Any regular road riders not wear helmets?

larkim

Ref the life jacket point - simply put, the likelihood of having a bike crash at all is significantly higher than the likelihood of falling off a bike and into water. If I routinely cycled along a canal tow path and there was a £15 device which I could wear, without any negative consequences, which might save my life if I fell into the water next to me (assuming I can't swim without one!) then I would wear one. But as, surprisingly, most cycling is done on roads, there isn't such a product!

Roberto di Velo

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:

OK, so why are perceptions of risk important?

Here's another example: safety surfacing in kids playgounds. A few years back schools and local authorities started using a rubber crumb surfacing for play areas, which basic research has said would be safer for kids (specifically for those that fell directly onto their heads).

After these had been in for a few years, Councils started to observe a weird thing; they were getting a lot more injuries than they had seen in the past. The reason was that because of the spongy top of this surfacing, parents and kids were assuming that it offered more protection that it actually did; so they were using it like a crash-mat, which they could jump on from all sorts of heights. Today, Councils are increasingly going back to grass and woodchip, as a safer option. There are similar debates in rugby about scrum-caps and head injuries, with some suggesting that wearing one gives players a false sense of security.

In my first post on this, I pointed out that I think there is individual benefit to wearing a helmet, but that there is a lack of evidence to support a policy that everyone should wear one, I guess because the safety benefit is a bit exaggerated. Similarly, I think the comparisons with seat belts in cars isn't a good one; the 3-point harness is a wonder which has saved many, many lives and there is a wealth of data to support this. Bike helmets, not so much.

Ultimately, risk is something we make our own judgement on and hence are unlikely to all entirely agree about.

drlodge

Roberto di Velo wrote:

Here's another example: safety surfacing in kids playgounds. A few years back schools and local authorities started using a rubber crumb surfacing for play areas, which basic research has said would be safer for kids (specifically for those that fell directly onto their heads).

After these had been in for a few years, Councils started to observe a weird thing; they were getting a lot more injuries than they had seen in the past. The reason was that because of the spongy top of this surfacing, parents and kids were assuming that it offered more protection that it actually did; so they were using it like a crash-mat, which they could jump on from all sorts of heights. Today, Councils are increasingly going back to grass and woodchip, as a safer option. There are similar debates in rugby about scrum-caps and head injuries, with some suggesting that wearing one gives players a false sense of security.

Interesting one this...although I have to say I don't think the same argument really applies to cycling helmets - we don't cycle any differently now, or take more risks, wearing a helmet than we did before I imagine. Some drivers may take more liberties with out safety though.

The interseting thing for me is whether the increase in the number of playground accidents also had a lowering of the severity ie. more accidents of a less severe nature, compared to fewer accidents of a more severe nature. You can't just count the number of accidents, you also need to consider the outcomes of the accidents to get a true picture.

slowbike

drlodge wrote:

Roberto di Velo wrote:

Here's another example: safety surfacing in kids playgounds. A few years back schools and local authorities started using a rubber crumb surfacing for play areas, which basic research has said would be safer for kids (specifically for those that fell directly onto their heads).

After these had been in for a few years, Councils started to observe a weird thing; they were getting a lot more injuries than they had seen in the past. The reason was that because of the spongy top of this surfacing, parents and kids were assuming that it offered more protection that it actually did; so they were using it like a crash-mat, which they could jump on from all sorts of heights. Today, Councils are increasingly going back to grass and woodchip, as a safer option. There are similar debates in rugby about scrum-caps and head injuries, with some suggesting that wearing one gives players a false sense of security.

Interesting one this...although I have to say I don't think the same argument really applies to cycling helmets - we don't cycle any differently now, or take more risks, wearing a helmet than we did before I imagine. Some drivers may take more liberties with out safety though.

The interseting thing for me is whether the increase in the number of playground accidents also had a lowering of the severity ie. more accidents of a less severe nature, compared to fewer accidents of a more severe nature. You can't just count the number of accidents, you also need to consider the outcomes of the accidents to get a true picture.

Have you got a short term memory loss problem? Earlier in this thread you responded to my question of how you'd cycle without a helmet and you said more carefully and a shorter ride - if that's not different then what is?!

VmanF3

I can't be arsed looking, but I have just under 100 posts in nearly two years. I love cycling, but it's not everything in my life. There are folk on here with millions upon millions of posts who are clearly obsessed with cycling, I'll warrant they have power meters, gps, strava, turbo trainers, too much Lycra for grown men, more that several bikes, etc., etc.

Is there a correlation I wonder as to how much people have 'bought into' the cycle culture, post count and whether wearing a helmet or not matters?

I also race yachts, funnily enough, a similar situation is present there as well with life jackets. Some always wear them, most however don't unless the Y flag gets thrown up by the RC.

From experience, people that get more and more 'into' sports or hobbies, tend to start collecting more and more crap.

You know it's bad when they go to the pub with there 'badge of office' T Shirts with cycle branding/slogans.

I'm not sure what this post is about really. Kind of lost the point whilst I was thinking of other stuff....still posted though, maybe somebody understands where I'm coming from.

VmanF3

Wow 9 pages of waffle....and my 100th post! Next thing I'll be buying ID bracelets and carbon fibre helmets!

slowbike

VmanF3 wrote:

I also race yachts, funnily enough, a similar situation is present there as well with life jackets. Some always wear them, most however don't unless the Y flag gets thrown up by the RC.

At least with yachting you get an option of a harness and clipping on - don't go in the water and you don't need a lifejacket ... but even then it's not cut&dry ..
There are some (usually solo) sailors who would rather drown quickly than wear a lifejacket only to be not rescued in time. As with everything - it's down to where you sail, what sort of sailing you're into (fair weather or anything?) and personal preference (some ppl can't swim and wear a lifejacket all the time)

VmanF3 wrote:

From experience, people that get more and more 'into' sports or hobbies, tend to start collecting more and more crap.

and a few start looking at the "essentials" and preaching to others what they should be doing to keep themselves "safe" ...

VmanF3 wrote:

I'm not sure what this post is about really. Kind of lost the point whilst I was thinking of other stuff....still posted though, maybe somebody understands where I'm coming from.

Just rambling ...

Roberto di Velo

drlodge wrote:

Roberto di Velo wrote:

Here's another example: safety surfacing in kids playgounds. A few years back schools and local authorities started using a rubber crumb surfacing for play areas, which basic research has said would be safer for kids (specifically for those that fell directly onto their heads).

After these had been in for a few years, Councils started to observe a weird thing; they were getting a lot more injuries than they had seen in the past. The reason was that because of the spongy top of this surfacing, parents and kids were assuming that it offered more protection that it actually did; so they were using it like a crash-mat, which they could jump on from all sorts of heights. Today, Councils are increasingly going back to grass and woodchip, as a safer option. There are similar debates in rugby about scrum-caps and head injuries, with some suggesting that wearing one gives players a false sense of security.

Interesting one this...although I have to say I don't think the same argument really applies to cycling helmets - we don't cycle any differently now, or take more risks, wearing a helmet than we did before I imagine. Some drivers may take more liberties with out safety though.

The interseting thing for me is whether the increase in the number of playground accidents also had a lowering of the severity ie. more accidents of a less severe nature, compared to fewer accidents of a more severe nature. You can't just count the number of accidents, you also need to consider the outcomes of the accidents to get a true picture.

To be honest, I was looking to illustrate the concept, more than suggesting that it is directly applicable to cycling and helmets.

Back on the safety surfacing, I think they designed a product to meet a problem that didn't really exist - kids almost never fall directly onto their head from a height. There's also a suggestion that the rubber surface is more of a trip hazard.

I think how you ride IS directly relevant to the risk; in the UK a significant number of people cycle as a sporting activity, and travel at speed. Whereas in other countries, but particularly Holland and Scandinavia, cycling is primarily an easier/marginally faster way of walking between places, so even without a helmet they are probably much safer that people riding in the UK with loads of safety gear (we've not even got into hi-viz yet!).

As an aside, there's a theory (with little empiric proof) that humans are only really designed to operate up to a certain speed - about as fast as the fastest person can run. Hence, if you have any sort of accident at above 30mph, the chances are that you'll be hurt.

VmanF3

Slowbike wrote:

VmanF3 wrote:

I also race yachts, funnily enough, a similar situation is present there as well with life jackets. Some always wear them, most however don't unless the Y flag gets thrown up by the RC.

At least with yachting you get an option of a harness and clipping on - don't go in the water and you don't need a lifejacket ... but even then it's not cut&dry ..
There are some (usually solo) sailors who would rather drown quickly than wear a lifejacket only to be not rescued in time. As with everything - it's down to where you sail, what sort of sailing you're into (fair weather or anything?) and personal preference (some ppl can't swim and wear a lifejacket all the time)

VmanF3 wrote:

From experience, people that get more and more 'into' sports or hobbies, tend to start collecting more and more crap.

and a few start looking at the "essentials" and preaching to others what they should be doing to keep themselves "safe" ...

VmanF3 wrote:

I'm not sure what this post is about really. Kind of lost the point whilst I was thinking of other stuff....still posted though, maybe somebody understands where I'm coming from.

Just rambling ...

Thanks for pointing out the situation regarding sailors and life jackets. I've been sailing man & boy for over 40 years and have raced professionally for about 14 years. It's still nice to have observations such as this communicated to me. I shall quote you when I discuss safety during crew briefs in future, I'm sure they'll like the line about drowning quicker should you wish it!

neeb

In some ways what interests me most about this thread is what it says about the deficiencies of internet forums, and maybe even public debate in general. The fact is that the pros and cons of cycle helmet use is one of those subjects that is highly complex and involves uncertainties at several levels with many difficult-to-quantify variables, and at the same time is also (at least potentially) important. It requires very thoughtful debate, qualified statements and some degree of emotional detachment. On an internet forum? No chance! No wonder these threads always go on for pages and pages without getting very far...

I find it very depressing, because it bodes ill for our chances of dealing with more important but equally complex global issues (climate change, overpopulation, genetically modifying our children etc) if the debate has to take place in a truly democratic way.

slowbike

VmanF3 wrote:

Thanks for pointing out the situation regarding sailors and life jackets. I've been sailing man & boy for over 40 years and have raced professionally for about 14 years. It's still nice to have observations such as this communicated to me. I shall quote you when I discuss safety during crew briefs in future, I'm sure they'll like the line about drowning quicker should you wish it!

Me to - although I never raced professionally ...

btw - if you're doing crew briefing you're not a solo sailor ... so it doesn't really count ...

qq - as a profressional racer you are employed to race - so your employer owes you a duty of care - do they insist on lifejackets?
I've never insisted on lifejackets whilst cruising, but we do wear buoyancy aids whilst racing dinghies - if you don't nearly capsize then you're not trying!;)

VmanF3

Slowbike wrote:

VmanF3 wrote:

Thanks for pointing out the situation regarding sailors and life jackets. I've been sailing man & boy for over 40 years and have raced professionally for about 14 years. It's still nice to have observations such as this communicated to me. I shall quote you when I discuss safety during crew briefs in future, I'm sure they'll like the line about drowning quicker should you wish it!

Me to - although I never raced professionally ...

btw - if you're doing crew briefing you're not a solo sailor ... so it doesn't really count ...

qq - as a profressional racer you are employed to race - so your employer owes you a duty of care - do they insist on lifejackets?
I've never insisted on lifejackets whilst cruising, but we do wear buoyancy aids whilst racing dinghies - if you don't nearly capsize then you're not trying!;)

BTW - if I'm doing a crew brief it means that for that job I have a crew. I never said anywhere that I haven't/don't sail solo.

If I have been employed to race, the duty of care is to provide kit, not to enforce wearing it. As a captain, it is entirely my responsibility. If the RC calls for them, we wear them, if there is a reef in the main, we wear them, if it's dark we wear them. This list is not complete.

By the way linking this to the topic, we wear helmets racing cats...but then they are fast as feck and it's a long way to fall....

Although, I work on ships at the minute and at no point do I wear a helmet - hang on, yes I do - engine room!

I too always wear buoyancy aids in dinghies!

VmanF3

neeb wrote:

In some ways what interests me most about this thread is what it says about the deficiencies of internet forums, and maybe even public debate in general. The fact is that the pros and cons of cycle helmet use is one of those subjects that is highly complex and involves uncertainties at several levels with many difficult-to-quantify variables, and at the same time is also (at least potentially) important. It requires very thoughtful debate, qualified statements and some degree of emotional detachment. On an internet forum? No chance! No wonder these threads always go on for pages and pages without getting very far...

I find it very depressing, because it bodes ill for our chances of dealing with more important but equally complex global issues (climate change, overpopulation, genetically modifying our children etc) if the debate has to take place in a truly democratic way.

Good grief! Get a handle on things will you - this is a cycling forum not the UN!

neeb

VmanF3 wrote:

neeb wrote:

In some ways what interests me most about this thread is what it says about the deficiencies of internet forums, and maybe even public debate in general. The fact is that the pros and cons of cycle helmet use is one of those subjects that is highly complex and involves uncertainties at several levels with many difficult-to-quantify variables, and at the same time is also (at least potentially) important. It requires very thoughtful debate, qualified statements and some degree of emotional detachment. On an internet forum? No chance! No wonder these threads always go on for pages and pages without getting very far...

I find it very depressing, because it bodes ill for our chances of dealing with more important but equally complex global issues (climate change, overpopulation, genetically modifying our children etc) if the debate has to take place in a truly democratic way.

Good grief! Get a handle on things will you - this is a cycling forum not the UN!

That's the point - these issues (the important ones) don't really get decided at the UN, but in the political equivalents of cycling forums - the Daily Mail, the office coffee room, the pub etc.

Roberto di Velo

neeb wrote:

In some ways what interests me most about this thread is what it says about the deficiencies of internet forums, and maybe even public debate in general. The fact is that the pros and cons of cycle helmet use is one of those subjects that is highly complex and involves uncertainties at several levels with many difficult-to-quantify variables, and at the same time is also (at least potentially) important. It requires very thoughtful debate, qualified statements and some degree of emotional detachment. On an internet forum? No chance! No wonder these threads always go on for pages and pages without getting very far...

I find it very depressing, because it bodes ill for our chances of dealing with more important but equally complex global issues (climate change, overpopulation, genetically modifying our children etc) if the debate has to take place in a truly democratic way.

Interesting point.

The cycle helmet debate is one example of a complex problem, like climate change. There is a widespread expectation that problems should have a simple outcome: you are safer (or not) wearing a helmet. The world is getting hotter (or not). With a complex issue, science can only ever explain elements of the problem.

cedargreen

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?![/quote]

Why wouldn't you? Because you've identified that the risk is low. This goes to the heart of scepticism over helmet wearing, which is that cycling is being treated differently from other low risk activities.

You say you would probably wear a helmet even when riding in conditions which you perceive to be low risk (eg old railway line) and say 'why wouldn't I'. But why would you- do you wear helmets in other situations where you perceive the risk to be low? If not, why are you singling out cycling for special treatment?

Plenty of people suffer head injuries at home from falling down stairs, and NHS statistics show significantly lower rates of head injury in London because fewer people are driving and more are using public transport- maybe we should be wearing helmets in cars.

I think we're being persuaded to buy expensive bits of polystyrene under pressure from a society which puts the onus for safety onto individuals, and where it's easier to portray cyclists as an irresponsible minority than deal with the real cause of danger on the roads.

Just seen the last post which is very true, but I think generally in this debate it's the vehement pro- helmeteers who insist it's a 'no brainer' and deny the complexity.

Mikey23

I think the only real hope is that it gets abusive in which case the mods will lock it. Then it will go quiet for a couple of weeks until... Someone starts a helmet thread

neilo23

Mikey23 wrote:

I think the only real hope is that it gets abusive in which case the mods will lock it. Then it will go quiet for a couple of weeks until... Someone starts a helmet thread

It's a shame. I wanted to start a thread a while back addressed to the non helmet-wearers but didn't bother because I knew it would just get hijacked by the helmet police and turn into what this thread has become ie nothing to do with the op (which was also addressed to people who don't wear helmets). I was looking forward to mingling with like-minded people

gethinceri

Because I have a low lintel to my outside door I hit my head every time I wear a helmet. if I didn't wear a helmet I wouldn't hit my head on the lintel. Because I wear a helmet I don't hurt my head.
I once had a sh1t out of a tree.

Mikey23

Interesting. I'm fairly tall and am often hitting my head on stuff before and after being on my bike because I'm misjudging my height against my surroundings. And so far not hit my head while riding. Time to reconsider methinks...

awavey

neeb wrote:

In some ways what interests me most about this thread is what it says about the deficiencies of internet forums, and maybe even public debate in general. The fact is that the pros and cons of cycle helmet use is one of those subjects that is highly complex and involves uncertainties at several levels with many difficult-to-quantify variables, and at the same time is also (at least potentially) important. It requires very thoughtful debate, qualified statements and some degree of emotional detachment. On an internet forum? No chance! No wonder these threads always go on for pages and pages without getting very far...
.

they dont get very far because on stuff like this people have very strongly held set passionate views, and regardless of how many graphs,stats or whatever type of emotive language is used, people dont tend to change those views.

no-one is going to turn around and say blimey youve totally convinced me that Ive been completely wrong on this subject for years, Ill stop/start wearing a helmet tomorrow, it just becomes entrenched and everyone thinks what they are doing is right, which is fair enough, maybe this stuff would be better done via a poll as I think the OP really only wanted a show of hands.

johnboy183

So I've not read the whole thread, so apologies if this has been answered already. What are the differences between the differing world safety standards for helmet manufacture/use? And does this make wearing one standard over another safer? (Not withstanding the arguments over whether wearing one makes a difference.)

I always wear one. Partly because I feel uncomfortable without, but more importantly because I choose to believe that it will reduce the level of any injury I may receive. I would still like to see my family and for them to see me. My main concern is hitting my head on the kerbsides rather than impact with the road or a car.

neeb

johnboy183 wrote:

So I've not read the whole thread, so apologies if this has been answered already. What are the differences between the differing world safety standards for helmet manufacture/use? And does this make wearing one standard over another safer? (Not withstanding the arguments over whether wearing one makes a difference.)

I always wear one. Partly because I feel uncomfortable without, but more importantly because I choose to believe that it will reduce the level of any injury I may receive. I would still like to see my family and for them to see me. My main concern is hitting my head on the kerbsides rather than impact with the road or a car.

This is actually a very interesting question. The standards in Europe (EN1078), the U.S. (CPSC) and Australia are different, and the helmets sold in these markets, even if they look identical and have the same name, are often physically different. In general the EU standard is the weakest, so the helmets sold in Europe are often use foam that is slightly lighter and slightly softer. This really surprised me when I first discovered it - no-one ever talks about it and the manufacturers will barely admit it. I had always assumed that they must just sell the same helmet in all markets, making sure that they pass all of the different international tests. Apparently not.

I have had two Bell Gages from the U.S. and one from the U.K. The U.S. ones were/are a few grams heavier, and the stated weight on the labels inside corresponded with this. They are different products.

It's not necessarily as simple as assuming that the CPSC helmets are safer. A softer helmet will compress more easily and so will protect better against lower-force impacts, so in theory might protect you better from mild concussion but less well from more severe impacts. However, having crashed & crushed my last U.S. Gage at 30mph and walked away with only very mild/non-existent concussion, I would rather have the added force absorption potential. So I now always buy my helmets on ebay from the U.S.

neeb

johnboy183 wrote:

My main concern is hitting my head on the kerbsides rather than impact with the road or a car.

P.S. It's pretty unlikely you are going to hit your head right on the edge of a kerb. It's probably more reasonable to be afraid of sudden deceleration turning your brain to jelly (which would happen with your head hitting perfectly flat road hard enough) than your skull being split open by a sharp edge. Our intuitive fears and what we should actually be afraid of often don't match up very well. That said, the most dangerous thing that can happen if you crash at speed is your head hitting a solid vertical object such as a bollard, cliff or whatever, because the impact is likely to be head-on rather than glancing.

MattC59

F*ck me sideways! nine pages of repeated horsesh!t.

VmanF3

10 now thanks to your post....and as you've been a member here forever most topics are probably quite dull to you now.

neeb

MattC59 wrote:

F*ck me sideways! nine pages of repeated horsesh!t.

Probably at least 10% of which is repeated comments bemoaning the topic...

Mikey23

It keeps people occupied...

Mikey1976

Slowbike wrote:

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.

3 years ago.
Yes, badly cracked my helmet instead of badly cracking my skull!

Surely common sense must prevail, and if there is a chance of something saving me from brain damage then I will wear it.

Like I said in my previous post "personally I think its stupid not too" and that is my opinion.

ManOfKent

Last night I went out without my helmet - not deliberately, but perhaps there was something subconscious going on after reading this thread!

The realisation that I wasn't wearing it got me thinking. I believe I'm right in saying that statistically you're more likely to suffer a life-changing head injury as a pedestrian or in a car than as a cyclist, so perhaps it's a little odd that this discussion seems to be limited to only one group of road users. My brother's best friend died of a head injury in a car accident. Should he have been wearing some kind of helmet?

I'll go back to wearing a lid but I enjoyed riding without one, in the same way I prefer being able to wear a jersey and shorts instead of full winter clobber.