G is a helmet

craigus89

Dorset Boy wrote:

In response to the highlighted bit, have there?
There have been posts that imply compulsion puts people off riding casually and that I agree with and acknowledge. But not sure there have been posts proving that wearing a helmet doesn't save lives.
Sure if you suffer an impact at 40+ mph the helmet probably / almost certainly won't save you, but it certainly saves you if the impact is at a lower velocity. However it isn't just about saving your life, it is also about avoiding damage to the brain.

Go over the handlebars at 15 mph and land on your head having hit a pot hole, and I suspect you might not be in great shape without a helmet. You might not be in the morgue, but you could well be in intensive care for a prolonged period. And someone has to clear up that mess (and pay for it).

I'm certain insurers will start to use contributory negligence in this area in the near future too.

Just to point out, there have been no posts to substantiate this either.

DeVlaeminck

mamil314 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

larkim wrote:

We've made all our kids wear lids 100% of the time when riding from a young age.

Our 18 year old (who rode solo throughout the Les Gets / Morzine downhill areas for two weeks two years ago) goes nuts when he sees anyone not wearing a helmet, e.

hypocrisy

I think it means exactly what I think it means but if you want to argue your point go for it.

"the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"
synonyms: sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk;"

Seems to fit very well with someone who is happy to take quite big risks on a bicycle but "goes nuts" because someone is not wearing a helmet for other kinds of riding.

larkim

Craigus89 wrote:

larkim wrote:

There's no hypocrisy here - he knows that riding down to the shops a metal object with an internal combustion engine could hit him at about 30mph, not that different to hitting a rock at 25-30mph on a downhill track. He therefore doesn't see that he is faced with risks that are that hugely different. He goes "nuts" because he doesn't see why others don't see the risk in the same way that he does.

That is fine if that is how he perceives the risk, but to say the risks are not that different between him doing 25-30mph on a downhill track and riding to the shops, his critical thinking probably needs some more work.

But as most people do when they already have their mind made up, you seem to have missed the larger points being made in this thread.

I don't think I've missed anything. Compulsion = lower riding volume = poorer national health = higher driving volumes. I see that that is evidenced in some countries. I've made my mind up to ride with a helmet and since I've had a decent bike and a helmet I've ridden more. For me the compulsion issue isn't a problem, but I see / hear that for others it is. Fine, as I've said I'm no advocate for compulsion. I wouldn't believe anyone who said that me riding with a helmet made me more likely to be injured (and I've seen that argument proposed in the past). But other than that I recognise it's a more complex issue than at first sight. All I'm saying is that if you want to remove the drag that compulsion appears to bring, simply (as grown adults) make your kids wear them and make it habit forming. Then we don't need to worry about compulsion.

You're right that riding to the shops is a different set of risks than riding on a downhill MTB course. Of course it is, so he doesn't wear his knee pads, elbow pads, back protector or face guard when riding to the shops. But just in the same way that we wear seat belts when driving at 20mph or 70mph there's a minimum safety threshold that he believes (and I believe) are necessary to avoid the potential of a life threatening head injury on today's roads. It may be a miniscule chance, but for him and me wearing a lid doesn't change our appetite for cycling one little bit.

kingstongraham

I don't wear a helmet when running on mountain trails - I'm probably more likely to fall and hit my head when doing that than riding a Boris bike in central London.

larkim

Neither do I. But I can't remember too many times when running at 8min/mile on a trail that I didn't have time for my hands to break my fall and avoid a head injury.

I agree there is a logic which does take you down the route and says "are you doing something which has a non-zero potential for a head injury? If so, wear an appropriate head protection device".

And so I am no doubt making a judgement about how high I am happy to have the risk threshold set before I determine I need head protection. Running, no, driving a car, no (arguably the most questionable), walking down the street, no, riding a bike anywhere, yes.

davebradswmb

Dorset Boy wrote:

In response to the highlighted bit, have there?

The posts I was referring to were from qpp and Shirley Basso, the first two posts on 27 Aug.

Dorset_Boy

davebradswmb wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

In response to the highlighted bit, have there?

The posts I was referring to were from qpp and Shirley Basso, the first two posts on 27 Aug.

Neither of which states not wearing a helmet saves lives, but they do suggest compulsion stops casual riders from riding which I agree with.

smithy21

He would get less of a reaction if he had fessed up that Sky had been on the juice for years.

Cyclists eh, bloody hell.

fenix

larkim wrote:

Neither do I. But I can't remember too many times when running at 8min/mile on a trail that I didn't have time for my hands to break my fall and avoid a head injury.

I almost knocked myself out on a regular running route this year. Probably not even running 8min miles.

Overnight rain had weighed down the branches of a tree over the pavement and I clouted my head quite heavily. I had to stop to recover my senses.

I've never done that on a bike.

slowbike

smithy21 wrote:

He would get less of a reaction if he had fessed up that Sky had been on the juice for years.

Cyclists eh, bloody hell.

Nah - just someone else telling us how to live our lives ...

it'd be much simpler if he'd said something along the lines of "helmets are comfortable and there's no reason I can see not to wear one, but it's up to the individual"

Give me a good reason to do something and I will - tell me "because I say so" and I won't....

larkim

Fenix wrote:

larkim wrote:

Neither do I. But I can't remember too many times when running at 8min/mile on a trail that I didn't have time for my hands to break my fall and avoid a head injury.

I almost knocked myself out on a regular running route this year. Probably not even running 8min miles.

Overnight rain had weighed down the branches of a tree over the pavement and I clouted my head quite heavily. I had to stop to recover my senses.

I've never done that on a bike.

LOL!!! There's no substitute for looking where you're going! When I was little I nearly knocked myself out walking into a lamppost on a late night walk to camp out to see the Pope in Manchester. Read into that what you will.

fenix

Dorset Boy wrote:

Go over the handlebars at 15 mph and land on your head having hit a pot hole, and I suspect you might not be in great shape without a helmet. You might not be in the morgue, but you could well be in intensive care for a prolonged period. And someone has to clear up that mess (and pay for it).

Don't forget that helmets are a pretty new invention. None of my pals and I had helmets as kids playing out. I'm sure there were a lot of spills and crashes and we all survived. Surely there would be a huge amount of dead kids prior to helmets being available in the 80's /90's if that were the case ? I've seen nothing to back that up though.

Now I've lost a couple of friends to crashes. The damage was done by motor vehicles. It made no difference as to whether or not they were wearing helmets. Cars are the problem. Not a lack of helmets.

smithy21

Slowbike wrote:

smithy21 wrote:

He would get less of a reaction if he had fessed up that Sky had been on the juice for years.

Cyclists eh, bloody hell.

Nah - just someone else telling us how to live our lives ...

it'd be much simpler if he'd said something along the lines of "helmets are comfortable and there's no reason I can see not to wear one, but it's up to the individual"

Give me a good reason to do something and I will - tell me "because I say so" and I won't....

So just ignore it then?

Vino'sGhost

Slowbike wrote:

smithy21 wrote:

He would get less of a reaction if he had fessed up that Sky had been on the juice for years.

Cyclists eh, bloody hell.

Nah - just someone else telling us how to live our lives ...

it'd be much simpler if he'd said something along the lines of "helmets are comfortable and there's no reason I can see not to wear one, but it's up to the individual"

Give me a good reason to do something and I will - tell me "because I say so" and I won't....

Exactly this. Are you a brexiteer

keef66

larkim wrote:

When I was little I nearly knocked myself out walking into a lamppost on a late night walk to camp out to see the Pope in Manchester. Read into that what you will.

Catholicism; so much more than child abuse?

No_Ta_Doctor

I don't wear a lid, but then I live in Copenhagen.

Just for interest's sake, here are a few reasons why helmet wearing may not be a good thing, especially if it's compulsory:
1) Compulsory helmet wearing reduces amount of people cycling = health risks from sedentary lifestyle
2) Fewer cyclists on roads also = more danger - there really is safety in numbers as cars get more used to negotiating road space with cyclists
3) Even non-compulsory helmet wearing (and hi-viz) increases the perceived risk of cycling for non-cyclists - it becomes a special equipment hobby that's a bit dangerous, instead of "how I get my shopping" - it's anti-normalisation of cycling.
4) Motorist behaviour around helmeted cyclists has been shown to be more dangerous than around non-helmeted - basically they think if you've got a helmet on you're safe and if you haven't then you're a bit daft and maybe liable to do something daft, like swerve around a pothole.

The biggest factors that get people on bikes are
1) Having decent infra
2) Normalizing cycling as just a means of transport, like walking but a bit quicker. Do it in your daily clothes, no special equipment (other than a bike) required.

BTW - I grew up cycling in N. London. I don't think I could go back to cycling there now. I had to re-learn how to ride in Copenhagen, getting rid of all that "taking the lane" stuff.

above_the_cows

Fenix wrote:

larkim wrote:

Neither do I. But I can't remember too many times when running at 8min/mile on a trail that I didn't have time for my hands to break my fall and avoid a head injury.

I almost knocked myself out on a regular running route this year. Probably not even running 8min miles.

Overnight rain had weighed down the branches of a tree over the pavement and I clouted my head quite heavily. I had to stop to recover my senses.

I've never done that on a bike.

You may laugh but last year I had to go to the hospital with concussion after walking into a glass door at work that is normally always open.

mamil314

DeVlaeminck wrote:

mamil314 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

larkim wrote:

We've made all our kids wear lids 100% of the time when riding from a young age.

Our 18 year old (who rode solo throughout the Les Gets / Morzine downhill areas for two weeks two years ago) goes nuts when he sees anyone not wearing a helmet, e.

hypocrisy

I think it means exactly what I think it means but if you want to argue your point go for it.

"the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"
synonyms: sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk;"

Seems to fit very well with someone who is happy to take quite big risks on a bicycle but "goes nuts" because someone is not wearing a helmet for other kinds of riding.

The only only way this would be a hypocrisy if the lad would not have worn a helmet at some point while preaching compulsion to others. Not the case here, 'intensity' of activity notwithstanding.

Moonbiker

Bouldering they don't wear helmets & its loads more dangerous than cycling I reckon.

Also fell running full speed down rocky screes paths covered in large rocks, I have being at several races were someone fell & cut open there head.




Also why dont drivers wear helmets.



I always wear one cycling but don't think they should be complusory.

DeVlaeminck

mamil314 wrote:

The only only way this would be a hypocrisy if the lad would not have worn a helmet at some point while preaching compulsion to others. Not the case here, 'intensity' of activity notwithstanding.

Or perhaps if he went nuts because cyclists were taking unnecessary risks while he himself is taking what I would think most of the population would consider far bigger unnecessary risks on his own bike.

Come on now, I enjoy an argument more than most but you must be trolling with this one.

larkim

Can I rephrase "goes nuts" into "let's out an exasperated sigh and comments to his parents" to take some hyperbole out of my previous post :-)

Vino'sGhost

larkim wrote:

Can I rephrase "goes nuts" into "let's out an exasperated sigh and comments to his parents" to take some hyperbole out of my previous post :-)

No sorry you’ve already set a falling down goes psycho image. (B.B. I know we’re supposed to embrace mental illness and understand it but nuts is nuts)

larkim

Fair enough!

bobmcstuff

Dorset Boy wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

Most ski resorts now make helmets compulsory for kids and as a result they keep wearing them into adulthood.
I think that's probably a more sensible approach that compulsion across the board.

You don't need to crash at speed to damage your brain.
Personally I think you're stupid (and selfish) if you don't wear a lid.

While what you say makes sense, skiing is inherently fast and dangerous (very generally speaking) as there is also a risk of being hit by someone else as well.

A lot of the time cycling can be very not dangerous. I ride a shopping bike 1km to work and back across a park and down a pretty non-busy road. I don't wear a helmet for that, but I probably will when baby comes along to demonstrate responsible behaviour.

For anything on my road bike, I always wear a helmet, although did take it off while ascending the mountains if it's bloody hot.

For most amateurs, skiing is no faster than riding a road bike, my max speeds on both are similar. I would agree that collisions and crashes are more frequent skiing, but even on your ride across the park you could be caught out by a loose dog or stray toddler.

Having a child and expecting them to wear a lid and you not setting the example is difficult to reconcile and that event is what made me start always wearing a helmet, both for cycling and latterly for skiing.

If you do come a cropper then someone has to clear up the mess after you (hence my selfish comment!).

My average and max speeds are faster on skis.

But that aside, I find helmets for skiing are very useful to stop you getting clonked on the head by some muppet carrying their skis over their shoulder and not looking where they are going. Also I find skiing to be similar to MTBing in many respects, for example it is quite common to find oneself hugging a tree at a reasonable speed. I definitely have far more crashes on skis (and mtb) than on the road, which suggests a higher risk (although not necessarily, because risk = consequence x likelihood, and what I am saying is that the likelihood is much higher in skiing and MTB but that doesn't speak to the consequences of road crashes, which might be more serious, perhaps).

I always wear a helmet on my proper road bike, on my pub bike I often don't because if I'm riding the 3-5k on quiet roads to go and meet friends I don't really want to be carrying my helmet round the pub. I was thinking about getting one of those "urban" helmets which have a slot so you can run your bike lock through them easily. But they are quite expensive and I don't really see the risk being that high (and I have no money at the moment)

mooro

Haven’t posted on here for years but this is one funny thread!

Personally I wear a helmet. It just feels safer as a perceived risk.

Legislation ? Not for everyone but there is probably arguement for it to be compulsory for those under 16 as they are less able to assess risks but equally physiologically their skulls are softer and less able to protect the brain.

I work in a hospital. Our traumatic brain injury unit is always full - mainly of elderly stroke patients but the young ones often 20/30 yr old are guaranteed to have been either in a bike accident or abroad on a scooter without a lid. They live there for between 6-18 months learning to recover what movement they can - often minimal. A fairly in your face reminder.

My partner didn’t wear a helmet until she was knocked off her bike and had to role out of the way of an oncoming car. She works in a university and spies surrounded by healthy young people cycling around a campus I.e. safe environment.

We all see risk differently and judge it on our daily lives and experiences so polarised arguments rarely change behaviour. Legislating while under 16 probably would but wouldn’t discourage use in adulthood.

Equally the wider public health benefits of more people cycling and improving fitness far outweigh the cost (huge in person terms) to those individuals who suffer through lack of helmet.

The real key, as 95% of the cyclists on our TBI ward have been in an accident with a car, is educating drivers through increased legislation and education through the driving instruction and greater presidence being given to cyclists in cities.

Back in 2021

DeVlaeminck

If anything cycling related should be legislated against it should be carrying shopping bags hanging from the bars. I wince every time I see some innocent with a bag swinging cms from jamming their front wheel.