Calling helmet deniers: Geraint alive and well
Comments
-
Why do I get the uneasy feeling that this
fella is posting in the thread under multiple aliases ?
0 -
Who cares
Wear one if you want to, don`t if you don`t.
I wear one cause the pro`s do and they look cool. Sometimes I don`t , cause those damn Rapha dudes look cool as well,
It`s no biggie,,Trek,,,, too cool for school ,, apparently0 -
I wouldn't dream of riding without a helmet.
Unless the only design available was the travesty currently being worn by Cannondale-Garmin, in which case I'd take my chances without.Job: Job, n,. A frustratingly long period of time separating two shorter than usual training rides0 -
See, It`s all about looksTrek,,,, too cool for school ,, apparently0
-
Top trolling 7/10
9.1 9.3 8.5 9.0
YawnRule #5 // Harden The Feck Up.
Rule #9 // If you are out riding in bad weather, it means you are a badass. Period.
Rule #12 // The correct number of bikes to own is n+1.
Rule #42 // A bike race shall never be preceded with a swim and/or followed by a run.0 -
I came off my bike three weeks ago, in the course of which I hit the road hard enough to smash my femur into three pieces. No other vehicle involved, so goodness knows how I managed to transfer enough energy into my thigh to break it. (Incidentally, EVERY cyclist stopped to check that the situation was in hand, and some lent me their rain jackets. Not a lot of use, but every little counts. Not a single smegging motorist stopped to offer help, a blanket - I have one in my car - or a proper jacket or jumper - and I bet that they weren't driving wearing thin Lycra.)
And I was wearing my helmet.
According to the paramedic on the ambulance, if I'd not been wearing my helmet I could have smashed my head against the wall next to the road. That would have been an air ambulance job, and probably a fatality, he said.
It would also have required a re-writing of the laws of physics. I came down in the middle of the road and stopped almost instantly - providing the sudden input of kinetic energy required to break the largest, strongest bone in my body. Had I slid the 5m or so towards the wall, I'd have scrubbed off a lot more skin but also quite a bit of energy. And since when does the presence of a helmet determine if the wearer stops, skids or bounces?
What the helmet actually achieved was threefold. Firstly, it stopped my head from lightly tapping the Tarmac. I might have picked up a graze or two, maybe a bruise, had I not been wearing the helmet.
Secondly, as I was wearing a helmet it was SLIGHTLY more comfortable lying in the cold, wet road for 45 minutes waiting for that ambulance. It provides scant padding and insulation, but it was better than nothing. Like the taffeta rain jacket that I was lent, to cover my body.
Thirdly, wearing a helmet saves me from MOST of the lectures from the holier-than-thou pro-helmet lobby. In reality, helmet or not if I'd hit the paramedic's wall I'd have been in a very bad way. There is plenty of research showing that helmet-wearing has its negatives (increased incidence of rotational injuries, encourages drivers to pass more closely, puts out a "cycling is dangerous" message that isn't right). But the three positives I've listed are enough to mean that I have always worn, and will always wear, mine.They use their cars as shopping baskets; they use their cars as overcoats.0 -
It was you that raised the subject of statistical analysis.
You respond with two more completely irrelevant questions. Since compulsory helmet laws were introduced in Australia there has been a 50% reduction in serious head injuries and that is corrected for changes in participation by expressing it as a percentage of overall reported injuries. BTW I don't even have to look up the answer to question one. Unless you think cycling may either prevent or cause cancer it should be bang on the national average. The answer to question 2 based on the Australian data is about twice as many as would have died if they were wearing helmets.Someone needs to do a statistical analysis course. The average citizen is much more likely to die from cancer than a bicycle accident, but that's mostly because the average citizen doesn't ride a bike. You can't apply those stats to yourself as I assume from your participation in this forum you ride a bike quite a lot. In fact you may spend 100 times more time on a bike than the average person so you are 100 times more likely to die in a bike crash than the average.
I missed this in the flurry of posts.
Someone needs to heed their own advice.
Answer 2 questions.
1. What percentage of cyclists die from cancer?
2. What percentage of cyclists die from cycling related head injuries whilst not wearing a helmet?
Once you have the answers, consider whether it is worth continuing.
I am more likely to die from cancer than a cycling related head injury but you thought that was false analysis.
You were wrong. Go on, admit it.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 -
So, it has finally boiled down to peer pressure?One is that it is far easier, more practical, and more socially acceptable to wear a helmet whilst cycling than it is to pop one on to go to the shops or sit at your desk, or give a presentation etc. etc.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 -
:P 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 -
So, it has finally boiled down to peer pressure?One is that it is far easier, more practical, and more socially acceptable to wear a helmet whilst cycling than it is to pop one on to go to the shops or sit at your desk, or give a presentation etc. etc.
Peer pressure is the direct opposite of what that says :roll:
There is no pressure from anyone, on anyone, in what I wrote.
Have you bumped your head?0 -
So let's change it,a hammer isn't really similar to falling off a bike so if there was a 1 in a million chance you would get hit on the head by a plank of wood whilst you were doing something (watching tv, at work or something) and you were able to avoid it as best you could,would you were a helmet?
The two things are completely different for two main reasons.
One is that it is far easier, more practical, and more socially acceptable to wear a helmet whilst cycling than it is to pop one on to go to the shops or sit at your desk, or give a presentation etc. etc.
The second is that choosing to do a sport is very different to just existing in day to day life.
Its the same as saying you would not wear a life jacket on a speed boat because you would not wear one walking along a canal path.
The one in a million\14 million thing is rubbish too. If something is going to happen to you, its going to happen.
Why would you care how many other people it happens to?
but you could argue it is equally practical to put on elbow pads but people don't because the risk is not seen as great enough to be worth it. But some sports do wear them because the risk is high enough. That is what people have to weigh up, is the risk of hitting your head in such a way that a helmet would help worth putting a helmet on for?
the one in a million thing is valid, how do you know if something is likely to happen to you? you see how many other people in similar circumstances it has happened to before as a guide. If i was certain I was going to require the protection of my helmet every time i rode a bike I would stop riding it pretty quickly.
Anyway, back to my main point, why do people care what others do?www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Chris Bass wrote:Anyway, back to my main point, why do people care what others do?
Another helmet debate!!!! Nice to see this place doesn't ever change
As Chris says, wear one if you want to, don't if you don't.......freedom of choice
"Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0 -
I would say that, if you bang your head when cycling without a helmet, the peer pressure you experience would be substantially greater.
So, it has finally boiled down to peer pressure?One is that it is far easier, more practical, and more socially acceptable to wear a helmet whilst cycling than it is to pop one on to go to the shops or sit at your desk, or give a presentation etc. etc.
Peer pressure is the direct opposite of what that says :roll:
There is no pressure from anyone, on anyone, in what I wrote.
Have you bumped your head?0 -
If an action is more socially acceptable then the opposite action is more socially unacceptable.Peer pressure is the direct opposite of what that says :roll:
There is no pressure from anyone, on anyone, in what I wrote.
Have you bumped your head?
That is peer pressure.
Has your head over heated?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 -
There is plenty of pressure to wear a helmet......we all have a ton of friends or family who think cycling is akin to basejumping when it comes to being dangerous.
I would say that, if you bang your head when cycling without a helmet, the peer pressure you experience would be substantially greater.
So, it has finally boiled down to peer pressure?One is that it is far easier, more practical, and more socially acceptable to wear a helmet whilst cycling than it is to pop one on to go to the shops or sit at your desk, or give a presentation etc. etc.
Peer pressure is the direct opposite of what that says :roll:
There is no pressure from anyone, on anyone, in what I wrote.
Have you bumped your head?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 -
I just don't have any confidence in cycling helmets, far too flimsy and no decent evidence that they work. Now motor bike helmets, that's another matter. I would never feel safe venturing out on a bike without a full face motorbike lid. You compromise your safety and the happiness of your nearest and dearest if you want to but I'm being prudent and responsible.0
-
I don't
......we all have a ton of friends.
I would say that, if you bang your head when cycling without a helmet, the peer pressure you experience would be substantially greater.
So, it has finally boiled down to peer pressure?One is that it is far easier, more practical, and more socially acceptable to wear a helmet whilst cycling than it is to pop one on to go to the shops or sit at your desk, or give a presentation etc. etc.
Peer pressure is the direct opposite of what that says :roll:
There is no pressure from anyone, on anyone, in what I wrote.
Have you bumped your head? 0 -
I don't
......we all have a ton of friends.
I would say that, if you bang your head when cycling without a helmet, the peer pressure you experience would be substantially greater.
So, it has finally boiled down to peer pressure?One is that it is far easier, more practical, and more socially acceptable to wear a helmet whilst cycling than it is to pop one on to go to the shops or sit at your desk, or give a presentation etc. etc.
Peer pressure is the direct opposite of what that says :roll:
There is no pressure from anyone, on anyone, in what I wrote.
Have you bumped your head?
i'll be your friend, not sure I'd count as a ton (about 77kg at last weigh in) but it's a start!www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
^^^ 0
-
If an action is more socially acceptable then the opposite action is more socially unacceptable.Peer pressure is the direct opposite of what that says :roll:
There is no pressure from anyone, on anyone, in what I wrote.
Have you bumped your head?
That is peer pressure.
Has your head over heated?
I don't think there is any pressure coming from anyone not to wear a helmet around the office.
Its not something people really consider, so its hard to exert pressure about something when the thought has not even entered your head.
If there was peer pressure not to do it, it would be peer pressure to not look silly, not peer pressure to specifically not wear a helmet.0 -
It is a false analysis unless you have taken into account your personal riding behaviour and anything that may affect your personal likelihood of developing cancer (family history, smoker etc). Mass statistics can't be applied to the individual. They can however be used to formulate laws that apply to the masses.I am more likely to die from cancer than a cycling related head injury but you thought that was false analysis.
You were wrong. Go on, admit it.[/quote]
It is therefore highly accurate as I am fully aware of both my riding behaviour and my personal likelihood.
You on the other hand, do not. The masses do not apply to the initial example, me.
Also, have you not found out the answers to the 2 questions that I posed?
They do apply to the cycling masses. You are wrong. Go on, admit it.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 just don't have any confidence in cycling helmets, far too flimsy and no decent evidence that they work. Now motor bike helmets, that's another matter. I would never feel safe venturing out on a bike without a full face motorbike lid. You compromise your safety and the happiness of your nearest and dearest if you want to but I'm being prudent and responsible.
Not sure that for road riding versus motorbike helmets are the right comparison.
Before I sold my m/bike I would not consider venturing out without a helmet, even riding a mile or so in denims just to fill up with fuel felt wrong and exposed (naked almost).
And yet I have and would still ride at up to 50mph downhill with 23mm of rubber (even less contact area) wearing lycra shorts and jersey and a bit of polystyrene on my head. The 50mph limit is more a matter of ability and weight than nerve.
On one hand just insane and yet lots of people do the same.0 -
I wonder if those advocating wearing a helmet for cycling would themselves wear a helmet if they
were driving/being driven in a convertible car. I mean, the car could be up-turned in the event of
an accident.0 -
Cancer deaths in the UK 2012 - 161,823Stuff, and
An individuals risk of developing cancer can vary by degrees of magnitude due to the presence of a single gene or due to a single event in their life. That's why we study populations and form law based on those analyses.
Cycling deaths in the UK 2012 - 122. 80% head related = 98.
If cyclists are 1% of the population that would be 1,618. If I was in the top 10% of cyclists that would be 162. That would be double the risk. I have a higher than average chance of dying from cancer due to family history, medical history, and lifestyle.
I will ignore the facts that 8% of the population cycle, how many of those cycling dead were wearing helmets, and I am not in the top 10%.
It does not have to be in a published article to be fact. You are wrong. Go on, admit it.
Even more reason to wear a helmet whilst in vehicles.
Most head injuries from car accidents are cause by contact with the inside of the car. Assuming your convertible has roll bars you are probably safer than in a sedan unless an object enters the passenger space.I wonder if those advocating wearing a helmet for cycling would themselves wear a helmet if they
were driving/being driven in a convertible car. I mean, the car could be up-turned in the event of
an accident.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 just don't have any confidence in cycling helmets, far too flimsy and no decent evidence that they work.
No, I'm sure Geraint Thomas would agree with you, no evidence whatsoever.
Except that small matter of the fact that he head butted a telegraph pole with the side of his head and was completely uninjured.
As usual the Bikeradar helmet debate diverts straight to the bun-fight of whether or not one should wear one, not the subject of "Do they protect you from injury or death?", which was the subject of this thread and the answer to which (a resounding "YES") even the majority of the trolls on this thread probably agree with.0 -
Back OT.None of the above, according to the helmet denying crew, bike helmets are useless.
No one has claimed the above.
I suggest that it was the original post that was trolling.
Chapeau!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 -
Trolling is generally the posting of controversial viewpoints to cause an inflammatory debate.
It probably is controversial to claim that a helmet may not protect you in an accident. But that's only because people's natural reaction to that claim is stoked by headline and anecdote. Sit them down for a few minutes, have a good discussion and they'll probably come to realise that the statement that helmets do prevent injury and death is by far the most trolling of the statements.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
And yet for 100 years riders rode without helmets in some of the toughest races in the worst conditions and survived. Casartelli and Kivlev died but otherwise lots of others didn't ...
1:30 onwards ... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ob1rYlCpOnM0 -
[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19665619#p19665619]wishitwasallflat[/url] wrote:And yet for 100 years riders rode without helmets in some of the toughest races in the worst conditions and survived. Casartelli and Kivlev died but otherwise lots of others didn't ...
1:30 onwards ... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ob1rYlCpOnM
In 1982 there was the incident with the pigeon!! One plays football, tennis or golf, one does not play at cycling0 -
Not wanting to be pedantic but he didn't head butt the pole, he met it backwards and appears to spread the load across his shoulders & back. A head butt is widely accepted as using the forehead to create an impact. There wasn't much in the way of damage to the helmet either, when it was waved around on tv. But yeah next time I plan to race a load of pro cyclists down a mountain at 40-50 mph, I"ll be sure to wear a helmet. For beetling around on weekend rides and my 20 mile dash to work on fairly empty country roads, no thanks.I just don't have any confidence in cycling helmets, far too flimsy and no decent evidence that they work.
No, I'm sure Geraint Thomas would agree with you, no evidence whatsoever.
Except that small matter of the fact that he head butted a telegraph pole with the side of his head and was completely uninjured.
As usual the Bikeradar helmet debate diverts straight to the bun-fight of whether or not one should wear one, not the subject of "Do they protect you from injury or death?", which was the subject of this thread and the answer to which (a resounding "YES") even the majority of the trolls on this thread probably agree with.0
This discussion has been closed.
