It's official: Bike helmets are useless (oh no, not again!)
pinno
Posts: 51,355
Comments
-
:roll: :roll: :roll:A hysterical woman wrote:Because cycling is dangerous. Really dangerous.
And it seems that the opinion of a "self-confessed helmet refusenik" is what counts as making it official? That and a 10 year old survey of how close cars drove to cyclists. Which I seem to remember also said that wearing a blond wig got you even more room, so really we should all be doing that.
Good, let's start another helmet debate then, it's been a few weeks since the last.0 -
:roll: :roll: :roll:A hysterical woman wrote:Because cycling is dangerous. Really dangerous.
And it seems that the opinion of a "self-confessed helmet refusenik" is what counts as making it official? That and a 10 year old survey of how close cars drove to cyclists. Which I seem to remember also said that wearing a blond wig got you even more room, so really we should all be doing that.
Good, let's start another helmet debate then, it's been a few weeks since the last.
A bite and I haven't even put the line in the water yet. This is looking good already.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Not true.
Wearing a helmet dramatically reduces the amount of abuse you get for not wearing a helmet.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I disagree, on at least two occasions I have been ready to go out for a ride and bent down to pick something up and then hit my head on an open cupboard door or something when standing back up. Were it not for already having put my helmet on i would have had a very slightly sore head.
Money well spent in my book! I might start just wearing it around the house, just in case!www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Statistically it might make sense.I might start just wearing it around the house, just in case!
A good head of hair helps avoid cupboard doors. When my hair fell out there was a noticeable increase in incidents of banging my head. Now with a full and magnificent head of hair* the number of incidents has dropped to the previous level.
When I cut my arm open and broke my finger I was told by several people that it was a good job I was wearing a helmet. Maybe my leg would have fallen off were it not for the helmet.
* I thought Piña would like that line0 -
My helmet overheats my head and brain and causes dehydration and confusion. I know this because I put stuff in the back pockets of my cycling jersey and after a short ride, I can't find anything except that re-occurring snot rag. I also end up dropping a trail of Haribo which sometimes results in fights with fellow cyclists as I have often accused them of theft, so helmets make you aggressive too. It makes me loose my keys, I forget where I put things and it is only useful to hold my shades in place but looks marginally better than a granny strap.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Yeah, came across as a bit of a grumpy pro-helmet rant when I really meant it to be a bored anti-helmet thread rant. Sorry.
:roll: :roll: :roll:A hysterical woman wrote:Because cycling is dangerous. Really dangerous.
And it seems that the opinion of a "self-confessed helmet refusenik" is what counts as making it official? That and a 10 year old survey of how close cars drove to cyclists. Which I seem to remember also said that wearing a blond wig got you even more room, so really we should all be doing that.
Good, let's start another helmet debate then, it's been a few weeks since the last.
A bite and I haven't even put the line in the water yet. This is looking good already.0 -
every time mine cracks i hit the road, it's enough to put you right off wearing onemy bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0
-
An acquaintance from Uni. Not much of a career writing bollox for clickbait.
Also wrote this a while ago.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/women-who-eat-on-tubes-i-was-hurt-and-humiliated-when-my-photo-appeared-online--im-never-going-to-strangershame-again-9249512.html
http://www.thedebrief.co.uk/news/opinion/i-faced-so-much-online-abuse-for-eating-on-a-train-i-m-now-too-afraid-to-eat-in-public-20140589980 -
One aspect where helmets are dangerous is the encounter with the British Standard Wasp.
This little bugger would normally just glance off my follically challenged scalp were I not wearing a helmet. However, when helmeted and 'protected', it manages to find it's way down through the vents and then get stuck. So, there I am holding a good speed (for me) and there's this stripy little sod buzzing away and getting agitated. I'm shaking my head trying to dislodge it, and my concentration, now taken up with scalp kung fu, is anywhere but on the road.
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
I don't know why she is concerned about lorries, what about if you are hit by a nuclear warhead while out cycling?
Sure the chances are a lot lower but a helmet will protect you even less.0 -
I don't know why she is concerned about lorries, what about if you are hit by a nuclear warhead while out cycling?
Sure the chances are a lot lower but a helmet will protect you even less.
You need to cover it in Tinfoil. Sorted. £10 please, I accept Paypal payments.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Cycling as an activity has halved?It doesn't seem to matter how many times we update the data from the Australian experience the northern hemisphere seems to ignore it. Since compulsory helmet laws were introduced head injuries have halved as a percentage of total injuries. It's pretty clear really.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
It doesn't seem to matter how many times we update the data from the Australian experience the northern hemisphere seems to ignore it. Since compulsory helmet laws were introduced head injuries have halved as a percentage of total injuries. It's pretty clear really.
I am pretty sure that helmets would provide some protection against Wallaby's and Kangaroo's but without integrated ear plugs, would offer no protection against Kylie Minogue.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Nowhere near clear. The overall effect on the health of the nation as a result in reduction in cycling is rather hard to measure.
Cycling as an activity has halved?It doesn't seem to matter how many times we update the data from the Australian experience the northern hemisphere seems to ignore it. Since compulsory helmet laws were introduced head injuries have halved as a percentage of total injuries. It's pretty clear really.0 -
I'm often around heavy equipment on construction sites where you have to wear steel-capped boots if you're to be allowed on site - despite the lack of anything other than excavators and dozers etc that could land on my toes. I don't really believe a quarter-inch of steel is up to the job, and if there's a 20-ton digger backing towards me, my toes are the least of my worries...
I still wear a helmet when riding though, but it's largely the same contradiction...Job: Job, n,. A frustratingly long period of time separating two shorter than usual training rides0 -
Without wanting to kick off another helmet debate.......I often pass a guy up in Northumberland who wears a motocross helmet and wonder why you don't see more of it.0
-
I disagree, on at least two occasions I have been ready to go out for a ride and bent down to pick something up and then hit my head on an open cupboard door or something when standing back up. Were it not for already having put my helmet on i would have had a very slightly sore head.
Money well spent in my book! I might start just wearing it around the house, just in case!
Funny you should say that. The other week I came back from a ride and in the process of hanging up my bike in the garage, dislodged a light fitting that the previous owners of my house had suspended from the ceiling by two thin pieces of wire and hooks screwed into plasterboard. The fluorescent tube broke across my head and I was glad to be still wearing my helmet.
This anecdote suggests I should wear my helmet in the garage but not bother on the bike.0 -
Without wanting to kick off another helmet debate.......I often pass a guy up in Northumberland who wears a motocross helmet and wonder why you don't see more of it.
Not tried a motocross helmet, but I've used a road bike helmet for a short ride on a bicycle (also full race leathers and body armour - I did have a good reason) and the heat build up and extra weight is pretty unbearable after a couple of hundred yards. Couldn't see much for the sweat dripping in my eyes.0 -
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Well, my crash helmet definitely saved me today. I was pedalling along when I heard and felt the impact of bird poo. A tiny bit splashed onto my shorts but my helmet took the brunt of it. When I got to work I went to clean up and to my amazement none of it had got through the vent holes, the only grey flecks were the natural ones.
The helmet did not split on impact and it's a Kask Mojito for those that are interested.0 -
I drop 8kg breeze blocks on to my head from a height of 5' because I enjoy it and I never get injured.
I'm not taking into account that those who don't wear helmets might have much lighter heads and ride on softer roads :roll: .0 -
There was no measurable drop in participation.
Nowhere near clear. The overall effect on the health of the nation as a result in reduction in cycling is rather hard to measure.
Cycling as an activity has halved?It doesn't seem to matter how many times we update the data from the Australian experience the northern hemisphere seems to ignore it. Since compulsory helmet laws were introduced head injuries have halved as a percentage of total injuries. It's pretty clear really.
...but there was a measurable lack of humour.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Well, my crash helmet definitely saved me today. I was pedalling along when I heard and felt the impact of bird poo. A tiny bit splashed onto my shorts but my helmet took the brunt of it. When I got to work I went to clean up and to my amazement none of it had got through the vent holes, the only grey flecks were the natural ones.
The helmet did not split on impact and it's a Kask Mojito for those that are interested.
You're taking a lot of risks and being a parent, you are behaving so irresponsibly. I really don't know how you can be a moderator and promote safe cycling when you are riding with a helmet on that has had bird sh1t on it.
I think you need to listen and listen up good: Bird sh1t is acidic and it has compromised the integrity of your helmet. In the event the No. 57 bus from Victoria runs over your head, now that your helmet is compromised, the risk of serious injury has multiplied by a factor of 356.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
You actually read these statistics? :shock:
Statistics from a .com don't count. Look for a .edu or a .org. If you do actually check the stats quoted from the ABS the ABS give an entirely different analysis. For example, there has been a drop in children cycling to school since compulsory helmet laws came in but there has been an equal drop in children walking to school. Which I assume isn't caused by helmet laws. These days most kids are dropped off by a parent or catch a bus to school, which is probably related to the rise in living standards over the last 20 years due to the mining boom.
May I presume that you think .org and .edu sites are fair and impartial?
How sweet.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
simple test to prove or disprove the theory;
n.b.
It is important the test is done in the correct sequence,
step one,
put on helmet, ensure straps and cradle are properly adjusted
step two
strike self (important that impact is of sufficient force to replicate low speed fall from upright position against pavement or trail etc) firmly on side of helmet with standard house brick.
Step three, remove helmet and inspect damage
Step four, without wearing helmet, strike self on side of head with same house brick, if possible with same force angle etc
Step five, ask paramedic attending to inspect damage etc
:-)fay ce que voudres0 -
There was no measurable drop in participation.
Lies, damned lies and statistics....there has been a drop in children cycling to school since compulsory helmet laws came in...0 -
[quote="fnb1
......strike self (important that impact is of sufficient force to replicate low speed fall from upright position against pavement or trail etc) ......[/quote]
Is that because helmets have been show to be ineffective at high speeds?
I cycle faster than 13 mph.
My primary method for avoiding head injuries is simply not falling off my bike.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Surely one of the worst damned lies on an internet forum is to quote someone with vast chunks removed so as to completely distort the argument they were making? Cyd very clearly pointed out that the rate of kids walking and cycling had declined equally and that this more or less totally rules out helmet laws as a cause. There isn't even any contradiction between the two bits you did quote - it would be very simple for overall rates to stay the same but one sub-section to change.There was no measurable drop in participation.
Lies, damned lies and statistics....there has been a drop in children cycling to school since compulsory helmet laws came in...
About par for the tendentiousness course in the helmet debate, but I would expect better from a mod.
As for PBlakeny's snark, well, you've got a point there, I'm not sure there's any inherently greater trustworthiness in any particular top level domain (although at least .edu is more likely to have attracted proper peer review). But it is maybe worth pointing out that cycle-helmets.com and cyclehelmets.org are both pure anti-helmet campaigns masquerading as impartial information sites. That's not to attempt any judgement at all on the validity of their information (Cyd has at least pointed out that different interpretations are possible) but it's very obvious which way they're pulling.
And anyway, am I the only person who finds the (literally) catastrophic 65% reduction in cycling in one year in WA a bit unlikely? I'd have to accept it in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, but it just seems remarkable to me that 2 out of 3 cyclists would stop riding in response to such a law....0
