It's official: Bike helmets are useless (oh no, not again!)
Comments
-
Cycle helmets are very effective in the right circumstances such as mountain biking at speed on rougher trails. Having seen someone crash head first into the road at speed, crack their helmet and only have a strained neck instead of what could have happened it is unlikely i wouldn't wear one.
But if a car takes you out at speed it may provide limited if any protection and if all you do is ride slowly on empty, flat trails even if you fall off you would need to be very unlucky to get a serious head injury.0 -
Therein lies the rub.At no point have I said that you should or should not wear a helmet. It has been said before - it's personal choice, I have no qualms about people who choose not to and equally those who do.
Those who advocate the wearing of helmets certainly are vocal towards those who do not. Downright rude at times as well.
I am at a loss as to why it troubles them so.
I don't think that's the case, it doesn't bother me if someone else doesn't wear a helmet.
I've just read many posts from people claiming helmets are no good and won't prevent injuries apart from the odd graze, but I don't see much medical research proving it. You discounted those Australian figures with links to peer-reviewed papers, then countered it with a theory.0 -
I suggest that you re-read my posts as I have not countered with any theory. I did not discount the Australian figures, I just did not waste my time reading them because as a big boy, I can make my own decisions.
Therein lies the rub.At no point have I said that you should or should not wear a helmet. It has been said before - it's personal choice, I have no qualms about people who choose not to and equally those who do.
Those who advocate the wearing of helmets certainly are vocal towards those who do not. Downright rude at times as well.
I am at a loss as to why it troubles them so.
I don't think that's the case, it doesn't bother me if someone else doesn't wear a helmet.
I've just read many posts from people claiming helmets are no good and won't prevent injuries apart from the odd graze, but I don't see much medical research proving it. You discounted those Australian figures with links to peer-reviewed papers, then countered it with a theory.
You may not be bothered by cyclists not wearing helmets but I personally have encountered dozens, if not hundreds who are bothered. So bothered that they shout abusive comments. They don't trouble me in any way but I do ponder the animosity.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 -
If I'm completely honest I wear one because (a) my wife wouldn't let me go out to play on my bike without wearing one and (b) I have young kids and if wearing a helmet makes an even the tiniest, infinitesimal difference to the likelihood that Daddy will return alive and uninjured, then why would I not?
So I do, obviously. The only downside is that it's a 200 gramme inconvenience.
I also don't judge anyone for not wearing one. I'm 51. In my previous cycling life I spent years never wearing a helmet and because debates like this never existed (nor did the helmets, other than racing style skull caps), it was never an option.
What I do find irritating is the unconvincing rhetoric that somehow tries to prove that helmets are useless and implies that if you wear one then you're some sort of mug. Of course, if a car hits you, they are useless. But, as has been mentioned by perhaps the more grown-up contributors, in many cases they do make a difference between bad injury and no injury/negligible injury. Or even, maybe, life and death.0 -
Right on!! I mean, a man would be a fool to let anything so piffling as evidence affect his decision-making!!I did not discount the Australian figures, I just did not waste my time reading them because as a big boy, I can make my own decisions.0 -
Right on!! I mean, a man would be a fool to let anything so piffling as evidence affect his decision-making!!I did not discount the Australian figures, I just did not waste my time reading them because as a big boy, I can make my own decisions.
Most people don't nee to wade through loads of shite to reach a decision on what is after all a very simple matter. They look at the risks, consider the advantages and disadvantages as far as they are concerned and make their decision accordingly.
BTW there is no right or wrong decision, it is down to the individual.0 -
This is exactly the point.So peer reviewed papers from internationally respected Universities are "shite"? In the US exactly the same argument happens regarding seatbelts and gun ownership. I find it intriguing that in the UK no one likes "the man" telling them to wear a bicycle helmet but it's OK for him to make them wear a seatbelt and to take your guns away. :?
I wear a seatbelt purely because it is illegal not to do so. I would not wear one otherwise.
The "man" is not telling me to wear a helmet, other cyclists are and it is none of their business.
Peer reviewed papers may not be "shite" (your phrase) but I am capable of doing a risk assessment and making the decision not to wear one. It is my choice.
Read through all my posts again and you will see that at no point do I tell others not to wear one. People who do wear one on the other hand.........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 -
Mine worked, not sure if my head directly onto the road would have given the same result.0
-
This is useful context. Are you a member of the flat earth society as well?I wear a seatbelt purely because it is illegal not to do so. I would not wear one otherwise.0 -
This is useful context. Are you a member of the flat earth society as well?I wear a seatbelt purely because it is illegal not to do so. I would not wear one otherwise.
Have you considered the prospect that he may be capable of independant thought? I know you may find that quite radical...0 -
No. It is about risk assessment.
This is useful context. Are you a member of the flat earth society as well?I wear a seatbelt purely because it is illegal not to do so. I would not wear one otherwise.
45 years of cycling, no head injuries.
35 years of driving, no need for a seatbelt.
That is not to say that they may not happen in the future but does show that the risks are lower than portrayed.
It's a bit like putting on a condom before a night out just in case.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 -
People are fed on a diet of fear - the fear of the 'if' or what could happen 'if you don't...' . They are saturated by bad events, fed through the media in a constant torrent. If you don't subscribe to the fear however significant and the paranoia, then the prevailing conclusion of the sheep is that there must be something wrong with you.
This is the modern phenomena. Life has become an existence and we are no longer living. People in Italy riding mopeds with no helmets come a cropper regularly but enjoy life to the full. They live, not jus simplyy exist. Isn't it ironic that we live in a Health and Safety asphyxiated society who regard life so precious that they feel compelled to make everything so safe to the point of banning egg and spoon races and we no longer have any fun or freedom without some form of constraint, yet many have stopped living for fear of death?
But philosophically, societies need X% of the population to be sheep because if countries were populated by free thinking individuals, there would be chaos. So I guess you need the sheep.
The problem it seems is that cycling has now gone mainstream and is now sucking in the sheep, whereas before we were the eclectic oddballs who wore lycra and pedalled 'push bikes' not frightened of going against the grain.
@cyd190468. Blakey is not promiscuous, he is using the condom as a metaphor to illustrate risk, or perceived risk and your diatribe about paying someone's health bill is deeply flawed.
Next time you are out in public and see a fat person, please lecture them on the benefits of a good diet and exercise won't you and if you walk past a pub...seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I abide by the laws, not what other people wish.
If you are not happy with the laws, get them changed.
Until then I will carry on without a care of other's opinions.
In fact, it can be fun watching people getting wound up simply by going outside the "norm".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 -
Plenty of people would regard riding a bike at high speed either off or on-road an unnecessary risk. Why not just be safe and ride everywhere at under 5mph? Why should others pay for your reckless cycling habits - assuming you commonly ride at speeds far in excess of 5mph.Really though my only problem with your theory is that I think if you choose not to wear a seatbelt or helmet or condom you should wave your right to taxpayer funded healthcare because why should I pay your bills if you take unnecessary risks?
A rider fully clad in armour, helmet and neck-brace whilst hooning down single track at 45mph is taking a far bigger risk with their own safety than someone pootling down the local towpath without a helmet on. Why should one forfeit healthcare and not the other?You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Great to hear from so many armchair experts. Meanwhile, some balanced comments from a real medical expert with real-world experience.
http://www.wheelsuckers.co.uk/profiles/blogs/cycle-helmets-a-view-from-the-emergency-room0 -
Another good read for you "the earth is definitely flat" folks, a large collection of reports by professionals who are not bike forum armchair experts:
http://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/cyclists/cycle-helmets.pdf
A few quotes if you can't be bothered to click the link.
"The study concluded that cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85% and of brain injury
by 88%."
"The report concludes that head protection could reduce the incidence and severity of head injuries among pedal cyclists"
"The report concluded that helmets would prevent 90% of the deaths due to head injury"
"the medical evidence for cyclists to wear helmets is strong"
"None of those wearing a helmet sustained a head injury while 7 of the 13 not wearing a helmet did receive a head injury."
"The report concludes that if cyclists wore helmets the number of head injuries would be reduced"
"The report estimated that at least £80m per year could be saved in hospital costs if all cyclists wore helmets"
But, hey, what do experts with real-world A&E experience and objective reporting know? Not nearly so much as bike forum armchair experts?0 -
"The report estimated that at least £80m per year could be saved in hospital costs if all cyclists wore helmets"
Hmm. Another public sector, make up the numbers, spurious cost benefit figure? £80m pa? Really? Show us your workings Mr RoSPA.0 -
I think you have to take all these reports in context.
The relevance of my posting the link was just to illustrate the following two facts.
1. Are bike helmets useless? No
2. In the event of an accident, do they offer a level of protection that, in many instances, is likely to reduce head injury or death vs wearing no helmet? Yes.
Like many have said, it's down to individuals to make risk assessments and decide whether or not to wear head protection.
Any debates about personal freedom of choice or about the specific types of accident where a helmet may be of limited or no use, or about other activities that should have a pro-helmet lobby (etc) are all well and good but none of these debates changes these two facts.
It's then up to the individual to make the choice (or have the choice made on their behalf, i.e. children on bikes).0 -
And how much saved if car drivers wore helmets, or pedestrians, or perhaps just everyone doing DIY on the weekend?
"The report estimated that at least £80m per year could be saved in hospital costs if all cyclists wore helmets"?
........what would be the reduction in hospital costs if cyclists had proper safe infrastructure to ride around in?You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
BIB - shown innumerable times to be complete tosh made up of extrapolated figures plucked out of a statistically useless 'study'.. Google it. Actually I will. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.htmlAnother good read for you "the earth is definitely flat" folks, a large collection of reports by professionals who are not bike forum armchair experts:
http://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/cyclists/cycle-helmets.pdf
A few quotes if you can't be bothered to click the link.
"The study concluded that cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85% and of brain injury
by 88%."
"The report concludes that head protection could reduce the incidence and severity of head injuries among pedal cyclists"
"The report concluded that helmets would prevent 90% of the deaths due to head injury"
"the medical evidence for cyclists to wear helmets is strong"
"None of those wearing a helmet sustained a head injury while 7 of the 13 not wearing a helmet did receive a head injury."
"The report concludes that if cyclists wore helmets the number of head injuries would be reduced"
"The report estimated that at least £80m per year could be saved in hospital costs if all cyclists wore helmets"
But, hey, what do experts with real-world A&E experience and objective reporting know? Not nearly so much as bike forum armchair experts?
The rest of this argument is too dreary to contemplate joining in with.0 -
I bet you could suck the fun out of a sunny day. :roll:
Neither should be covered. Both are taking unreasonable risks. However riding down the towpath wearing a helmet is A OK.
Plenty of people would regard riding a bike at high speed either off or on-road an unnecessary risk. Why not just be safe and ride everywhere at under 5mph? Why should others pay for your reckless cycling habits - assuming you commonly ride at speeds far in excess of 5mph.Really though my only problem with your theory is that I think if you choose not to wear a seatbelt or helmet or condom you should wave your right to taxpayer funded healthcare because why should I pay your bills if you take unnecessary risks?
A rider fully clad in armour, helmet and neck-brace whilst hooning down single track at 45mph is taking a far bigger risk with their own safety than someone pootling down the local towpath without a helmet on. Why should one forfeit healthcare and not the other?0 -
BIB - shown innumerable times to be complete tosh made up of extrapolated figures plucked out of a statistically useless 'study'.. Google it. Actually I will. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.htmlAnother good read for you "the earth is definitely flat" folks, a large collection of reports by professionals who are not bike forum armchair experts:
http://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/cyclists/cycle-helmets.pdf
A few quotes if you can't be bothered to click the link.
"The study concluded that cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85% and of brain injury
by 88%."
"The report concludes that head protection could reduce the incidence and severity of head injuries among pedal cyclists"
"The report concluded that helmets would prevent 90% of the deaths due to head injury"
"the medical evidence for cyclists to wear helmets is strong"
"None of those wearing a helmet sustained a head injury while 7 of the 13 not wearing a helmet did receive a head injury."
"The report concludes that if cyclists wore helmets the number of head injuries would be reduced"
"The report estimated that at least £80m per year could be saved in hospital costs if all cyclists wore helmets"
But, hey, what do experts with real-world A&E experience and objective reporting know? Not nearly so much as bike forum armchair experts?
The rest of this argument is too dreary to contemplate joining in with.
Trying to discredit one research report out of dozens is meaningless, so what if it's not 85/88%, does this prove that a helmet doesn't protect you? No.
Are you saying you're as well to have a bare head in the event of an accident where your head comes into contact with a hard object than a helmeted one?0 -
[quote="Bordersroadie"
1. Are bike helmets useless? No
2. In the event of an accident, do they offer a level of protection that, in many instances, is likely to reduce head injury or death vs wearing no helmet? Yes.
Like many have said, it's down to individuals to make risk assessments and decide whether or not to wear head protection. [/quote]
You could have simply posted the above and saved a lot of bother.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 -
True dat.
And how much saved if car drivers wore helmets, or pedestrians, or perhaps just everyone doing DIY on the weekend?
"The report estimated that at least £80m per year could be saved in hospital costs if all cyclists wore helmets"?
........what would be the reduction in hospital costs if cyclists had proper safe infrastructure to ride around in?
A higher percentage of car passengers suffer head injuries than cyclists. Helmets mandatory for getting in a car?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 -
Which club are you a member of?Neither should be covered. Both are taking unreasonable risks. However riding down the towpath wearing a helmet is A OK.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 -
A rider fully clad in armour, helmet and neck-brace whilst hooning down single track at 45mph is taking a far bigger risk with their own safety than someone pootling down the local towpath without a helmet on. Why should one forfeit healthcare and not the other?Neither should be covered. Both are taking unreasonable risks. However riding down the towpath wearing a helmet is A OK.
Just thought I'd quote this. If this doesn't prove the lunacy of this debate, I'm not sure what does.0 -
I think you have to take all these reports in context.
The relevance of my posting the link was just to illustrate the following two facts.
1. Are bike helmets useless? No
2. In the event of an accident, do they offer a level of protection that, in many instances, is likely to reduce head injury or death vs wearing no helmet? Yes.
Like many have said, it's down to individuals to make risk assessments and decide whether or not to wear head protection.
Any debates about personal freedom of choice or about the specific types of accident where a helmet may be of limited or no use, or about other activities that should have a pro-helmet lobby (etc) are all well and good but none of these debates changes these two facts.
It's then up to the individual to make the choice (or have the choice made on their behalf, i.e. children on bikes).
Wise words, well put. I wear a helmet to cycle most of the time, but sometimes I don't. I haven't ever hurt my head whilst cycling. Even a good modern helmet is nowhere near as good as riding without. One thing I do miss when I'm wearing a helmet is the adjustability of a cap - peak up, down, backwards, off.0 -
I used to post on here a lot, but don't really bother any more mainly because arguing with strangers on the internet who are all desperately trying to be right is waste of a life, but things like that 85% nonsense deserve to be pulled up. You can carry on if you like though, or just search for the numerous helmet threads already on here - it's all been done to death, plenty of times.Trying to discredit one research report out of dozens is meaningless, so what if it's not 85/88%, does this prove that a helmet doesn't protect you? No.
Are you saying you're as well to have a bare head in the event of an accident where your head comes into contact with a hard object than a helmeted one?
0 -
I used to post on here a lot, but don't really bother any more mainly because arguing with strangers on the internet who are all desperately trying to be right is waste of a life, but things like that 85% nonsense deserve to be pulled up. You can carry on if you like though, or just search for the numerous helmet threads already on here - it's all been done to death, plenty of times.Trying to discredit one research report out of dozens is meaningless, so what if it's not 85/88%, does this prove that a helmet doesn't protect you? No.
Are you saying you're as well to have a bare head in the event of an accident where your head comes into contact with a hard object than a helmeted one?
Fair enough, mate.
I've also seen these threads umpteen times and ignore them for precisely the reasons you mention, but sometimes I can't help myself! I think I'll pass on your last suggestion, as I have a life to attend to!
0 -
All in all, a pleasant weekend.
No incidents, and no derisory comments about not wearing a helmet.
Also nice to see quite a high amount of same minded people. 8)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
