Helmets don't make you safer !

giropaul wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I looked on line for that data, Giropaul, but couldn't find anything - could you help me by linking to it?

Just 50 years of being in and around racing. Head injuries are rare, so they get remembered.

Mike Healey wrote:

A few years ago, Dr. Mayer Hilman did some research on this and looked at, IIRC, the medical reports on a series of cyclists with fatal head injuries (can't find a reference, but the article was in the CTC Cyclist magazine). He found that about 92% of riders with such injuries would have died anyway, from other fatal injuries.

Bear in mind that a 30mph to dead stop collision is equivalent to diving headfirst of the roof of the average house. Wearing a helmet under such forces might save your brain, but could easily break your neck or cause other catastrophic internal damage

KingstonGraham wrote:

And of course we all know that the only head injury it's worth protecting against is a fatal one.

giropaul wrote:

rickeverett wrote:

weadmire wrote:

rickeverett,

".... forgetting the fact you (and many others) based that on number of deaths. How many cycling accidents happened where the cyclist didn't die because his/her head was protected by a helmet ?"

You strike me as a true believer - like the Armstrong fanboys who looked for every means of denying the obvious. Some even after he had admitted it. You are not dealing in "facts", you are dealing in anecdotes about other people's experiences. Do you have any of your own? Have you for example ever cycled 1000 miles in a month let alone 12,000 miles in a year in the way oblongomaculatus says he does?

Otherwise no one is forgetting the "facts" might be distorted because those who are saved were not counted. Why? Probably because there haven't been any where the wearing of a helmet saved the life of the wearer. For the avoidance of doubt I think oblongomaculatus is being too balanced and reticent in apparently conceding that someone might have been saved by their helmet. You clearly think it is a given that helmets save lives. If so read the relevant threads on this board and refute the evidence of population level stats in Australia and New Zealand for a start. Until then best to shut up about "facts".

"Same goes for car accidents where driver life was saved by seat belt, airbag and other safety measures."

You are the nth person and his dog to try and develop an equivalence between seat belts in motor vehicles and helmets. There isn't one.

"Only just last week I spoke to a neighbour who was knocked off his bike by a car turning left off the main road he was travelling on. His helmet split apart as he hit the floor - Life most probably saved. If he wasn't wearing a helmet that would have been his skull."

No it wouldn't have, the closest you can get is that it may have been his skull and his skull not being made of polystyrene is unlikely to have cracked in the same way. Even in the less likely event he had hit his head had he not been wearing the helmet.

"I cannot believe how stupid some people are on here. Probably the same cyclists who jump red lights "becuase its safe" and ride 2 abreast on country roads."

That's probably because understanding is not a bedfellow of stupidity...and you are demonstrably stupid. And with regard to being stupid I notice you throw accusations of stupidity round like confetti. I think you are over compensating.

And since you raise the issue of traffic lights: Unlike oblongomaculatus I look for traffic not lights and act accordingly. I have been badly smashed up, broken bones smashed up, many times at traffic light controlled junctions. In every case the lights were green in my favour. I have never come close to being hit jumping red lights. My experience precisely matches that of the reported experience of cyclists killed at traffic light controlled junctions in London between January 1999 and October 2006. The numbers between Jan 99 and Oct 06 run something like 100 killed at light controlled junctions out of a grand total of 135. All of the 100 were obeying the lights, none of the cyclists killed were jumping the lights. There is a Road Transport Laboratory report, commissioned by Transport for London, that looked into the phenomenon of traffic light compliant cyclists being killed. The conclusion was it is safer to jump lights as a cyclist than to obey them. You can obtain a copy with a freedom of information request to Transport for London.

Ŵell looks like your the ultimate dick cyclist then. Red light is a law for all road users. Just ******* obey it. They are killed by vehicles, not by waiting at a light... In many cases turning into the path. One can argue the cyclist shouldn't be going up the inside of a lorry etc in the first place.

London is different to other parts of the country. Drivers and cyclists are more dickish down there to begin with. Promoting a London culture of disobeying laws of the road just to suit you is wrong.
Your attitude is the classic arrogant cyclist people are beginning to despise. Which in turn is leading to more anti cyclist behaviour and media.


And yes. Helmets do make you safer. I guess by your logic, motorcyclists, all professional cyclists in tdf etc, people in winter sports, racing drivers and everyone else who wares a helmet will do just fine without one.

Interestingly, for many years almost all pro riders in the Tour and other races didn't wear helmets. It's an interesting comparison because we can compare similar circumstances, similar routes, similar numbers of crashes even ( actually probably more crashes years ago). Given many people's views on here we might expect to see significantly less head injuries since helmets became compulsory - but even discounting motorbike related incidents, this isn't the case.

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Studies at winchester university show wearing helmets affects the wearers perception of danger, making it more likely that theyll take risks that someone without a helmet wouldnt.