but I would pay significantly for significant head protection.

Christ. This was painful to read, being so full of both wrongness and guesswork.

Prove it. Show that you can snap polystyrene without bending it.

Do you know how helmets for motorcycling and motorsport are constructed? And why?

Sigh. You don't know what you are talking about.

Focusing on only one of your poorly made points for now

"I think that where a helmet breaks it may be a consequence of a poor fit or loose strap, so it's definitely worth thinking about. If the inner surface of the helmet were touching the skull all over how could it snap first?"

It doesn't "snap" first. It deforms first, then it breaks. Only if it were a mythical material would it snap without deformation beforehand.
You cannot snap polystyrene without bending it / deforming it in some way. That does not mean that any polystyrene helmet that breaks is ill fitting. The break could occur because of

- a force acting upon the helmet at an angle not perpendicular to the surface (essentially tearing it under tension),
- a force acting squarely on the helmet shearing the material, or,
- as you insist on banging on about, a bending moment creating a deflection in the helmet shape causing it to snap

The helmet can fit perfectly well and still break having deformed momentarily before breaking because neither the helmet nor the human head is a perfectly hard, stiff material, and neither are designed to be.

Tjgoodhew

I am maybe a younger generation of cyclist at 29 and havent been in the sport for long

It just never occured to me to go out riding without a helmet. I just see it as part of the kit. I dont think about if it might or might not save my life. I just wear it because in my head thats what you wear when you go cycling. Maybe its the marketing or the false illusion that if i dont wear a helmet i am definitely going to die.

As someone mentioned it seems similar to the seatbelt argument. I cant imagine many people driving without wearing one now

In 20/30 years time will this even be a debating issue ? My guess is it will just be standard practice for people to wear a helmet and im guessing it will be made the law !!

slowbike

Tjgoodhew wrote:

I am maybe a younger generation of cyclist at 29 and havent been in the sport for long

It just never occured to me to go out riding without a helmet. I just see it as part of the kit. I dont think about if it might or might not save my life. I just wear it because in my head thats what you wear when you go cycling. Maybe its the marketing or the false illusion that if i dont wear a helmet i am definitely going to die.

As someone mentioned it seems similar to the seatbelt argument. I cant imagine many people driving without wearing one now

In 20/30 years time will this even be a debating issue ? My guess is it will just be standard practice for people to wear a helmet and im guessing it will be made the law !!

But it's not a good reason for it to become common practice is it? What stands the human race apart from other species is that we're intelligent - and part of intelligence is questioning what we're doing and why we're doing it - the result may mean that we end up doing it anyway...
We're not sheep - we shouldn't just follow the crowd - unless there is a good reason to do so.

marcusjb

Tjgoodhew wrote:

I am maybe a younger generation of cyclist at 29 and havent been in the sport for long

It just never occured to me to go out riding without a helmet. I just see it as part of the kit. I dont think about if it might or might not save my life. I just wear it because in my head thats what you wear when you go cycling. Maybe its the marketing or the false illusion that if i dont wear a helmet i am definitely going to die.

As someone mentioned it seems similar to the seatbelt argument. I cant imagine many people driving without wearing one now

In 20/30 years time will this even be a debating issue ? My guess is it will just be standard practice for people to wear a helmet and im guessing it will be made the law !!

Whilst a helmet may save one life, mandatory helmet wearing may cost dozens of others through inactivity. Mandatory helmet wearing implies that an activity is dangerous and could put many people off riding their bike. Those who are worried about how they look, ruining their hair etc. - suddenly they abandon their bikes to gather dust, become fat and die.

Compulsion becomes a barrier to what is a very safe mode of transport that is good for all of society - those who ride get fitter, emissions are reduced, Top Gear Jeremy Clarkson Worshippers get less congestion. We have to do everything possible to make cycling more easily accessible and making everyone tool up with safety equipment isn't the way to do it.

It is a more complicated issue than seat belts. It is a more complicated issue than quantum physics I sometimes think.

larkim

We made our son wear a helmet from the first riding experience. Aged 14 now, he puts it on as a matter of course - I don't think I've even seen him riding around our garden on a bike without it.

I do give it a second thought myself - "I'm only nipping half a mile down to the shops..." etc - and in the past if my wife had nagged "don't ride without your helmet" I might have taken the car for the short trip to the shops rather than ride the bike (also partly as I find carting a helmet around a bit of a pain!). But now I've matured a little, I can't see me ever riding a bike without a helmet again.

The big difference with the seat belt laws is that they apply as much to passengers in the car as to the driver - so its straightforward to make the argument person A without a seatbelt might get injured by person B's careless driving. With bike helmets you are only concerned with protecting yourself, and for some reason humans think they are invincible.

I agree that compulsion isn't the way forward - except for professionals / competitors. We're massively further on than we were a few years ago when even the elite TdF riders were complaining about the helmets they had to wear; but it took rider deaths for it to become a mandatory issue. Now if you want to look like Cav on the road or any of the MTB guys you'll see that a helmet is part of the gear that you need, so at least young cyclists have only good role models (in that respect) to follow.

Anyone can choose to ride without; but no parent should let their child ride alongside traffic without one.

Matt

Roberto di Velo

cyd190468 wrote:

neeb wrote:

cyd190468 wrote:

Meta-analyses of existing peer reviewed papers generally conclude that helmet wearing has a measurable effect on the level of head, and particularly brain injuries. They won't save everyone but they do save some.

References please! This would make sense to me though.

cyd190468 wrote:

And you can't argue with science!

Scientists argue with science all of the time.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11235796

That particular study only looks at examples from North America and Australia - as opposed to Europe, where there are generally regarded to be better examples of cycle safety. Further, it only looks at accidents, by hospital admissions and compares the injuries by those with helmets and those without.

So for example, it doesn't assess the actual accident rate for those with or without helmets. Similarly, it doesn't look at places where there is the greatest cyclist safety (such as Denmark or Holland) and compare the overall uptake of helmets.

By all means wear a helmet, I do. But can we focus more on getting better infrastructure and better motorist behaviour, which are much more likely to have a greater benefit on cyclist safety?

neeb

Thanks.

Looking at what that's been cited by, there was also another much more recent study in 2012 (not a meta-analysis, but based on hospital records in France) which is open access, so you can read the whole thing:

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/18/1/27.long

One interesting finding in that:

We have identified an interaction between helmet wearing (yes/no) and crash setting (urban/rural) for the risk of serious head injuries, with the protective effect being much greater (by a factor of five) for bicycle crashes in rural areas. This could be partly due to insufficient adjustment for crash severity (cyclists crashing in rural areas are more seriously injured than those crashing in urban areas, probably because of higher speeds; Amoros, submitted).4 Another possible explanation lies in the fact that crashes in rural areas are much more likely to involve sports cyclists than commuting cyclists, and it may be that sports cyclists wear better helmets and/or know how to adjust them better.

So it may make more sense to wear a helmet for "proper" road cycling than for commuting in busy traffic, perhaps contrary to some people's expectations.

neeb

Roberto di Velo wrote:

By all means wear a helmet, I do. But can we focus more on getting better infrastructure and better motorist behaviour, which are much more likely to have a greater benefit on cyclist safety?

Sure - but to be frank, that's a completely different subject and not what this thread is about. It's not even as if the two things are in any way competing with each other, at least for the decisions we make as individuals. You can choose to wear a helmet or not tomorrow, you can't choose whether or not to be in an environment with a better infrastructure etc.

But perhaps one thing the cogent contributors to this thread can all agree on is that forcing people to wear helmets or portraying helmet wearing as a general solution to cycling safety problems is a bad idea.

slowbike

neeb wrote:

Roberto di Velo wrote:

By all means wear a helmet, I do. But can we focus more on getting better infrastructure and better motorist behaviour, which are much more likely to have a greater benefit on cyclist safety?

Sure - but to be frank, that's a completely different subject and not what this thread is about. It's not even as if the two things are in any way competing with each other, at least for the decisions we make as individuals. You can choose to wear a helmet or not tomorrow, you can't choose whether or not to be in an environment with a better infrastructure etc.

But perhaps one thing the cogent contributors to this thread can all agree on is that forcing people to wear helmets or portraying helmet wearing as a general solution to cycling safety problems is a bad idea.

We know its a different subject - but non-cyclists don't see it that way. To them we should all be wearing hiviz, helmets and cycling on the cycle path - basically anything except get in their way.
As they are the biggest threat to our safety it is the prime area that needs addressing.

cedargreen

neeb wrote:

Roberto di Velo wrote:

By all means wear a helmet, I do. But can we focus more on getting better infrastructure and better motorist behaviour, which are much more likely to have a greater benefit on cyclist safety?

Sure - but to be frank, that's a completely different subject and not what this thread is about. It's not even as if the two things are in any way competing with each other, at least for the decisions we make as individuals. You can choose to wear a helmet or not tomorrow, you can't choose whether or not to be in an environment with a better infrastructure etc.

But perhaps one thing the cogent contributors to this thread can all agree on is that forcing people to wear helmets or portraying helmet wearing as a general solution to cycling safety problems is a bad idea.

But better infrastructure and driver training are related to helmet wearing in all kinds of ways. It's no surprise that there's so much emphasis on helmet wearing in the UK where conditions for cycling are still basically shite, but this emphasis is also a substitute for any real progress in areas like driver training and responsibility. Why was the AA- a powerful member of the motoring lobby- recently handing out free cycle helmets? Is it because they really care about cyclists safety or is because they are very keen on maintaining the status quo where responsibility for safety is put on vulnerable road users?

Ultimately, cycling and society in the UK can go in one of 2 directions- a sort of Dutch/ Danish direction with better infrastructure and driver training/ awareness; or continue down the current route where we are in danger of being branded irresponsible unless we not only wear helmets but also hi-vis, and increasingly, lights with more candle power than Beachy Head lighthouse. It's no wonder that levels of cycling in the UK are stagnating if this is how people have to behave just to ride a bike.

Dave Horton writes very eloquently on this in 'fear of cycling' which is on the 'Copenhageize' web site.

slowbike

We do have the issue that organisations organising rides also advise and in some cases, insist on helmets being worn during the event.
British Cycling - Breeze network (womens cycling) - they advise ppl to wear helmet, although don't insist on it.
UK Cycling Events - insist on participants wearing a helmet.

Why? It just increases the belief that you're only safe cycling IF you're wearing a helmet. Well, part of the why will be because if they don't and a rider has a head injury then they're open to a compensation case - sad really that adults, who are allowed to breed and drive 3ton death machines need to be told in words of one syllable how to dress appropriately for the activity they're about to undertake.

I (as organiser of volunteers) was one admonished by the wife of a volunteer for not telling her husband that he needed to take sunscreen with him - his volunteering was a day skippering a RIB supporting a sailing regatta. To make it worse - he was an officer in the navy. I don't think she particularly liked my response of "I didn't tell him to breath in or out, but he managed that didn't he?!" ...

So just why do we need organisations covering their arses by instructing us what to do - down to the last letter - are we not man enough to take responsibility for our own (in)actions?

bigmat

Slowbike wrote:

We do have the issue that organisations organising rides also advise and in some cases, insist on helmets being worn during the event.
British Cycling - Breeze network (womens cycling) - they advise ppl to wear helmet, although don't insist on it.
UK Cycling Events - insist on participants wearing a helmet.

Why? It just increases the belief that you're only safe cycling IF you're wearing a helmet. Well, part of the why will be because if they don't and a rider has a head injury then they're open to a compensation case - sad really that adults, who are allowed to breed and drive 3ton death machines need to be told in words of one syllable how to dress appropriately for the activity they're about to undertake.

I (as organiser of volunteers) was one admonished by the wife of a volunteer for not telling her husband that he needed to take sunscreen with him - his volunteering was a day skippering a RIB supporting a sailing regatta. To make it worse - he was an officer in the navy. I don't think she particularly liked my response of "I didn't tell him to breath in or out, but he managed that didn't he?!" ...

So just why do we need organisations covering their arses by instructing us what to do - down to the last letter - are we not man enough to take responsibility for our own (in)actions?

I imagine its a condition of the event insurance, simple as that.

neeb

cedargreen wrote:

neeb wrote:

Roberto di Velo wrote:

By all means wear a helmet, I do. But can we focus more on getting better infrastructure and better motorist behaviour, which are much more likely to have a greater benefit on cyclist safety?

Sure - but to be frank, that's a completely different subject and not what this thread is about. It's not even as if the two things are in any way competing with each other, at least for the decisions we make as individuals. You can choose to wear a helmet or not tomorrow, you can't choose whether or not to be in an environment with a better infrastructure etc.

But perhaps one thing the cogent contributors to this thread can all agree on is that forcing people to wear helmets or portraying helmet wearing as a general solution to cycling safety problems is a bad idea.

But better infrastructure and driver training are related to helmet wearing in all kinds of ways. It's no surprise that there's so much emphasis on helmet wearing in the UK where conditions for cycling are still basically shite, but this emphasis is also a substitute for any real progress in areas like driver training and responsibility. Why was the AA- a powerful member of the motoring lobby- recently handing out free cycle helmets? Is it because they really care about cyclists safety or is because they are very keen on maintaining the status quo where responsibility for safety is put on vulnerable road users?

Ultimately, cycling and society in the UK can go in one of 2 directions- a sort of Dutch/ Danish direction with better infrastructure and driver training/ awareness; or continue down the current route where we are in danger of being branded irresponsible unless we not only wear helmets but also hi-vis, and increasingly, lights with more candle power than Beachy Head lighthouse. It's no wonder that levels of cycling in the UK are stagnating if this is how people have to behave just to ride a bike.

Dave Horton writes very eloquently on this in 'fear of cycling' which is on the 'Copenhageize' web site.

I agree with all of this, but again, it really is a different subject from the one of whether or not you should wear a helmet. Unless you are suggesting that we shouldn't wear helmets because by doing so we give tacit approval to the emphasis on helmet wearing as a diversion from more important social policies related to cycling, i.e. we should avoid wearing helmets as an act of protest!

Anonymous

BigMat wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

We do have the issue that organisations organising rides also advise and in some cases, insist on helmets being worn during the event.
British Cycling - Breeze network (womens cycling) - they advise ppl to wear helmet, although don't insist on it.
UK Cycling Events - insist on participants wearing a helmet.

Why? It just increases the belief that you're only safe cycling IF you're wearing a helmet. Well, part of the why will be because if they don't and a rider has a head injury then they're open to a compensation case - sad really that adults, who are allowed to breed and drive 3ton death machines need to be told in words of one syllable how to dress appropriately for the activity they're about to undertake.

I (as organiser of volunteers) was one admonished by the wife of a volunteer for not telling her husband that he needed to take sunscreen with him - his volunteering was a day skippering a RIB supporting a sailing regatta. To make it worse - he was an officer in the navy. I don't think she particularly liked my response of "I didn't tell him to breath in or out, but he managed that didn't he?!" ...

So just why do we need organisations covering their arses by instructing us what to do - down to the last letter - are we not man enough to take responsibility for our own (in)actions?

I imagine its a condition of the event insurance, simple as that.

I don't really want to wade in, but I think you miss the point of what he's saying. The point is that insurance companies ensure people wear helmets, where it assumed, but not scientifically proven (therefore, technically should not affect insurance payouts) that helmets are safer. I wonder if actuarists aren't doing more detailed calculations on this? Mind you, I can't see a helmet making anyone MORE likely to hurt themselves in a crash or make a crash more likely (road cycling only). Seeing as most sportives are sold out anyway, do they need to cater for non-helmet wearers?

Personally I wear one out of habit, and certainly put one on when I started cycling, although do treat myself to the odd sunny lap of Richmond without one.

Here's a question for skiiers - do you/don't you?
I wear a helmet cycling but not snowboarding. Not really sure if there's any logic in that, which plays nicely into some of the other posters hands about doing something out of habit rather than questioning why/whether I need to be. If I think about it logically, it should be the other way around. I've fallen off my bike 2-3 times (wheels slipped, chain dropped, came off a corner I misjudged) but fall over at least 4 times a day when on the snow and banged my head fairly hard to 'know about it' at least once a week when on snow.

larkim

I wear helmets to ride and to ski.

They don't stop every problem - my dad wore a ski helmet, took a relatively low speed tumble and 3 months later was having his head drilled to drain a chronic subdural haemotoma. The skiing tumble (we know he was at least unconscious for a few seconds, and properly dazed for the next 2 hours) was the most likely cause. But, like Schumacher, we can only speculate on how much worse the injury might have been without the helmet.

At the end of the day, the only people who are affected if you choose not to wear a helmet are yourself and those who look to you to set an example. So if you're not a respected dad, uncle, mum, friend of the family, grandparent, older brother, elite cyclist etc and you don't think your behaviour in not wearing one is likely to encourage others to do similar, do what you want - its your life, your brain etc. If wearing a helmet gives me or my kids just 0.00000001% better chance in an accident, its worth it to me. And if it has no effect at all, at least I blend in with the majority by wearing one!

drlodge

larkim wrote:

At the end of the day, the only people who are affected if you choose not to wear a helmet are yourself and those who look to you to set an example.

Disagree. What about the car driver who knocks you off your bike, and you die and in the drivers mind if you had been wearing a helmet you may have survived? The car driver is then riddled with guilt about your death, which may have been prevented if you had been wearing a helmet.

slowbike

larkim wrote:

If wearing a helmet gives me or my kids just 0.00000001% better chance in an accident, its worth it to me. And if it has no effect at all, at least I blend in with the majority by wearing one!

You're a good customer to ACME Safety Devices Inc then ...

I hear they've got a thumb protector new to the market, it will save you from breaking it if a bus runs over it ...

I said earlier - we're not sheep - we (the human race) stands out from other species is our ability to intelligently analyse and evaluate.
That's why we don't chase wild animals around a wilderness as our only food source - we've worked out how to fence them in and exert some control over them, how to gather, sow, cultivate and harvest plant crops. And how to treat and cure many diseases that would wipe out other species.

yet here we are ... someone invented a helmet .... then some bikers decided to wear them whilst practising some pretty dodgy stunts - because they expected to fall off, others decided that was a good idea, it'll help whilst they're throwing themselves down a mountain, then the road cyclists took it on - it'll help when I get knocked off ...

If we carry on down this path then before long we're going to be wearing full body armour as "the norm", pedestrians are going to be wearing polystyrene hats and everyone is going to be suing anyone who hasn't told them when to wipe their own nose. But will any of that actually reduce accidents? No, it won't because it's addressing the symptom - not the cause. Address the cause if you want to have a lasting effect.

I don't disagree with safety equipment - but, where it's appropriate and PROPORTIONATE ... make someone feel safe and they'll push harder - cycling/skiing/sailing/motorbiking/driving - any activity really ... remove the safety equipment and ppl will back off.

What's the anecdote? If airbags and seatbelts were removed from vehicles and spikes put in the middle of the steering wheel .....

bigmat

coriordan wrote:

I don't really want to wade in, but I think you miss the point of what he's saying. The point is that insurance companies ensure people wear helmets, where it assumed, but not scientifically proven (therefore, technically should not affect insurance payouts) that helmets are safer. I wonder if actuarists aren't doing more detailed calculations on this? Mind you, I can't see a helmet making anyone MORE likely to hurt themselves in a crash or make a crash more likely (road cycling only). Seeing as most sportives are sold out anyway, do they need to cater for non-helmet wearers?

Err, don't think I was missing the point? He was having a go at event organisers, I was pointing out that their hands are usually tied by their insurers. Feel free to have a pop at actuaries!

I know a couple of people who have had nasty head injuries snowboarding. No imperial evidence to prove that helmets helped, but I know I'd wear one.

larkim

For £15 I've bought some insurance that an injury I might suffer will most likely be less severe than if I didn't spend £15. Seems like money well spent to me.

I'm no lover of the nanny state, but I weigh up risk by evaluating the impact on my life and that of my family. A sore thumb, no problem. Even if a bus runs over it. A chronic brain injury? That would be a problem, though if I put my head under a bus' wheel I doubt a bike helmet would help me much.

Accidents are accidents - they happen unexpectedly. Of course money should be spent on making road travel for cyclists safer, but when I slide off on a dark country lane on a patch of frost and bang my head on the floor, no amount of cycle lanes or car driver awareness training, or motor speed restrictions is going to help me head as it whacks the floor; but a helmet would.

I fully accept that most riders will get through their entire lives without their helmet doing what they've paid for it to do. And some who wore them will be killed because it isn't enough protection.

But for the very small price and the complete lack of inconvenience of wearing one, I personally can't see me riding without one. If I was stuck at the top of a fast downhill section of road next to a bike shop and a) my helmet had just been stolen and b) my brake pads were worn out, with only £15 in my pocket, I wouldn't buy a £15 helmet at the expense of £15 of brake pads. I'd pay for the safety device which addressed the most likely risk. Helmets aren't the be all and end all of safety. But they are one I'm prepared to spend some money on if I've got it available; and fortunately, I do have £15 spare...

Matt

Anonymous

Yes but again he is talking about the route of the issue.

Insurance companies are looking at potential financial loss to their policyholders and therefore themselves and ensuring that the sum of many policyholders premiums' cover this loss. Therefore, insurance companies stipulating that insurance is only granted on the basis that entrants wear helmets is implying that the policyholder leaves himself open to more financially onerous claims if no helmet is work, when actually there seems to be no scientific (and empirical) evidence to support this as being fact. This re-affirms the belief that you have to wear a helmet to be safer, if insurance won't allow it otherwise.

On the skiing anecdote, is skiing insurance invalid if you aren't wearing a helmet? This said, more people now ask 'do you wear a helmet?' and generally are surprised if you say no.

Why do reports always mention 'was/wasn't wearing a helmet' after an accident? It is almost trying to imply fault of the cyclist if they aren't, and I'm sure I read somewhere that you have a weaker defence in court if you weren't wearing one at the time of an accident.

larkim

Slowbike wrote:

What's the anecdote? If airbags and seatbelts were removed from vehicles and spikes put in the middle of the steering wheel .....

Agreed - that's a Jeremy Clarkson quote if I'm not mistaken suggesting that the safer we make cars, the more careless the drivers feel they can be.

So are cyclists to blame then for accidents? We have more accidents because we wear helmets? We'd be more cautious if we didn't? Perhaps.

But who do cyclists usually blame for accidents on the roads? Not themselves, usually its motorists, or councils responsible for road maintenance. So if those parties are to blame, protecting yourself against them makes sense doesn't it?

slowbike

BigMat wrote:

Err, don't think I was missing the point? He was having a go at event organisers, I was pointing out that their hands are usually tied by their insurers. Feel free to have a pop at actuaries!

I'm not having a pop at anyone in particular - I was just thinking about the "must wear a cycle helmet" culture that is now prevalent and how ride organisers (for whatever reason) may be perpetuating or increasing that culture.

Should we wear helmets whilst participating in a cyclosportive? Surely that depends on the course (road or offroad) and personal preference. The organiser shouldn't be responsible for participants choosing not to wear one - any more than they're responsible if a participant damages their own bike.

BigMat wrote:

I know a couple of people who have had nasty head injuries snowboarding. No imperial evidence to prove that helmets helped, but I know I'd wear one.

I've faceplanted whilst skiing - I pushed it too hard down a little run, hit a bump and that was it ... fortunately into softish snow ... stunned me for a few moments.
Would a helmet have helped? No idea? It may have made it worse as it was a faceplant - pushing my face harder into the snow due to the extra weight of the helmet.

As ever though - it's a twosided issue - there's doing the activity within your limits and then there's everyone else that surrounds you who may collide with you.....
My wife was hit in the back of the knee by an errant young skier (wearing a helmet!) - she lost a days skiing to that and still suffers with pain several years later.

drlodge

Seems to me that wearing a helmet is a no brainer (pardon the pun), the chances are that if you have an accident a helmet is far more likely to prevent damage than make it worse. Its just common sense. Hence the reason Sportives and most club rides insist "no helmet, no ride".

You want to ride with me - wear a helmet. Don't want to wear a helmet? Fine, do your own thing. People have a choice but have to accept the consequences of that choice.

Kieran_Burns

drlodge wrote:

Seems to me that wearing a helmet is a no brainer (pardon the pun), the chances are that if you have an accident a helmet is far more likely to prevent damage than make it worse. Its just common sense. Hence the reason Sportives and most club rides insist "no helmet, no ride".

You want to ride with me - wear a helmet. Don't want to wear a helmet? Fine, do your own thing. People have a choice but have to accept the consequences of that choice.

It's almost like you've not read any of the posts in this thread....

slowbike

larkim wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

What's the anecdote? If airbags and seatbelts were removed from vehicles and spikes put in the middle of the steering wheel .....

Agreed - that's a Jeremy Clarkson quote if I'm not mistaken suggesting that the safer we make cars, the more careless the drivers feel they can be.

Seems reasonable ... if we didn't have ABS and airbags perhaps we would be a bit slower on the road?

larkim wrote:

So are cyclists to blame then for accidents? We have more accidents because we wear helmets? We'd be more cautious if we didn't? Perhaps.

I would think there's an element of that - but additionally there'll be an element of drivers not giving the cyclist room - because they're wearing a helmet they're safe ...
Or in some cases it could be the complete opposite - the cyclist isn't wearing a helmet so we'll do a close pass to teach them a lesson....

larkim wrote:

But who do cyclists usually blame for accidents on the roads? Not themselves, usually its motorists, or councils responsible for road maintenance. So if those parties are to blame, protecting yourself against them makes sense doesn't it?

It seems very few ppl will say "oops my fault" in the case of an accident ...

Protecting yourself against other ppl isn't necessarily a bad idea - until those ppl see your protection and leave you less room for safety - it's a fine and very fuzzy line which is why we need a general change of attitude to tolerance on our roads today.