Any regular road riders not wear helmets?

SpainSte

To be honest the things that make me ride quicker are a good pair of gloves and a good jacket - if I don't feel the wind then my perceived safety is much higher. Stupid I know, but it seems to bear out with me personally.

I agree with Larkim's point earlier and to be honest that's why I wear one. It probably will never be used, but it might, and if it is required then I would be happy that I had worn it. It fits me well, I spent a decent amount of £££'s on it so it looks quite cool, it is very well vented (as the weather here gets very very hot) so to be honest I don't see why I wouldn't want to wear it.

marcusjb

For those not happy with compulsory helmets on sportives:

http://www.aukweb.net/

cyclingfury

I prefer Campag.

e999sam

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.

You wear a helmet if you want. I usually do but I defiantly wouldn't ride with someone who tried to stipulate what PPE I should wear.

Anonymous

I do not get the 'perceived safety' thing at all.

I wear a helmet because it will help if I hit my head.
I feel I will only hit my head if I come off my bike, and trust me, I am no more keen to come off my bike just because my head will be better protected if I do.

The two things are unrelated. If I had body armour, or some sort of safety cage then perhaps I would feel safer, but a helmet is just to help my head should I have an accident and has nothing to do with having the accident in the first place.

To say that drivers treat you differently is ridiculous. So what if they do? You are still only wearing the helmet in case you hit your head, which you can do without any intensional interaction from drivers.

Very odd logic IMO.
Do you apply that principle to other activities?

If drivers are doing stuff like that that you should be wanting harsh punishments from the legal system, not telling people to take their helmets off and look vulnerable :roll:

Mikey1976

I haven't read through the previous 7 pages but personally I think its stupid not too.

It actually feels weird riding a bike without one now, I guess like the seatbelt on cars scenario it felt weird at first but now it feels totally normal.

My 3 year old daughter wears a helmet and rides a bike around the park with stabilizers attached, obviously the main reason is for protection but hopefully it will also feel un-natural for her not wear one as she grows.

drlodge

Carbonator wrote:

I do not get the 'perceived safety' thing at all.

I wear a helmet because it will help if I hit my head.
I feel I will only hit my head if I come off my bike, and trust me, I am no more keen to come off my bike just because my head will be better protected if I do.

The two things are unrelated. If I had body armour, or some sort of safety cage then perhaps I would feel safer, but a helmet is just to help my head should I have an accident and has nothing to do with having the accident in the first place.

To say that drivers treat you differently is ridiculous. So what if they do? You are still only wearing the helmet in case you hit your head, which you can do without any intensional interaction from drivers.

Very odd logic IMO.
Do you apply that principle to other activities?

If drivers are doing stuff like that that you should be wanting harsh punishments from the legal system, not telling people to take their helmets off and look vulnerable :roll:

^--- This

*if* you have an accident and hit your head, then the chances are that the damage to your head/self will be less if your are wearing a helmet than if not. Its common sense. That's why insurance companies may insist on you wearing a helmet to be covered for insurance (the losses and hence claims will be lower), and is why Sportive events and Club events/ride play the "no helmet, no ride" card (so they can be insured).

I know what's going to hurt more - hitting my head on the ground wearing a helmet, or hitting my head on the ground not wearing a helmet. I don't need any scientific evidence for that!

slowbike

Carbonator wrote:

I do not get the 'perceived safety' thing at all.

I wear a helmet because it will help if I hit my head.
I feel I will only hit my head if I come off my bike, and trust me, I am no more keen to come off my bike just because my head will be better protected if I do.

The two things are unrelated. If I had body armour, or some sort of safety cage then perhaps I would feel safer, but a helmet is just to help my head should I have an accident and has nothing to do with having the accident in the first place.

If you were out riding without a helmet on - would you ride any differently? If the answer is yes then you're already putting faith in the helmet - and perhaps it's not the best idea. If the answer is no then that's good - that's what it needs to be.

Carbonator wrote:

To say that drivers treat you differently is ridiculous. So what if they do? You are still only wearing the helmet in case you hit your head, which you can do without any intensional interaction from drivers.

Very odd logic IMO.

It's not odd logic at all - I vaguely recall some report or other that in general car drivers gave much more room to female cyclists - so we could all wear ponytail wigs to be treated in the same manner - except then car drivers would cotton on to that, realise they're not being more polite to women and cut us all up again - but for the short period that it was unique we would be safer.

Carbonator wrote:

Do you apply that principle to other activities?

I don't do other activities that rely heavily on someone else behaving sensibly! However, I do partake in activities where the wearing of safety garments is hotly debated and I use the first part of my argument - behave like you've not got the safety kit and you'll (most likely) be fine.

Carbonator wrote:

If drivers are doing stuff like that that you should be wanting harsh punishments from the legal system, not telling people to take their helmets off and look vulnerable :roll:

Oh I do want harsher penalties from the legal system - some of the sentences handed out seem ridiculous - as has been said many a time - if you want to kill someone, knock them down with your car - you may lose your licence for a few months and face a "stiff" fine - but you'll get away with murder.

slowbike

Mikey1976 wrote:

I haven't read through the previous 7 pages but personally I think its stupid not too.

When was the last time you fell off your bike?
Did you hit your head?

Now think about the probability of having an accident and the likelyhood of requiring that helmet.

You don't wear a lifejacket whilst riding - even if you cross a river - but you might fall in and drown - a lifejacket could've saved you.

I'm not saying don't wear a helmet - that would be hypocritical - I wore mine in this morning and normally do - I'm saying wear it for the right reasons - and that's not a blanket "it's stupid not too" ... because that's not an argument - that's an insult to anyone who has consciously chosen not to wear a helmet.

slowbike

drlodge wrote:

I know what's going to hurt more - hitting my head on the ground wearing a helmet, or hitting my head on the ground not wearing a helmet. I don't need any scientific evidence for that!

Shall we just all go round screaming "Won't someone think of the Children" ....

The complete lack of analytical thought process from the Pro-Helmet debate is astounding ...

drlodge

Slowbike wrote:

If you were out riding without a helmet on - would you ride any differently? If the answer is yes then you're already putting faith in the helmet - and perhaps it's not the best idea. If the answer is no then that's good - that's what it needs to be.

I really don't understand this logic at all. *if* I were to ride without a helmet I would ride more slowly and be more alert to reduce the probability of having an accident (since if I have an accident the consequences are likely to be harsher). I would also be riding a much shorter route than normal.

Of course I put faith in my helmet, why wouldn't I? Cycling without a helmet is just like driving without a seat belt. Do you have faith that your seat belt will help prevent injury? I do.

drlodge

Slowbike wrote:

Now think about the probability of having an accident and the likelyhood of requiring that helmet.

You don't wear a lifejacket whilst riding - even if you cross a river - but you might fall in and drown - a lifejacket could've saved you.

That's a stupid comparison frankly. A helmet is an effective, pragmatic control to reduce the risk of injurying your head in a bike accident. That's why its stupid not to wear a helmet.

Wearing a lifejacket instead/as well is not an effective control. The chances of a life jacket being effective are practically nill since the water would have to be deeper than you can actually cycle through. And if you did fall off while cycling through a river, I reckon a helmet wold be more effective. How many cases do you know of someone coming off their bike and drowning?

drlodge

cyclingfury wrote:

I prefer Campag.

So do I. But Campag don't make cycle helmets

VmanF3

Sometimes do, sometimes don't. I wear them without gripe or grumble if the rules of a club/race require it, or even recommend it.

I am totally against compulsory wearing of a lid at all times, if that becomes the case them helmets will all have to conform to a safety standard similar to the way motorcycle helmets are, so that will pish off many TT riders whose lids are virtually aero lids and would offer zip all protection in a crash.

I also do not think that wearing one if you anticipate fast riding is on the cards. By that measure, maybe boots, heavy duty gloves, leathers, back protector maybe a better option, road rash from 40mph contact with tarmac can be pretty grim. There are plenty of examples of kids on holidays in the Med riding scooters without success at less that 30mph wearing shorts & T's. What about compulsory Hi-Viz whilst we're at it...or that every bike has reflectors, lights, mudguards, bells at all times if ridden on the road, after all, if you remain visible, that goes a long way to reducing injuries due to collisions due to SMIDSY. Where the hell do you draw the line? Keep cycling simple and uncluttered without the safety nazi bollocks.

Cycle helmets also offer a very specific protection area, normal roadies hardly ever wear a 'full face' jobby, yet a face plant is just as likely in a crash as a bash to the crown. I can't help feel that some of this is driven by marketing, just another bit of kit 'that you must simply have'. Without sounding like a hovis advert, when I was a lad the only thing you needed to go for a ride was a bike and a sock to tuck you trouser in, so that yer mam didn't go all spastic on you when you got home full of 3in1 that you'd splashed all over the chain. Jesus, we used to oil up brake blocks for sh1ts and giggles!

Cycling is a great activity or sport or transport or fitness machine or fun or toy or whatever makes you jump in the saddle. I don't need to hear people telling me I must wear a lid every time I wheel a bike out of the shed...that's my choice and there isn't a law of the land that requires me to.

I've cycled in many parts of the world and without too much surprise helmet wearing is the same everywhere, some do and some don't.

TL:DR I don't actually care what anyone else does; so stop caring about my safety (because in reality, you don't)

neilo23

drlodge wrote:

cyclingfury wrote:

I prefer Campag.

So do I. But Campag don't make cycle helmets

Yes they do. My Campag helmet looks like this

VmanF3

neilo23 wrote:

drlodge wrote:

cyclingfury wrote:

I prefer Campag.

So do I. But Campag don't make cycle helmets

Yes they do. My Campag helmet looks like this

Careful - safety nazis will come and give you a ticking off!!!

slowbike

drlodge wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Now think about the probability of having an accident and the likelyhood of requiring that helmet.

You don't wear a lifejacket whilst riding - even if you cross a river - but you might fall in and drown - a lifejacket could've saved you.

That's a stupid comparison frankly. A helmet is an effective, pragmatic control to reduce the risk of injurying your head in a bike accident. That's why its stupid not to wear a helmet.

Wearing a lifejacket instead/as well is not an effective control. The chances of a life jacket being effective are practically nill since the water would have to be deeper than you can actually cycle through. And if you did fall off while cycling through a river, I reckon a helmet wold be more effective. How many cases do you know of someone coming off their bike and drowning?

Ah - you've introduced the element of RISK and PROBABILITY ... How many times have you fallen off and used a helmet? What's the chances of you doing so? Think about it and be honest with yourself.

You've already admitted that you ride differently if you're not wearing a helmet - I think you need to look at that because I believe you're putting too much faith in a safety device that has minimal use.
I know of someone who came off their bike and died through a head injury - despite the fact that they were wearing a helmet - it doesn't make wearing a helmet pointless - but it does indicate that it is of limited effectiveness - and probably not that much more effective than wearing a lifejacket if you're frequently crossing or travelling alongside water.

Btw - most ppl drown in shallow water.

neilo23

VmanF3 wrote:

neilo23 wrote:

drlodge wrote:

cyclingfury wrote:

I prefer Campag.

So do I. But Campag don't make cycle helmets

Yes they do. My Campag helmet looks like this

Careful - safety nazis will come and give you a ticking off!!!

Sorry mum It's a wonder I'm alive anyway. Forget about whilst cycling: I should wear a helmet when I'm out on the razzle

ManOfKent

Back to the original post...

I usually wear a helmet, out of habit and because in my club it tends to attract adverse comment if you turn up for a club run without one. That said, I never wore one my commute to the station; in 30+ years of riding have never had an accident where wearing a helmet (or not) made a difference to the outcome; and on the rare occasions I forget I wouldn't turn back to get it, unlike for example bottles, a spare tube or tools. It's nice to ride with the wind in my hair on a rare sunny day.

drlodge

Slowbike wrote:

Ah - you've introduced the element of RISK and PROBABILITY ... How many times have you fallen off and used a helmet? What's the chances of you doing so? Think about it and be honest with yourself.

You've already admitted that you ride differently if you're not wearing a helmet - I think you need to look at that because I believe you're putting too much faith in a safety device that has minimal use.
I know of someone who came off their bike and died through a head injury - despite the fact that they were wearing a helmet - it doesn't make wearing a helmet pointless - but it does indicate that it is of limited effectiveness - and probably not that much more effective than wearing a lifejacket if you're frequently crossing or travelling alongside water.

Btw - most ppl drown in shallow water.

You do speak some sense now, not 100% but some...

Propability is one dimension of risk, the other being severity. Hence when we talk about a "risk" we need to consider probability and impact of a particular scenario.

The scenario we're dealing with here isn't simply coming off your bike, but coming off in such a way that part of your head that would be protected by a helmet, impacts the ground or car windscreen etc. Now the probability of this sceanrio is really quite small (its never yet happened to me), but the severity is potentially fatal. This is what we in the trade call a tail risk and they are very hard to assess accurately.

A control to mitgate this is the helmet - but its not a 100% mitigation since as you say, some people will still die even though they wore a helmet. But others in this scenario would surely come off better wearing a helmet than if they had not. My argument for wearing a helmet is that it will improve your changes in this particular scenario AND there is no downside as far as a I can tell to wearing a helmet. Hence its a no brainer to wear one.

To make an analogy - do you have a smoke/fire alarm in your house? Has it ever been needed? May be not, but just because its never been needed yet doesn't mean it has no value. And some houses fitted with smoke alarms have seen the occupants die. Its not a 100% solution, there are no guarantees in life, but wearing a helmet, like fitting a smoke alarm, partially mitigates a specific risk to your life.

Druidor

Wear one, don't wear one its down to the individual, we all run the risk of having an accident and if it happens it could be your head that takes the brunt of it.

Personally I will always wear a helmet when out on my bike, in my teens I didn't and had a few accidents and got away with no serious injuries.

I do make my children wear helmets when out.

VmanF3

Just for a lark, I have just returned from a cycle. A quick spin if you will...first 10 miles I didn't wear a helmet, the second 10 I did. Nothing happened. No one gave me funny looks in either event. No kittens died. Amazingly, I'm still alive. I did not feel any less safe when not wearing my helmet. I did not adjust my riding style to compensate for the huge additional risk. In both instances cars gave me a similar amount of space when passing.

I even saw 15 other cyclists out, 10 of whom were not wearing helmets, of those 10, 7 were dressing in cyclist attire (ie not just looking like a pedestrian riding a bike). The 5 that were wearing lids, 3 were dressed in cyclist attire (and, boy were they dressed in cycling attire - the whole works!!! Looked like adverts for wiggle...!!!!) Please have in mind that this was just noticed on this ride and in no way is it suggesting that these are useful figures for anything other than poking fun at safety nazis. (Hard to imagine poking a safety nazi, it's hard to get your finger through the cotton wool).

I even wore dark clothes and baggy shorts...! The Horror!

bompington

Slowbike wrote:

Btw - most ppl drown in shallow water.

This has always struck me as being one of those dodgy pseudo-stats, but can anyone offer any reliable evidence either to refute or confirm?

[pause]

CGD (Compulsive Google Disorder) strikes again.... and so a quick search comes up with the International Life Saving Federation website which says that 25% of drownings happen in water <1m deep. Hardly "most", and given that 2 to 4 year olds are the group most at risk from drowning, even 1m could not be considered shallow.


There you are, probably about as useful as most posts in the Eternal Helmet Debate.

drlodge

VmanF3 wrote:

Just for a lark, I have just returned from a cycle. A quick spin if you will...first 10 miles I didn't wear a helmet, the second 10 I did. Nothing happened. No one gave me funny looks in either event. No kittens died. Amazingly, I'm still alive. I did not feel any less safe when not wearing my helmet. I did not adjust my riding style to compensate for the huge additional risk. In both instances cars gave me a similar amount of space when passing.

I even saw 15 other cyclists out, 10 of whom were not wearing helmets, of those 10, 7 were dressing in cyclist attire (ie not just looking like a pedestrian riding a bike). The 5 that were wearing lids, 3 were dressed in cyclist attire (and, boy were they dressed in cycling attire - the whole works!!! Looked like adverts for wiggle...!!!!) Please have in mind that this was just noticed on this ride and in no way is it suggesting that these are useful figures for anything other than poking fun at safety nazis. (Hard to imagine poking a safety nazi, it's hard to get your finger through the cotton wool).

I even wore dark clothes and baggy shorts...! The Horror!

Next time try and crash and hit your head on the tarmac, both with and without a helmet. Then see how you fare :roll:

slowbike

drlodge wrote:

You do speak some sense now, not 100% but some...

Propability is one dimension of risk, the other being severity. Hence when we talk about a "risk" we need to consider probability and impact of a particular scenario.

If someone were to fire a gun at my head then I'd be dead. That's quite severe I think ...

But the chances of that happening are practically zero - so I don't worry about protecting myself against it.
It doesn't mean that I won't be killed by a gunman - I still could be - but the chances of it happening are so small that it's not worth doing anything about.

Now - if I was a mountain biker - throwing myself down all sorts of complex paths and off cliffs etc etc, then the chances of a tumble are reasonably high - therefore it makes sense to protect myself (to some degree) against the COMMON injuries that can occur....

I suggest to you that riding your bike is not a high risk activity and may not warrant the necessity of a helmet - and even if you do have a tumble, the chances of the helmet significantly reducing damage are slight. So the choice of if/when you wear a helmet is completely personal and not backed up or disproven by any studies or scientific fact.

slowbike

drlodge wrote:

VmanF3 wrote:

Just for a lark, I have just returned from a cycle. A quick spin if you will...first 10 miles I didn't wear a helmet, the second 10 I did. Nothing happened. No one gave me funny looks in either event. No kittens died. Amazingly, I'm still alive. I did not feel any less safe when not wearing my helmet. I did not adjust my riding style to compensate for the huge additional risk. In both instances cars gave me a similar amount of space when passing.

I even saw 15 other cyclists out, 10 of whom were not wearing helmets, of those 10, 7 were dressing in cyclist attire (ie not just looking like a pedestrian riding a bike). The 5 that were wearing lids, 3 were dressed in cyclist attire (and, boy were they dressed in cycling attire - the whole works!!! Looked like adverts for wiggle...!!!!) Please have in mind that this was just noticed on this ride and in no way is it suggesting that these are useful figures for anything other than poking fun at safety nazis. (Hard to imagine poking a safety nazi, it's hard to get your finger through the cotton wool).

I even wore dark clothes and baggy shorts...! The Horror!

Next time try and crash and hit your head on the tarmac, both with and without a helmet. Then see how you fare :roll:

Isn't that the whole point though - he's not trying to crash - and even if he does he will automatically try not to hit his head - not saying that either would be successful - but chances are he most likely wouldn't.

Should we all wear lightning protectors? We could be struck by lightning ... catastrophic if we are ... but I know of nobody that wears one...

drlodge

Slowbike wrote:

If someone were to fire a gun at my head then I'd be dead. That's quite severe I think ...

But the chances of that happening are practically zero - so I don't worry about protecting myself against it.
It doesn't mean that I won't be killed by a gunman - I still could be - but the chances of it happening are so small that it's not worth doing anything about.

Now - if I was a mountain biker - throwing myself down all sorts of complex paths and off cliffs etc etc, then the chances of a tumble are reasonably high - therefore it makes sense to protect myself (to some degree) against the COMMON injuries that can occur....

I suggest to you that riding your bike is not a high risk activity and may not warrant the necessity of a helmet - and even if you do have a tumble, the chances of the helmet significantly reducing damage are slight. So the choice of if/when you wear a helmet is completely personal and not backed up or disproven by any studies or scientific fact.

I think we'll have to agree to...AGREE. I'm with you there

I've never advocated that wearing a helmet should be made mandatory, just that not wearing a helmet is, well, a bit stupid frankly IMHO. But its your decision, and you accept the consequences of your actions. Each to their own.

All of my cycling is on the road, and I perceive the benefits of wearing a helmet to vastly outweigh any potential disadvantage, so I wear one. Now, if I were to go cycling along a disused railway where there are no cars, a softer ground and probably doing slower speeds, I might not wear one. I probably still would though, why wouldn't I?!

bompington

Actually, in view of VMF3's highly rigorous scientific scientific survey, I could go slightly less OT than my previous post and mention that, while skiing on Saturday, I did a quick survey of people coming up one of the lifts (incidentally, on a part of the mountain where there wouldn't have been any beginners) and reckoned that about 60-70% were wearing lids. This is up from pretty much 0% ten years ago.

You hear pretty much the same debate among skiers, but the speed with which it has become the norm is striking.

But before anyone complains that it's a false comparison, of course it is, unless you're in the habit of popping your skis on to nip to the shops...

VmanF3

drlodge wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

If someone were to fire a gun at my head then I'd be dead. That's quite severe I think ...

But the chances of that happening are practically zero - so I don't worry about protecting myself against it.
It doesn't mean that I won't be killed by a gunman - I still could be - but the chances of it happening are so small that it's not worth doing anything about.

Now - if I was a mountain biker - throwing myself down all sorts of complex paths and off cliffs etc etc, then the chances of a tumble are reasonably high - therefore it makes sense to protect myself (to some degree) against the COMMON injuries that can occur....

I suggest to you that riding your bike is not a high risk activity and may not warrant the necessity of a helmet - and even if you do have a tumble, the chances of the helmet significantly reducing damage are slight. So the choice of if/when you wear a helmet is completely personal and not backed up or disproven by any studies or scientific fact.

I think we'll have to agree to...AGREE. I'm with you there

I've never advocated that wearing a helmet should be made mandatory, just that not wearing a helmet is, well, a bit stupid frankly IMHO. But its your decision, and you accept the consequences of your actions. Each to their own.

All of my cycling is on the road, and I perceive the benefits of wearing a helmet to vastly outweigh any potential disadvantage, so I wear one. Now, if I were to go cycling along a disused railway where there are no cars, a softer ground and probably doing slower speeds, I might not wear one. I probably still would though, why wouldn't I?!

I didn't want to get personal, but seeing as you have just called me stupid for not wearing a helmet (only for 50% of the time today, so maybe I'm just a little retarded) I'm going to say that if that is you in the avatar photo, then you sir look like a jackass! Albeit you'll be still around after we (the non helmet wearing idiots) have all perished in some horrific cycling mass head injury event.

Do bear in mind though when you have you crash involving your head - make sure its the 50% that's covered with your extra special, extra expensive plastic & 'styrene that you hit - we wouldn't want you to to smack your pretty face into a curb stone now would we?

All said with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek!

drlodge

Ah, I didnt call you stupid, just said the decision to not wear a helmet is stupid IMO. Clever people can make stupid decisions, I'm sure I've made a few - like having my photo taken.

I'm not very photogenic, it was a cold day and that skull cap does make me look a bit silly. Plus I was panting up "The Wall" when it was taken. I was hardly posing for the camera!