# Detention Lines: I will wear a helmet.



## handsome joe (24 Oct 2008)

Had a nasty accident yesterday. Had to cross two lanes of traffic to take a short cut. Half way across i noticed the car heading towards me was speeding up therefore causing me to increase my speed. Due to not taking this short cut for a long time i had forgotten there is permernent barriers at the entrance to this road. There is two small gaps for cycles but you have to slow down to get through. So there's me going way too fast and hiting a concrete kerb thats part of the barrier. 

I heard the sound of my metal (my pedal) hitting concrete and find myself flying with my bike through the air upside down. Luckily i came down towards my left side. But my knee, elbow and especially my wrist/hand took the full force. This being London no one stopped to ask how i was just a couple of kids giggling nearby. I immediately did the macho thing of standing up and acting like nothing happened......i sat back down sharpish. The kids came over, asked if i was alright, then commented on how spectacular and desperate i looked flying through the air. The bike was ok but my knee and wrist really hurt. For some reason i got back on the bike and cycled home? When i got home i started to feel the pain and saw the swelling.

At A+E i found out i had broken my wrist. Luckily there was only abrasions on my knee and elbow. While i was waiting for the x-ray i was wondering what if i had landed on my head? I have finally concluded i am not master of the universe and must wear a helmet. Also seeing how upset my Son was when i came home with my arm in a plaster and sling hit home. When i leave home my family are expecting me to return home in one piece.

So if there is anyone out there not wearing a helmet, please get one.


----------



## fossyant (24 Oct 2008)

Doh.................

Glad it's not too bad.....


----------



## Maz (24 Oct 2008)

I think you should only do those detention lines once your arm is out of the cast!
Get well soon!


----------



## hackbike 6 (24 Oct 2008)

I love it when they ask you if you are ok,yeah like im fine when i've just flown over the handlebars yet again.Doh.


----------



## Leadlegs (24 Oct 2008)

Ride a bike - wear a helmet.

Sorry to hear about the broken bones. Wrists take a while to heal and ache for years afterwards.


----------



## robz400 (24 Oct 2008)

So you're saying that you had a spectacular crash, whilst not wearing a helmet, without harming your head, but now I must wear a helemt, in case I too have a spectacular crash whilst not......


----------



## Twenty Inch (24 Oct 2008)

robz400 said:


> So you're saying that you had a spectacular crash, whilst not wearing a helmet, without harming your head, but now I must wear a helemt, in case I too have a spectacular crash whilst not......



+ 1

I've had a similar accident, while not wearing a helmet, and I didn't bang my head either, and I still don't wear a helmet.


----------



## yenrod (24 Oct 2008)

robz400 said:


> So you're saying that you had a spectacular crash, whilst not wearing a helmet, without harming your head, but now I must wear a helemt, in case I too have a spectacular crash whilst not......



..and his son is very upset having seen his Daddy injured.

His Dad is his icon of strength - having seen him 'weak'.

But the fact that his Dad is going to be smart and strong from now on - isnt he, Handsome !

No disrespect Hand !!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Oct 2008)

Glad it wasn't more serious, but rather than wearing a helmet to prevent an injurythat didn't happen.........

Body armour would have helped prevent the ones that did.....

Ride a bicycle - wear Body Armour!


----------



## handsome joe (24 Oct 2008)

I don't expect to change anyone's views or habits. Just a change to a personal opinion...having realised how fast an accident can happen and having no control over events. If i start wearing a helmet and never have an accident again what does that prove or vice a versa. What i do know for sure is that if i had landed on my head instead of my arm and leg i would of been i worse state them i am. What anyone takes from that i would not begin to make a guess at.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Oct 2008)

Sounds like you needed wrist guards, not a Magic Foam Hat. I don't wear a helmet, and I won't encourage others to wear one.


----------



## col (24 Oct 2008)

I see what your saying,but im afraid iv never worn one,and cant get used to them,but like you say,what if?


----------



## Crackle (24 Oct 2008)

handsome joe said:


> I don't expect to change anyone's views or habits. Just a change to a personal opinion...having realised how fast an accident can happen and having no control over events. If i start wearing a helmet and never have an accident again what does that prove or vice a versa. What i do know for sure is that if i had landed on my head instead of my arm and leg i would of been i worse state them i am. What anyone takes from that i would not begin to make a guess at.




Joe, you'll find the helmet question to be quite emotive for some. Cunobelin often uses analogies which are not quite equivalent but are designed to make people think of overall risk.

Personally I wear one having once fractued my skull from a bike accident. It's entirely debatable if a helmet would have helped, however on the basis that it might have and on the basis that the head injury was far worse than the cuts and bruises I recieved as well, I now wear one.

Be under no illusions though. Do some research and you'll find the case for helmets is not as clear as you might think and there is even a good case against them. You didn't hit your head. 99% of the time you won't. If you are ever unlucky enough to be hit at speed by a car then a helmet probably won't help but it might just save you from yourself.


----------



## jonesy (24 Oct 2008)

www.cyclehelmets.org


----------



## 4F (25 Oct 2008)

robz400 said:


> So you're saying that you had a spectacular crash, whilst not wearing a helmet, without harming your head, but now I must wear a helemt, in case I too have a spectacular crash whilst not......



+2


----------



## Keith Oates (25 Oct 2008)

Handsome Joe, sorry to hear about the accident and I hope you get the wrist sorted out quickly. The helmet issue is very much a personal thing with many people but if has made you into a devotee for wearing one then go with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## dudi (25 Oct 2008)

I wear a helmet. and my recent collision with a ped was one incident that wearing a helmet almost certainly helped to prevent more extensive injury.
On inspecting the helmet it was clear that I had impacted my head twice in the collision. once into the face of the ped and once into the road. The helmet was badly damaged. but my head is fine. not even a scratch. 

Also, I believe that it didn't just prevent injury to my head, but reduced the injury to the ped. because the helmet deorms in the way it does, it will have reduced the force with which her nose was broken. and thankfully didnt break her skull or cheek/jaw etc.

I know there are many people who do not wear a helmet for whatever reason. but I've hit my head very hard, enough to break my helmet, and suffered no head injury.
I defy you to tell me that I wouldn't have sustained more injuries if I didn't wear one. 

Joe is not saying that he will wear a helmet incase he suffers the same accident again, he is saying he will wear a helmet incase he is not so lucky next time. he has realised how fragile he is, how fast an accident can unfold and how little control he had over it.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Oct 2008)

dudi said:


> I wear a helmet. and my recent collision with a ped was one incident that wearing a helmet almost certainly helped to prevent more extensive injury.
> On inspecting the helmet it was clear that I had impacted my head twice in the collision. once into the face of the ped and once into the road. The helmet was badly damaged. but my head is fine. not even a scratch.
> 
> Also, I believe that it didn't just prevent injury to my head, but reduced the injury to the ped. because the helmet deorms in the way it does, it will have reduced the force with which her nose was broken. and thankfully didnt break her skull or cheek/jaw etc.
> ...




This sounds a bit like Claude Rapaille's theory over SUV drivers (HE was General Motors Chief designer) .

He had two points, one that SUV drivers were aware that they were poorer or more aggressive drivers who would have more accidents - and wanted the perceived additional safety of a SUV to compensate 

Secondly was the fact that they knew the vehicles would increase injury to others, but saw this as a perfectly acceptable cost for their safety..


You cannot know that not the injuries to the pedestrian here were increased by your helmet use helmets are designed with features that would certainly cause problems...


----------



## dudi (25 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> He had two points, *one that SUV drivers were aware that they were poorer or more aggressive drivers* who would have more accidents - and wanted the perceived additional safety of a SUV to compensate.



Are you saying that only people with poor cycling skills or those who are overly agressive wear helmets? I certainly dont fit into either of those categories.



Cunobelin said:


> You cannot know that not the injuries to the pedestrian here were increased by your helmet use helmets are designed with features that would certainly cause problems...



By that you mean that if my forehead had hit her face she wouldnt have suffered less? although there's no scientific proof, no. but the deformation of the helmet suggests quite a lot of energy was absorbed by the shell. I know for a fact that my head could not have deformed so much.
If i were not wearing a helmet, one of us would have far more serious injuries. probably the pedestrian as I am about twice the size of her.


Edit:
I think the helmet debate is a lot like the debate on religion.

I *believe* that a helmet improves my safety, therefore I will wear one.

Those that protest against helmet clad cyclists desire concrete *proof* that they are beneficial.

I believe a lid will *help* me. I certainly don't think that it will save my life in a high speed colission, just reduce injury in smaller collisions. In much the same way that I don't think that the dash-board air bags in my car will protect me against a lorry toppling over on a roundabout and squashing my car. they will, however stop me from headbutting the steeringwheel/dash in the event of a front on colission, which may reduce my injuries.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Oct 2008)

What is entirely evident there is that according to the evidence the greater head injury was suffered by the pedestrian - surely the evidence is that had she been wearing a helmet................................ pedestrian helmets rule!


----------



## dudi (25 Oct 2008)

she would have to wear a full face helmet.
not that she's ugly, quite the opposite... just that the impact was on her face rather than the top of her head.


----------



## col (25 Oct 2008)

Im puzzled as to why the argument doesnt agree that having the helmet between us and an impact can do anything but soften that impact,yes there are other things that can happen,but thats why the helmet is there,to soften impact.It doesnt protect against the type of things dudi mentions.If we used the argument against helmets as a rule we wouldnt wear seatbelts,we wouldnt use most protective wear as it doesnt cover every eventuality,which a helmet doesnt either,but if it helps in an unlucky situation its done what it was made to do,so in effect they work.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Oct 2008)

col said:


> Im puzzled as to why the argument doesnt agree that having the helmet between us and an impact can do anything but soften that impact,yes there are other things that can happen,but thats why the helmet is there,to soften impact.It doesnt protect against the type of things dudi mentions.If we used the argument against helmets as a rule we wouldnt wear seatbelts,we wouldnt use most protective wear as it doesnt cover every eventuality,which a helmet doesnt either,but if it helps in an unlucky situation its done what it was made to do,so in effect they work.



Do you wear a visor, does the helmet have "snag points", was there in fact only an impact that occurrred because of the additional bulk of the helmet - it is quite possible that your head may have missed her nose altogether, but the protruding 1" - 1.5 " of helmet were the prime reason for the impact!



There is also inconclusive evidence that car drivers should wear helmets for the above reasons .... Drive a car - wear a helmet?


----------



## handsome joe (25 Oct 2008)

I see some people have very strong principles, which everyone has the right to hold. Personally when i cycled without a helmet the reasons for not wearing one has been varied i.e. hassle of using one, confidence (or overconfidence) in my cycling, image/age conscious, feeling it would be of little benefit etc, etc, etc. I admit to having a few close shaves in the past and the thought of wearing a helmet crossed my mind. But i soon dismissed the idea once the shock of a near miss had worn off. I realise that wearing a helmet will not reduce the chances of me having another accident but it will protect my head, which i nearly landed on top of when i had this accident (that's my personal opinion).

I don't believe wearing a helmet would make me an unsafe or overconfident cyclist. In fact i think it will probably make me more safety-conscious. But my skills as a cyclist didn't get me out of a sticky situation-as they generally would 9 times out of 10-because it happened too fast.


----------



## dudi (25 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Do you wear a visor, does the helmet have "snag points", was there in fact only an impact that occurrred because of the additional bulk of the helmet - it is quite possible that your head may have missed her nose altogether, but the protruding 1" - 1.5 " of helmet were the prime reason for the impact!
> 
> 
> 
> There is also inconclusive evidence that car drivers should wear helmets for the above reasons .... Drive a car - wear a helmet?




I tell you what. 
we definitely wouldn't crash our bikes if we are not riding the bike. 
Perhaps if we all take a sedentry approach to life we can do away with protective clothing all together.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Oct 2008)

I think that's called a "Huff"

Instead of storming off in a sulk - answer the points raised?


----------



## magnatom (25 Oct 2008)

Very sorry to hear about the accident HJ! I hope you heal fast!!

I wear a helmet, however, I am more than happy to admit that it is more through habit than from anything else. 

Just to balance your post, it is entirely possible that if you had been wearing a helmet that the increased weight (admittedly not much) and the increased cross sectional area (more significant) might have resulted in your head/helmet hitting the ground, resulting in injuries that you wouldn't have otherwise have had. It is possible, but there has been no definitive study to determine the real risks/benefits of helmets. The jury remains and will remain out for some time.....


----------



## hackbike 6 (25 Oct 2008)

* I wear a helmet, however, I am more than happy to admit that it is more through habit than from anything else.*

Same here.


----------



## J4CKO (25 Oct 2008)

A boy at my sons school died having fell of his bike and hit his head on the kerb, it was implied at the time that a helmet would have probably saved his life.

As for comparing cyclists with helmets to SUV drivers, its not a very good comparison, polystyrene hat versus three tonne off road, driven by the kind of people that buy three tonne off roaders, they arent like cyclists and personally my little hat gives me no additional confidence, I have many other vulnerable body parts that I would prefer not to hurt so I avoid falling off or crashing just as much.

I have hit my head on concerte as a kid falling off my bike, it hurt, I lost a chunk of skin and hair, I was concussed, at the very least I would have kept the skin and hair (it did grow back).

I fully support any other cyclist who chooses not to . I wear one, its your choice, I partly also wear one so my kids see it as normal as I would prefer that they wear one, debateable or not I do not not want to repeat that head on concrete moment again, my vision went briefly, I could smell phantom smells and it was scary, it would still have been unpleasant with a helmet but not as unpleasant.

Sometimes I think some people dont wear them cos they make you look a goon, true, but, the rest of my ensemble hardly suggests otherwise. I think some spend all the money of the bike and never get round to spending 70 quid on one.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Oct 2008)

Again we have weird unwarranted connection - tragically a boy at school falls off his bike and dies... yet more children will die from head injuries on play equipment, stairs, and playing sports...... By this evidence they should wear helmets for all these activities?

Or are head injuries and deaths somehow mor acceptable or less traumatic?


----------



## Wolf04 (25 Oct 2008)

Handsome Joe, hope your recovery is speedy but your logic appears flawed. From your description the accident was your fault (as no one else was involved ). Instead of addressing the reasons for the accident which would appear to be skills based you plan for the next accident. Your planning however is also flawed instead of wearing body armour which may have limited your injuries you opt for a helmet. Helmets have been discussed many times on this forum and as far as I remember there is no clear evidence either way. Only opinions and anecdotal observations. Risk compensation has also been discussed frequently, if you perceive cycling to be dangerous then is a piece of expanded polystyrene going to change that. Sorry if this sounds harsh but do the research and then make your decision. By all means wear a helmet but please don't depend on it to protect you from anything other than the most minor of accidents.


----------



## snapper_37 (25 Oct 2008)

Wolf04 said:


> Helmets have been discussed many times on this forum and as far as I remember there is no clear evidence either way. Only opinions and anecdotal observations.



Exactly.

It is personal choice. I wear one as I've split 2 and feel kind of glad that it was the helmet (however flimsy) and not my head that took the blows. Not an opinion, an actual injury (missed).

Hope you are ok Handsome and keep wearing the helmet if you think it makes you safer - because that's what matters.


----------



## Wolf04 (25 Oct 2008)

snapper_37 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> It is personal choice. I wear one as I've split 2 and feel kind of glad that it was the helmet (however flimsy) and not my head that took the blows. Not an opinion, an actual injury (missed).
> 
> Hope you are ok Handsome and keep wearing the helmet if you think it makes you safer - because that's what matters.



Err I think that comes under anecdotal observation. If you had done it say 10,000 times with the same results then it would be evidence! I've done the research and estimated my risks and I'm happy to live (or die) with the consequences.


----------



## BADGER.BRAD (25 Oct 2008)

A guy I went to school with ( a good few years ago) had an accident on a rope swing, he had a bang to the head and as far as I am aware has never walked again. Makes you think a bit ! I must admit until recently I rode a motorbike and have had various mates killed or injured , I just took it as part of the game so to speak but since having a little one have thought a lot differently about safety. I wouldn't wish to leave my little one without a dad or have a dad that was of no us to him.

I always now wear a helmet as accidents have a habit of happening at the worst possible time.


----------



## Maz (25 Oct 2008)

If you want to wear a helmet, wear it. If you don't want to wear one, then dont. It could help you in the event of an accident, but depending on how you fall, it may not.

In the bike-offs I've had thus far, wearing a helmet was of no consequence, but I still wear one - just in case it reduces any future injury.


----------



## Riding in Circles (25 Oct 2008)

I rarely wear a helmet, I was just thinking back and trike riding not withstanding, I have never once hit my head coming off, at the same time I have had a friend die of head injuries coming off a bicycle, hence my mixed feelings on the issue.


----------



## snapper_37 (25 Oct 2008)

Wolf04 said:


> Err I think that comes under anecdotal observation. If you had done it say 10,000 times with the same results then it would be evidence! I've done the research and estimated my risks and I'm happy to live (or die) with the consequences.



What's with the Err? It wasn't evidence for anything, it was personal experience. I lost it on ice and I ended up with a split helmet, cracked ribs, split knee cap etc. Luckily some horse riders were around and got me 999.

Estimate your risks as much as you like, it's a personal choice, so don't be so bolshy with someone who would rather wear a helmet than take a crack in the skull.

No one is saying that a helmet saves your life from *every* accident, but in my case(s) it bloody has so I will continue to wear one.


----------



## dudi (25 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> I think that's called a "Huff"
> 
> Instead of storming off in a sulk - answer the points raised?



That's not a huff. it's raising a pointless argument to subtley compare to yours. possibly not a good pointless argument, but never mind. neither was the SUV thing.

but to answer your points, 1.5" clearence wouldnt have made a blind bit of difference in this case. 
Car drivers are in a cage, and the forces involvedin the majority of 'public' car accidents are not severe enough to warant a crash helmet. and the hindrence that wearing one would give to the every day driver outweighs their protection. however if you look at the motor racing scene, you will find that neck supports and crash helmets are compulsory.

I am not going to try and enforce helmet wearing on anyone, as I have said. I am totally pro choice. but I resent being told that my choice of wearing a helmet is foolish and ill thought out.

As far as I am concerned, if you want to wear a lid, wear one. if you don't then don't wear one. it's personal choice. but trying to tell someone that the decision they have made to adopt some form of protective clothing is a foolish choice is irresponsible in my opinion.


----------



## Wolf04 (25 Oct 2008)

snapper_37 said:


> What's with the Err? It wasn't evidence for anything, it was personal experience. I lost it on ice and I ended up with a split helmet, cracked ribs, split knee cap etc. Luckily some horse riders were around and got me 999.
> 
> Estimate your risks as much as you like, it's a personal choice, so don't be so bolshy with someone who would rather wear a helmet than take a crack in the skull.
> 
> No one is saying that a helmet saves your life from *every* accident, but in my case(s) it bloody has so I will continue to wear one.



Apology if you consider my comments as Bolshy however you quoted my comment re: anecdotal observation then use anecdotal observation. To the best of my knowledge I have never told anyone not to wear or indeed wear a helmet.
So by all means please your bloody self but lets try and keep it civilised.


----------



## BentMikey (25 Oct 2008)

No-one on here can make a definitive claim that a helmet saved their life.


----------



## dudi (25 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> No-one on here can make a definitive claim that a helmet saved their life.



you're right there mikey. 
but it's not all just about saving lives. it's also about reducing injuries. even small ones. 

In my own experience of my recent crash, if I didn't have my lid on, i would have had a bruised bonce. going by my shoulder and elbows anyway. obviously i can't prove it, as i'm not going to jump off my bike without a hat on purpose... ;-)

for that alone I am glad I was wearing one.


----------



## BentMikey (25 Oct 2008)

I don't think there's much argument that helmets can't save you from small scrapes and road rash, it's the more serious injuries that are a problem.

Just remember folks, helmets are a red herring from a safety point of view. Whether they do or don't work is largely irrelevant, as is their effect on cyclist safety. If you want to live and you want to avoid crashes, spend your efforts elsewhere, and you'll get many orders of magnitude more effect than you would from a helmet.


----------



## dudi (25 Oct 2008)

I'm not sure that many helmet wearers would presume that they will be saved from more serious injuries than bumps, bruises and cuts by their helmet. after all, they're only a lightweight bit of foam.

It's like wearing gloves. it's going to help reduce abrasion, but it's not going to stop your hand getting broken. 

I for one dont wear my helmet to stop my scull being crushed. I wear it to avoid banging my head directly into things.

I'd rather nut the pavement with a helmet on that without.


----------



## Mr Phoebus (25 Oct 2008)

"If your head comes away from your neck, it's over!"


----------



## Crackle (25 Oct 2008)

dudi said:


> I'm not sure that many helmet wearers would presume that they will be saved from more serious injuries than bumps, bruises and cuts by their helmet. after all, they're only a lightweight bit of foam.
> 
> It's like wearing gloves. it's going to help reduce abrasion, but it's not going to stop your hand getting broken.
> 
> ...




The BS test is very specific, involving an impact shape like a kerbstone hitting the helmet at a certain force which roughly co-incides with a 12-15mph impact. 

If you then want to know what kind of force will give you a head injury you need to look at motorcycle studies or studies on head injuries and the forces involved. You won't find this information purely for cycle helmet studies. In addition there's a fair amount of debate about what happens to a helmet once it's been smashed past the design force i.e. will it absorb some of the force or will it have no effect beyond a certain threshold. 

You won't find definitive answers to the helmet question but you might possibly be shocked at how easy it is to reach forces which give you head injuries. Head injuries are not like skinning your knuckles, the effects are far more insidious and the best course of action is to try and avoid them, even breaking bones elsewhere is preferrable, that's personally speaking.

You also want to ignore statisitcs from other types of head injury. You're looking at a specific risk for a specific activity. Comparing casualty stats or mountaineering stats to cycling is irrelevant.


----------



## benno1uk (25 Oct 2008)

I don't wear a helmet due mainly to not having got round to it and probably if I'm honest not wanting to look 'too serious' (I.e. All the gear no idea). But despite this I do actually believe that wearing a helmet would benefit a rider in the event of sustaining a blow to the head. It's common sense that protecting the head will reduce impact damage to some extent isn't it? I must admit the more I ride the more likely I think I will be to get a helmet.


----------



## handsome joe (25 Oct 2008)

Thanks for all the messages of support. I'm getting fairly adept at one-arm tea making....._/).... 

I'm not and never will judge people who don't wear helmets. Me and i think most people who have decided to wear a helmet realise it will not save lives. Saying that it saves lives misses the point. As regards head injuries, well i think it would make a difference. I mean the only way to test it would be to throw myself off my bike and see what works? After whats happened to me recently that's the last thing i want to do! I do think until i had an accident i did create a sense of false security with the thought of nothing has ever happened and nothing will.....if i keep my nose clean. But each to their own as they say.


----------



## col (25 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Do you wear a visor, does the helmet have "snag points", was there in fact only an impact that occurrred because of the additional bulk of the helmet - it is quite possible that your head may have missed her nose altogether, but the protruding 1" - 1.5 " of helmet were the prime reason for the impact!
> 
> 
> 
> There is also inconclusive evidence that car drivers should wear helmets for the above reasons .... Drive a car - wear a helmet?




Like i said other things happen.


----------



## Brock (25 Oct 2008)

I've decided evolution knows best how to protect my head. Thousands of years of design have gone into the shape of my skull, the length of my neck, the width of my shoulders and the fact that every sinew in my body is hardwired to do everything it can to protect my head when it is falling towards the floor.
I just don't believe slapping a cheap lump of scabby padding around my skull is going to help prevent anything except my innate instinctual ability to prevent it from impacting the floor in the event of a spill.
Cycle helmets are a fashion accessory, and liable to increase your chance of neck injury and head impact. I'd rather bungee a pillow round my head.
I could be wrong though, they might just save your life.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Oct 2008)

dudi said:


> I'm not sure that many helmet wearers would presume that they will be saved from more serious injuries than bumps, bruises and cuts by their helmet. after all, they're only a lightweight bit of foam.
> 
> It's like wearing gloves. it's going to help reduce abrasion, but it's not going to stop your hand getting broken.
> 
> ...



All of which is equally valid when a pedestrian....


----------



## Brock (26 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> All of which is equally valid when a pedestrian....



The thing with being a pedestrian is that you don't expect to fall over and hit your head. I'm pretty sure some of the cyclists here are actually expecting to fall off and smack their brains out on the road.... UNLESS they wear a helmet. Phew, lucky there's safety-wear manufacturers to save them.


----------



## 4F (26 Oct 2008)

Brock said:


> The thing with being a pedestrian is that you don't expect to fall over and hit your head. I'm pretty sure some of the cyclists here are actually expecting to fall off and smack their brains out on the road.... UNLESS they wear a helmet. Phew, lucky there's safety-wear manufacturers to save them.



I don't expect to fall and bang my head as either a ped or a cyclist and don't wear a helmet for either alleged highly dangerous activity .


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> All of which is equally valid when a pedestrian....



And yet virtually no-one wears a helmet walking anywhere, when walking is roughly as dangerous as cycling. What makes cycling so special that it needs a helmet?


----------



## dudi (26 Oct 2008)

3 things make walking less dangerous than cycling. 


1) Speed. i don't know about you, but i cycle faster than I walk. therefore any accident is likely to happen faster, and likely to hurt more. 

2) we share the roads with cars. who travel very fast. if cars were driving along pavements regularly, perhaps peds would wear protection. 

3) contact points with the ground: the amount of surface area of tyre in contact with the road is many times lower than the area in contact when walking. even the sole of just one shoe is many many times larger.


But anyway, you seem to be missing the point again. 

I dont think any real cyclist expects their helmet to prevent a *MASSIVE* head injury. 

It'll just help a bit if you topple off your bike and knock your head a bit. not that we're expecting to fall off, or that we somehow posess lower bike handling skills. helmet clad cyclists are just as optimistic and skilled as non helmet clad ones. Helmets are just a precaution.

Let me ask you a simple question.
If you had to headbutt a wall, Would you rather do it with or without a helmet?


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> No-one on here can make a definitive claim that a helmet saved their life.


Mikey, that is really one of those very stupid statements trotted out by people from time to time, I came off a motorcycle and know the helmet saved my life because my head hit the side of a van at 45 mph, without the helmet I would have been dead. Your comment is now, "well you don't know that because you have not done it without the helmet to prove it", that is what your original statement sets you up to say. There may well be people who have had the same type of impact twice, once with and once without the helmet, but on the occasion without they have died so cannot make the claim, hence your statement is stupid and lacks judgement. I know you have seen it used by others but that just makes it a popular stupid statement.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2008)

You simply can't know that, Catrike. It's not a stupid statement, it's a true statement. On the contrary, it's those who claim their helmet saved their lives that lack judgement. It may or may not have, but it can't be claimed as fact.

And dudi, just because you think walking is much less dangerous than cycling, doesn't make it so. The facts say otherwise.


----------



## dudi (26 Oct 2008)

What facts say otherwise? 

can you conclusively prove that walking is just as dangerous as cycling? This is asked in the same manner as you require conclusive proof that helmets reduce injury before you will accept them as a potentially useful item of ptrective clothing.


----------



## Origamist (26 Oct 2008)

Pedestrian helmet


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You simply can't know that, Catrike. It's not a stupid statement, it's a true statement. On the contrary, it's those who claim their helmet saved their lives that lack judgement. It may or may not have, but it can't be claimed as fact.
> 
> And dudi, just because you think walking is much less dangerous than cycling, doesn't make it so. The facts say otherwise.



Prove me wrong then, go smack your head of the side of a van at 45mph and see if your family are left fatherless and husbandless, it is a stupid request to validate your stupid statement, if you cannot come up with a more sensible way of proving your helmet argument then you shouldn't bother.
The simple fact it that there are very few head injuries related to cycling, the whole argument is one of personal choice, I choose to rarely wear a helmet, when I do, it is for two reasons, visibility and warmth, not protection, if I rode something that I could go over the handlebars of I may consider the protection angle but I don't, and I would rather retain it as a choice rather than have someone rule I must, I would rather have a choice to wear a seatbelt although I would always wear one while driving, I would rather have a choice on most things. I can make an informed choice based on facts *and experience*, mine and others.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2008)

LOL, dudi! It's not something that's in contention, a bit like the road tax argument, although I accept that it might be surprising to many.


----------



## dudi (26 Oct 2008)

what's not in contention?


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2008)

Catrike, there's no need to take it personally. The fact remains that you can't conlude the helmet saved your life. It might be your opinion, but that's all it is, and you should really be honest enough to admit that.

A point of order is that we are actually discussing cycle helmets here, not motorcycle ones. Motorcycle helmets are certainly designed to much more rigorous standards than cycle helmets.


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> Pedestrian helmet



Not uncommon amongst sufferers of cerebral palsy and people with balance issues.


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Catrike, there's no need to take it personally. The fact remains that you can't conlude the helmet saved your life. It might be your opinion, but that's all it is, and you should really be honest enough to admit that.
> 
> A point of order is that we are actually discussing cycle helmets here, not motorcycle ones. Motorcycle helmets are certainly designed to much more rigorous standards than cycle helmets.



I'm not taking it personally, I just think it is a really naff statement, can you prove conclusively that some who claims a helmet saved their life is wrong? If not then their statement could just as easily be conclusive.You must be able to see just how bad an argument yours is in response to theirs? A better response is to say, that may or may not be so and to get onto more valid things such as the statistics of head injuries, or the cruddy reporting in the press where they say x cyclist killed on Sunday, they were not wearing a helmet, but they fail so say they died as a result of massive internal injuries. Rather than making a glib statement that neither proves or disproves anything. The one thing that a person making the claim of a helmet saving their life has, over and above anything you have, is particular experience of the event in question, which makes them instantly and unequivocally more qualified than you to comment on any aspect of that event.


----------



## Origamist (26 Oct 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> Not uncommon amongst sufferers of cerebral palsy and people with balance issues.



I hadn't thought of that. I assumed it was a cyclist (trousers rolled up, Copenhagen etc) who chose to wear a helmet when off the bike.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2008)

The point is that you claim FACT: a helmet saved your life. I'm just pointing out that this is an opinion, not a fact, and that it's dishonest to try and claim otherwise to either prove or disprove the efficacy of helmets. The experience of the event doesn't change that.


----------



## dodgy (26 Oct 2008)

When I read helmet debates on internet discussion forums, it becomes apparent that the anti-helmet wearers have an agenda, they draw increasingly random analogies and conclusions. It's almost as though they enjoy the debate and couldn't care less if it's about helmets, it could just as easily be about cabbages or kitchen doors. Devil's advocates?
Carry on


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Oct 2008)

dudi said:


> 3 things make walking less dangerous than cycling.






> 1) Speed. i don't know about you, but i cycle faster than I walk. therefore any accident is likely to happen faster, and likely to hurt more.



Couldn't agree more, but as cycle helmets are only designed for impact at less than 12 - 16 mph you should either remain in these limits to ensure effectiveness or upgrade to a motorcycle helmet. 



> ]2) we share the roads with cars. who travel very fast. if cars were driving along pavements regularly, perhaps peds would wear protection.


 In an answer to a parliamentary question Jeff Banks stated that between half and two thirds of all pedestrian vehicle incidents happened on a pavement! Again though there is a small flaw in that these accidents would be better suited to body armour to protect that areas more frequently inflicted or again a motorcycle helmet designed to cope with impact at these speeds.



> 3) contact points with the ground: the amount of surface area of tyre in contact with the road is many times lower than the area in contact when walking. even the sole of just one shoe is many many times larger.



So we need to design cycles ifthay are unsafe for this reason? 



> But anyway, you seem to be missing the point again.
> 
> I don't think any real cyclist expects their helmet to prevent a *MASSIVE* head injury.
> 
> ...



Which again shows the ridiculousness of cycle helmet arguments would you rather ........

1. Perform your experiment whilst sat on a bike?
2. Perform your experiment whilst standing on your feet?
3. Perform your experiment wearing a pink tutu, Doc Martens and lace full arm gloves?

Which would hurt more?

If the result is the same it proves that sitting on a bike and wearing a pink tutu both require helmets!


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Oct 2008)

dudi said:


> What facts say otherwise?
> 
> can you conclusively prove that walking is just as dangerous as cycling? This is asked in the same manner as you require conclusive proof that helmets reduce injury before you will accept them as a potentially useful item of ptrective clothing.




Malcolm Wardllaw "Assessing the actual risks faced by cyclists" published in Traffic Engineering and Control" 2002

Wardlaw looked at road accident fatalities and reported showed that the risk of death per kilometre is greater for pedestrians than cyclists by a factor of 1.5, this was true for ALL age groups except 11 - 14 year old boys!


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Oct 2008)

dodgy said:


> When I read helmet debates on internet discussion forums, it becomes apparent that the anti-helmet wearers have an agenda, they draw increasingly random analogies and conclusions. It's almost as though they enjoy the debate and couldn't care less if it's about helmets, it could just as easily be about cabbages or kitchen doors. Devil's advocates?
> Carry on



NO - the idea is to show how ridiculous some of the arguments actually are and to make you think. 

Many of the "soup'n'straw brigade" insist on protection in a group that is only featuring in 4 - 6% of hospital admissions, yet will accept head injuries in groups that feature in 40 - 45% of admissions!

One really has to ask does the mode of injury make the soup taste better?

Why are we trying to emotionally blackmail cyclists into protection when there are groups that would benefit more?

If only the money, will and effort that goes into promoting a technology that is not proven to work as an intervention was spent on proper training of road users (including cyclists) then we would see a benefit.....


----------



## dudi (26 Oct 2008)

From the same report, a small quote is
"Cyclists in Britain run a higher risk per hour than the other
modes (see Chart 2)."

Also, the report is mostly comparing cycling with other forms of vehicular travel. not pedestrians.

Another problem with the source you cited is that it only compares fatalities. not inicidents.


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> The point is that you claim FACT: a helmet saved your life. I'm just pointing out that this is an opinion, not a fact, and that it's dishonest to try and claim otherwise to either prove or disprove the efficacy of helmets. The experience of the event doesn't change that.



It is just as valid for me to say unless you prove my claim is not a fact, then it stands as a fact, and it is dishonest of you to claim otherwise.

A 45 mph impact of a human head with a solid object would result in death simply from the g force experienced in instant deceleration.


----------



## mickle (26 Oct 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> A 45 mph impact of a human head with a solid object would result in death simply from the g force experienced in instant deceleration.




A cranium free-fall of 24 inches onto a solid surface has the potential to inflict permanent brain damage. A fall of 36" has the potential to cause death. 

What effect if any would a cycle helmet have in a 45 mph collision?


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2008)

No it's not just as valid to say that. If I were doing what you are, I'd be saying helmets don't work from your example, but I'm not. The honesty comes where I'm suggesting that it can't be proved either way.

If only 10% of cases where someone claimed that a helmet saved their life were true, the safety effect of helmets would be incontrovertible and evident in all the population level studies. Clearly most of these claims are false because there's no obvious effect of helmets on safety.


----------



## dudi (26 Oct 2008)

mickle said:


> A cranium free-fall of 24 inches onto a solid surface has the potential to inflict permanent brain damage. A fall of 36" has the potential to cause death.
> 
> What effect if any would a cycle helmet have in a 45 mph collision?




he was on a motorbike at the time, with a motorbike helmet on. 

bike helmets aren't designed to help in a 45mph collision, as the majority of cyclists wont be going that fast...


----------



## Maz (26 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> A point of order is that we are actually discussing cycle helmets here, not motorcycle ones. Motorcycle helmets are certainly designed to much more rigorous standards than cycle helmets.


That's because motorcycles travel a lot faster and therefore motorcycle helmets are built to a more rigourous standard than cycling helmets, but both serve to reduce injuries. Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Oct 2008)

dudi said:


> From the same report, a small quote is
> "Cyclists in Britain run a higher risk per hour than the other
> modes (see Chart 2)."
> 
> ...



Which I pointed out but it is still valid - pedestrian are at greater risk in this case - if the lesser group "requires" protection - why does the greater group not?

But the good news i that you read the paper;

Now try:

Wardlaw - Three lessons for a better Cycling future" in the BMJ.....



> Let us examine the
> facts. The inherent risks of road cycling are trivial.3 Of
> at least 3.5 million regular cyclists in Britain, only about
> 10 a year are killed in rider only accidents. This
> ...


----------



## Maz (26 Oct 2008)

mickle said:


> A cranium free-fall of 24 inches onto a solid surface has the potential to inflict permanent brain damage. A fall of 36" has the potential to cause death.
> 
> *What effect if any would a cycle helmet have in a 45 mph collision*?


I doubt it would be of any use whatsoever. The point is that at much lower speeds the helmet can help reduce injuries.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2008)

Maz said:


> I doubt it would be of any use whatsoever. The point is that at much lower speeds the helmet can help reduce injuries.



So it's claimed, but the evidence isn't conclusive. The most I would go is that cycle helmets will prevent some cuts and scrapes, but not more serious injuries.


----------



## Brock (26 Oct 2008)

I want someone to do a study of people falling with and without a helmet, I'd wager that amongst the group wearing helmets considerably more will suffer an impact to the cranium due purely to the increased cross sectional area of the 'head' and almost certainly more neck injuries as a result.
I probably won't get it though :/


----------



## Maz (26 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> So it's claimed, but the evidence isn't conclusive.


Hm. Try headbutting a wall with equal force with and without a helmet. Let us know which one hurts more. I think it's fairly conclusive.


----------



## hackbike 6 (26 Oct 2008)

Thats crap anyway.Most of us climb steps so thats irrelevant.


----------



## Brock (26 Oct 2008)

Maz said:


> Hm. Try headbutting a wall with equal force with and without a helmet. Let us know which one hurts more. It think it's fairly conclusive.



Stand with your shoulder against the wall and headbut it sideways (which is often the way we fall) with and without a helmet.
What do you find?


----------



## Crackle (26 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> So it's claimed, but the evidence isn't conclusive. The most I would go is that cycle helmets will prevent some cuts and scrapes, but not more serious injuries.



Evidence and studies are just not going to be conclusive though if they are based on cycling accidents that turn up in casualty. These kind of accidents are likely to be more serious and involve more than just the cyclist.

Instead you have to give more weight to anecdotal evidence and to the design of cycle helmets, in particular the forces involved and the kind of impact expected.

Falling from a bike where your centre of gravity is higher is likey to send your trunk down first with a greater risk of head impact. If the impact happens suddenly you are less likely to get a hand down than saying falling over in the street.

It's the same with mountaineering. Stonefall and the prolifertation of rocky outcrops mean head injury is more likely and more serious. 

You just can't compare walking down the street or drinking to either, it's spurious and part of a different risk category.

It makes eminent sense that a helmet will provide protection beyond cuts and bruises, how far beyond is up for debate but I reckon you'd debate it less if you'd ever suffered a serious head injury. Instead you'd probably take the view that a helmet is not so inconvenient for the potential it might have to stop an injury.

Also, people might want to be aware of how a well fitted helmet designed to Ansi rather than British standards is going to be a better buy than some ill-fitted British standard designed helmet.


----------



## Crackle (26 Oct 2008)

Brock said:


> I want someone to do a study of people falling with and without a helmet, I'd wager that amongst the group wearing helmets considerably more will suffer an impact to the cranium due purely to the increased cross sectional area of the 'head' and almost certainly more neck injuries as a result.
> I probably won't get it though :/



For me this is the crux. Current standards don't tell you enough. I want to know exactly the same thing. Why can't someone do some NCAP style crash dummy tests?


----------



## Maz (26 Oct 2008)

Brock said:


> Stand with your shoulder against the wall and headbut it sideways (which is often the way we fall) with and without a helmet.
> What do you find?


It hurts more without the helmet. What did you find?


----------



## Crackle (26 Oct 2008)

Maz said:


> It hurts more without the helmet. What did you find?



 

but seriously I just went and gently tried this as I never had before. I pushed the helmet against the door where I actually fractued my skull when I came off my bike some 17 years ago. The helmet hit first and may well have protected me, though I probably hit the floor at about 20mph so...........

But my neck twisted uncomfortably and I would probably have strained some muscles at the very least. Maybe I would have fractured my skull and twisted my neck. Maybe I'd just have twisted my neck.......


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2008)

LOL, yes, trot out that old hack about headbutting walls. Fail.


----------



## Brock (26 Oct 2008)

Maz said:


> It hurts more without the helmet. What did you find?



I find without a helmet my head misses the wall entirely due to my shoulder width. Perhaps you have a particularly long neck


----------



## Crackle (26 Oct 2008)

Brock said:


> I find without a helmet my head misses the wall entirely due to my shoulder width. Perhaps you have a particularly long neck




Well in my accident I hit the side of my head but my shoulder did not hit the floor because I rotated as I came down so your analogy doesn't hold true.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2008)

OTOH Brock's point would rather seem to be supported by the study that found helmet wearers were 7 times more likely to hit their heads.


----------



## Brock (26 Oct 2008)

What the.... I'm supported by true facts made of science? Wow, there's a first!


----------



## Crackle (26 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> OTOH Brock's point would rather seem to be supported by the study that found helmet wearers were 7 times more likely to hit their heads.



And in the continuing story of an accident prone Crackle........

A few months after I'd fractured my skull, on my way home in the dark I hit a piece of debris in the form of a large bolt, probably off a lorry. The impact twisted the bars away from me and flung me forward and sideways over the bars. I landed on my back with the bike on top of me and slid along the road. 

The only thing damaged: The back of my helmet which scraped along the road even though I had my head lifted as I'd managed to react enough to control my fall.

...and those two anecdotes are the reason I'm ambivalent about wearing a helmet.

Incidentally I haven't fallen off in the following 17 years, maybe I'm due a big one


----------



## Brock (26 Oct 2008)

Crackle said:


> The only thing damaged: The back of my helmet which scraped along the road even though I had my head lifted as I'd managed to react enough to control my fall.



At which point you should've held aloft your gouged and scratched helmet and proclaimed smugly:
'See that? That would've been my head that would have!'
as people seem to.


----------



## Maz (26 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> LOL, yes, trot out that old hack about headbutting walls. Fail.


Why does it fail? Replace 'wall' with 'floor' if you like.


----------



## hackbike 6 (26 Oct 2008)

*LOL, yes, trot out that old hack about headbutting walls. What a bunch of wonkers you really are.*

Yes im an old hack.


----------



## Wolf04 (26 Oct 2008)

I agree with BentMikey that helmet wearing is a red herring in terms on cycle safety. Part of my job involves being a safety officer and while I do not claim any great expertise one of the first things you learn is that protective equipment should be the last line of defense. What we should focus on is better cyclecraft as this will have a more obvious effect on our safety. However as we are discussing helmets, Crackle's comment below seems key.



Crackle said:


> Also, people might want to be aware of how a well fitted helmet designed to Ansi rather than British standards is going to be a better buy than some ill-fitted British standard designed helmet.



Government, safety and medical bodies seem to be trying to enforce cycle helmet wearing. None of these bodies however seem interested in having effective standards.
Have a look at Wiggle or any of the other web sites and read the description of any helmet it will tell you how brilliant the air flow is but how much protection it gives is never mentioned. Crackle's comment about fitting is equally important a badly fitting helmet is almost certainly more dangerous than no helmet. I wear a helmet but I still continually try to improve my cyclecraft and see that as a much more important factor in my personal safety.


----------



## dudi (26 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Let us examine the
> facts. The inherent risks of road cycling are trivial.3 Of
> at least 3.5 million regular cyclists in Britain, only about
> 10 a year are killed in rider only accidents. This
> ...



I've not read that paper yet as i'm a bit busy, i will do later on. but from the snippet you posted i can see a few failures. 

Firstly, it's rider only accidents. not a total figure. 

Seconly, it's comparing walking down stairs to cycling on the road, if it compared cycling down stairs to walking down stairs, i wonder what the outcome would be. 

Thirdly, it makes no mention of the proportion of "rider only accidents" that resulted in fatalities. 

And finally, it does not make any mention of any safety measures the riders/walkers have put in place.

for all we know, it could be equally true to report:

"Of at least 3.5 million regular cyclists in Britain, only about
10 a year are killed in rider only accidents. 

However there are 300,000 rider only incidents each year, and that only 10 of these resulted in the death of the cyclist could be attributed not only to the low injury nature of the falls, but also that the majority of these cyclist were wearing a helmet"

I'll read the report later on to check more later.


----------



## hackbike 6 (26 Oct 2008)

Good god cyclecraft has been quoted now.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Oct 2008)

So dudi, now you want cycling to be dangerous!!!


----------



## Wolf04 (26 Oct 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> Good god cyclecraft has been quoted now.



I was actually referring to the craft of cycling but buying a copy of Cyclecraft would still be a better option than hoping a helmet will save you. 
IMHO


----------



## dudi (26 Oct 2008)

Wolf04 said:


> I was actually referring to the craft of cycling but buying a copy of Cyclecraft would still be a better option than hoping a helmet will save you.
> IMHO



what's wrong with doing both?


----------



## Wolf04 (26 Oct 2008)

dudi said:


> what's wrong with doing both?



Absolutely nothing wrong, my point was and still is that helmets should be the last thing used to address your personal safety while cycling and certainly not the only thing.


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Oct 2008)

Maz said:


> Why does it fail? Replace 'wall' with 'floor' if you like.



Because there is no "context".... it simply proves that a helmet may contribute under certain circumstances.... and not for a particular activity - it certainly does not prove anything for an activity where the impact is far greater than in the test!


As I posted before try the experiment sat on a bicycle, standing and wearing a pink tutu, Doc Martens and lace full arm gloves?

If you are arguing that this "test" proves helmets are appropriate for cyclists you have also proved that they are appropriate for pink tutus!


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Oct 2008)

It is also interstingthat someone has mentioned "standards"

Over the last ten years or so these have been "dumbed down" and EN1078 is far inferior to the previous Snell B90 or B95 tests - in fact modern helmets functionality is far less.

Present fashion for vents and weight reduction means that there is less material to absorb impact thus meaning the helmtets no longer protect to the same extent!

Manafacturers are even allowed to produce special batches for testing, and En1078 does not even have a test equivalent to a kerb impact - the helmet you are wearing is not even proven to work in this case!

Two EN1078 passed helmets (Trek Anthem C Elite and the WSD version) and were actually withdrawn in the states for failing to meet the US CSPC requirements!


Are you all therefore wearing Snell quality helmets - if not - why not?



> Trek Recalls Anthem C Elite Bicycle Helmets for Failing Impact Standards
> WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
> 
> Name of Product: Trek Anthem C Elite and Anthem C Elite WSD Model Bicycle Helmets
> ...


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 Oct 2008)

How about a recall because sweat caused to the wearer can run into the eyes and cause the wearer to swerve into on coming traffic?


----------



## ComedyPilot (26 Oct 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> How about a recall because sweat caused to the wearer can run into the eyes and cause the wearer to swerve into on coming traffic?



That only happens if you're going so slow the prevailing wind isn't blowing it away first!!


----------



## Maz (26 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Because there is no "context".... it simply proves that a helmet may contribute under certain circumstances.... and not for a particular activity - it certainly does not prove anything for an activity where the impact is far greater than in the test!


Context? What are you referring to?
I'm saying that for certain head impacts, wearing a helmet can reduce injury.
It really is very simple. For some impacts (depending on how you fall etc) a helmet will be useless.


----------



## Dirtyhanz (26 Oct 2008)

I wear a helmet again probably out of habit but i have also cracked one in half when i have come off. I have cycled with clubs for over 20 years so i have seen them rise in popularity over the years i would now say out of a group of about 20 people who ride regularly 18 of us wear helmets but the two that don't are the most experienced riders. Sometimes I think they are a fashion thing more than for safety


----------



## yello (26 Oct 2008)

I ride with an FFCT group (like CTC) here in France. The huge majority of them wear helmets... but they're either so old and/or badly worn to be of very doubtful effectiveness should the need arise. I would argue there's an awful lot of blind, unquestioning adherence to a simple 'helmet = safety' principle.


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Oct 2008)

Maz said:


> Context? What are you referring to?
> I'm saying that for certain head impacts, wearing a helmet can reduce injury.
> It really is very simple. For some impacts (depending on how you fall etc) a helmet will be useless.



This "test" was originally quoted to prove thathelmets were beneficial to cyclists..... If your personal statement is that they are effective in ALL head injury groups then welcome aboard!


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 Oct 2008)

Anyone looking at the long term development of motorcycle helmets would see that they traded head injuries for neck injuries so there is always a compromise somewhere along the way, I use the motorcycle helmet example because the development has been so much more extensive than bicycle helmet development.


----------



## Maz (26 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> If your personal statement is that they are effective in ALL head injury groups then welcome aboard!


Nope. Not saying that at all - I'm saying they're only effective for some types of impacts. For many impacts they will be useless.


----------



## DJ (26 Oct 2008)

handsome joe said:


> Had a nasty accident yesterday. Had to cross two lanes of traffic to take a short cut. Half way across i noticed the car heading towards me was speeding up therefore causing me to increase my speed. Due to not taking this short cut for a long time i had forgotten there is permernent barriers at the entrance to this road. There is two small gaps for cycles but you have to slow down to get through. So there's me going way too fast and hiting a concrete kerb thats part of the barrier.
> 
> I heard the sound of my metal (my pedal) hitting concrete and find myself flying with my bike through the air upside down. Luckily i came down towards my left side. But my knee, elbow and especially my wrist/hand took the full force. This being London no one stopped to ask how i was just a couple of kids giggling nearby. I immediately did the macho thing of standing up and acting like nothing happened......i sat back down sharpish. The kids came over, asked if i was alright, then commented on how spectacular and desperate i looked flying through the air. The bike was ok but my knee and wrist really hurt. For some reason i got back on the bike and cycled home? When i got home i started to feel the pain and saw the swelling.
> 
> ...




I did something very similar this evening and luckily got away with it!

I made a really bad decision and could have got badly hurt so my full sympathy goes out to you, and hope you recover quickly!


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Oct 2008)

Maz said:


> Nope. Not saying that at all - I'm saying they're only effective for some types of impacts. For many impacts they will be useless.




So are they effective in pedestrian falls ?


----------



## Maz (27 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> So are they effective in pedestrian falls ?


Pedestrians? I don't understand your line of questioning.
Does anyone else?


----------



## BentMikey (27 Oct 2008)

The risk of head injury is about the same for pedestrians. He's asking why you wear a helmet on the bike, and not walking to the shops. (I assume).


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> The risk of head injury is about the same for pedestrians. He's asking why you wear a helmet on the bike, and not walking to the shops. (I assume).



I am not going to get into the helmet/no-helmet argument, but I do take evidence seriously and this is an oft-quoted and very misleading comparison. It is an absolute comparison and not very helpful. Are you comparing the same thing here? How do the injuries to pedestrians and cyclists occur and in what circumstances? Would a pedestrian walking normally within the bounds of the law and obeying the Highway Code have the same risk as a cyclist cycling in the same manner? Do the the injuries of the same degree of seriousness and risk of death or serious brain trauma?


----------



## BentMikey (27 Oct 2008)

As an average across the whole of the UK, that will include both bad/irresponsible as well as sensible safety-conscious use for both modes of transport. It'll no doubt cover a lot of different situations and usages for both too.

I don't see why you'd think it's not a good comparison. It is from the point of view of showing that most cycling is well within normal acceptable danger levels by comparison with many of the other activities we seem to accept. Just because cycling in traffic is very intimidating doesn't mean it's especially dangerous, and nor does the strange cultural focus on hiviz and helmets. Neither are needed for other similar activities.


----------



## Crackle (27 Oct 2008)

It may be interesting when talking about overall risk but not when trying to assess the specific risk of cycling and head injury.

Anyway I found something for you and Cunobelin to wear down the pub.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Oct 2008)

I think what you really mean is that you're more worried about a serious head injury when cycling, than when you're walking. You can at least take heart from the evidence out there that the risks aren't really different and that cycling is nowhere near as dangerous as most people imagine it to be.


----------



## Crackle (27 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I think what you really mean is that you're more worried about a serious head injury when cycling, than when you're walking. You can at least take heart from the evidence out there that the risks aren't really different and that cycling is nowhere near as dangerous as most people imagine it to be.



Times out walking I have fractured my skull = 0
Times out walking I have banged my head = 0
Times I have fallen over after drinking beer = 1
Times I have fractured my skull drinking beer = 0
Times out cycling I have fractured my skull = 1

I'd say on a study of one, my risk is higher. 

I take your point but that's not what I'm interested in. It's the greater potential of more serious injury and as I've said before, whilst I wear a helmet I'm ambivalent about their overall effectivness.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Oct 2008)

And yet that shows us exactly what? That you suffered an injury, but nothing at all about the risk of cycling compared with other forms of transport.


----------



## swee'pea99 (27 Oct 2008)

Is 'drinking beer' a form of transport? No wonder I get around so much...


----------



## Crackle (27 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> And yet that shows us exactly what? That you suffered an injury, but nothing at all about the risk of cycling compared with other forms of transport.



It shows us that statistics are meaningless unless you set the context correctly. It shows you statisitics are statisitics until you're one of them and then they take on a different meaning.

Air travel is the safest form of travel right but in the event of a crash how many people survive compared to survival rates in a train crash. The risk is lower but the consequences are far more serious. It's exactly the same with riding a bike. I'm not concerned with overall risk, I'm concerned with consequence. I take the same view with rock climbing, mountaineering, motorcycling, that's why I'm not really interested in comparisons with walking and going to the pub, it's meaningless within context of cycling injuries and specifically cycling head injuries.

if you're going to discuss the effectivness of cycling helmets in an accident then do so within the context of the consequence of striking your head when cycling, don't muddy the waters with meaningless statistical comparisons.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Oct 2008)

Are they really more serious though? What about the large numbers of people that are out walking and get hit by a car, on the pavement, for example. It's you that's cherry picking examples, and ignoring the fact that walking accidents can be just as severe, and that the risks are about the same.

Why do so many pro-helmet people get so angry and wound up about the issue when confronted on the illogicality of wearing them? It's almost like an addiction - "I have to wear a helmet, cycling has to be VERY dangerous". It's not clear which one is the cause and which one the effect.

What about the some 500k people who injure themselves on street furniture whilst walking and talking on the phone and end up in A&E. According to your logic they should all be wearing a helmet "just in case".


----------



## Maz (27 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Why do so many pro-helmet people get so angry and wound up about the issue when confronted on the illogicality of wearing them?


I for one am not wound up in the slightest. It's personal choice, after all. I'm curious to know what you see as illogical about wearing a helmet which could reduce head injuries if you were involved in a collision/fall etc, which, if you weren't wearing one, could be a lot worse.


----------



## Origamist (27 Oct 2008)

Crackle said:


> Times out walking I have fractured my skull = 0
> Times out walking I have banged my head = 0
> Times I have fallen over after drinking beer = 1
> Times I have fractured my skull drinking beer = 0
> ...



Let me add my data point!

Times out walking I have fractured my skull = 0
Times out walking I have banged my head = easily double figures.
Times I have fallen over after drinking beer = between 5 and 10, I reckon.
Times I have fractured my skull drinking beer = 0 (but I do have a 40mm scar on my pate after colliding with a sign). 
Times out cycling I have fractured my skull = 0


----------



## BentMikey (27 Oct 2008)

Maz said:


> I for one am not wound up in the slightest. It's personal choice, after all. I'm curious to know what you see as illogical about wearing a helmet which could reduce head injuries if you were involved in a collision/fall etc, which, if you weren't wearing one, could be a lot worse.



Well yes, I've not seen you being wound up, but you're generally quite a sensible poster!!

The illogical bit comes from your assumption that helmets will reduce or negate injuries and make cycling safer overall. I don't make the same assumption, and I think overall they make things slightly worse from a safety point of view.


----------



## Maz (27 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> The illogical bit comes from your assumption that helmets will reduce or negate injuries and make cycling safer overall.


Nope. I'm not making that assumption. I'm saying that helmets _could _reduce injuries, where, if one was not worn, could be a lot worse.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Are they really more serious though? What about the large numbers of people that are out walking and get hit by a car, on the pavement, for example. It's you that's cherry picking examples, and ignoring the fact that walking accidents can be just as severe, and that the risks are about the same.
> 
> Why do so many pro-helmet people get so angry and wound up about the issue when confronted on the illogicality of wearing them? It's almost like an addiction - "I have to wear a helmet, cycling has to be VERY dangerous". It's not clear which one is the cause and which one the effect.
> 
> What about the some 500k people who injure themselves on street furniture whilst walking and talking on the phone and end up in A&E. According to your logic they should all be wearing a helmet "just in case".



You miss the point. Crackle is entirely right about the difference between the risk of an accident and the risk of a serious injury or fatality. Cycling is not a dangerous activity in terms of the likelihood of an accident occuring to you, however it is more dangerous than walking in terms of the likelihood of serious injury or death occuring in the event of an accident. 

It's still not high so cycling cannot be said to be 'dangerous' in some general way, but frankly emotive silliness like your second paragraph is simply to point and laugh at people who chose to do something to reduce that second risk. It doesn't help. The big problem for cyclists and pedestrians is that both have to bear the brunt of the externalisation of the risk of injury by drivers. Drivers have a much higher risk of an accident, but a much lower risk of serious injury because of the introduction of so many 'safety' measures in cars (safe for them but unsafe for everyone else) in fact, by my own rough calculations a cyclist is overall, 3 times more likely to be killed of seriously injured in an accident than a driver (based on the percentage of journeys conducted by both compared to KSI rates for the whole population - journey distances would change this, but numbers of journeys is probably more relevant for comparison). 

And of course there are many, many activities that are more risky in both terms.


----------



## swee'pea99 (27 Oct 2008)

I don't suppose the figures exist, but I'd be interested to see what proportion of wearers/non-wearers actually hit their heads in the event of an accident. Not that I'd be so cretinous as to extrapolate any kind of a universal rule from my own experience, but I've had two high speed crashes in recent years, but tho' I shredded legs, arms, hands, hips, shoulders, in neither one did my head so much as touch the ground. Did I instinctively fall so's to protect it, knowing it was unprotected?


----------



## Crackle (27 Oct 2008)

The trouble is BM I don't think you understand what it is about helmets I'm debating.

I'm certainly not arguing that helmets make cycling safer, I'm arguing that they may make a difference in a cycling related accident because the consequences/risk for serious injury are potentially greater and the likelihood of the injury being to your upper trunk/head is greater because of where your centre of gravity is on a bike. You'll also note that despite my own accident I'm quite open minded about whether they do or don't. Spurious comparison to other risks and injuries are irrelevant and do the debate no good whatsoever. You'll also note I've only ever talked about cycling helmets saving you from yourself and not saving you from vehicular collisions.

Whether you choose to wear one is up to you but at least make your choice based on the right reasons and allow others to do the same and as far as I'm concerned those reasons are only to do with effectivness and vehicle driver perception and nothing to do with risks in other areas of life or other non-cycling injuries.


----------



## LLB (27 Oct 2008)

I was chatting to the son of my video shop on saturday (went in there with my bike), and he said he cycles most places. He mentioned that he was knocked off about 4 weeks ago by a bus and the impact split the lid in two. I haven't been wearing my lid for a few months now but it sewed the seed and as I was passing Cheltenham Cycles, I picked up a new bell for my Marin (which they supplied free  ) and I picked up a MET lid (which fitted me far better than anything I've tried before including the Giro's).


----------



## mickle (27 Oct 2008)

User1314 said:


> My son's Primary school bans kids from cycling to school of they don't wear a helmet.



Are they legally allowed to do this? I shall ask Mrs Mickle (Primary Headteacher) forthwith.


----------



## Monkey Spanner (27 Oct 2008)

*Waits for someone to come on spouting that statistics show helmets don't protect you, drivers, that you are more likely to get rotational injuries etc, etc.*


----------



## AdamBlade (27 Oct 2008)

Obviously it is anyones right whether to wear a helmet or not, but I have seen a number of people post that their helmet has been split in a collision. Would this not be enough evidence to suggest that they do provide some sort of protection? I know I would rather it be my helmet splitting than my head.


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

mickle said:


> Are they legally allowed to do this? I shall ask Mrs Mickle (Primary Headteacher) forthwith.



No


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

AdamBlade said:


> Obviously it is anyones right whether to wear a helmet or not, but I have seen a number of people post that their helmet has been split in a collision. Would this not be enough evidence to suggest that they do provide some sort of protection? I know I would rather it be my helmet splitting than my head.



But I don't think that anyone has said that they don't provide some protection. Without doubt they can protect against road rash etc but how much more can a thin piece of polystyrene protect you and from what ?


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

User1314 said:


> It was a letter from the HM saying kids need to wear helmets when cycling to school.



I assume that probably on the same letter it asked parents not to park on double yellow lines or block the road etc etc


----------



## Wolf04 (27 Oct 2008)

AdamBlade said:


> Obviously it is anyones right whether to wear a helmet or not, but I have seen a number of people post that their helmet has been split in a collision. Would this not be enough evidence to suggest that they do provide some sort of protection? I know I would rather it be my helmet splitting than my head.



You are only reading posts from people who survived the impact that split the helmet, how many in similar circumstances didn't?


----------



## BentMikey (27 Oct 2008)

If you feel helmets reduce the severity of serious head injuries, think again:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1013.html

Sweetpea, one study suggests that helmet wearers are 7 times more likely to hit their heads.

Adamblade, cracked helmets do not confirm that the helmet worked. Cracks are a sign of brittle failure, where little or no energy was absorbed - i.e. it's a sign that the helmet failed to work. You need the foam to compress to absorb energy.


----------



## mickle (27 Oct 2008)

mickle said:


> Are they legally allowed to do this? I shall ask Mrs Mickle (Primary Headteacher) forthwith.


She say no. Outside the school grounds it's down to the parents.


----------



## AdamBlade (27 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> If you feel helmets reduce the severity of serious head injuries, think again:
> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1013.html
> 
> Sweetpea, one study suggests that helmet wearers are 7 times more likely to hit their heads.
> ...



Ok, I take your point. I'll carry on wearing mine though. With I hadn't joined in


----------



## col (27 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Well yes, I've not seen you being wound up, but you're generally quite a sensible poster!!
> 
> The illogical bit comes from your assumption that helmets will reduce or negate injuries and make cycling safer overall. I don't make the same assumption, and I think overall they make things slightly worse from a safety point of view.




Its never been mentioned that it would do this overall,just on certain impacts,i dont understand where you get this from?


----------



## Monkey Spanner (27 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> If you feel helmets reduce the severity of serious head injuries, think again:
> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1013.html
> 
> Sweetpea, one study suggests that helmet wearers are 7 times more likely to hit their heads.
> ...



What utter bollocks. Are you suggesting that you are less likely to hit your head if not wearing a helmet? How? Do the Head Fairies protect you somehow?

As for 'brittle failure', you are talking our of your hole. A helmet doesn't shatter into a million pieces as it should if it was unable to absorb energy. It absorbs a significant amout of force and then disipates it further through breaking.


----------



## Cab (27 Oct 2008)

So... If I'm wearing a helmet, fall off, helmet cracks... Do I get less, more, or the same amount of force on my head? My gut feeling is that its more or less the same.

Has there been anything new or innovative in the overall helmet debate thing here in this thread? I ask solely 'cos I'm lazy and can't be bothered reading the whole bally lot of it.


----------



## swee'pea99 (27 Oct 2008)

Cab said:


> Has there been anything new or innovative in the overall helmet debate thing here in this thread?


At last! A decent laugh. (You were joking weren't you?)


----------



## Monkey Spanner (27 Oct 2008)

Cab said:


> So... If I'm wearing a helmet, fall off, helmet cracks... Do I get less, more, or the same amount of force on my head? My gut feeling is that its more or less the same.
> 
> Has there been anything new or innovative in the overall helmet debate thing here in this thread? I ask solely 'cos I'm lazy and can't be bothered reading the whole bally lot of it.



Are you suggesting a helmet magically transfers 100% of the force through to your head?

Let me hit you over the head with an iron bar and you can tell me which feels most forceful, with or without helmet.


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

Cab said:


> Has there been anything new or innovative in the overall helmet debate thing here in this thread? I ask solely 'cos I'm lazy and can't be bothered reading the whole bally lot of it.



I am sure you already know the answer to that


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

Monkey Spanner said:


> Are you suggesting a helmet magically transfers 100% of the force through to your head?
> 
> Let me hit you over the head with an iron bar and you can tell me which feels most forceful, with or without helmet.



Are cycle helmets now designed to protect from iron bars ? Blimey the technology has certainly moved on


----------



## col (27 Oct 2008)

Well going on what the anti helmet lot are saying,or some of them,is that its safer to NOT wear a helmet as the helmet causes more injuries than it saves,is this correct?


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

col said:


> Well going on what the anti helmet lot are saying,or some of them,is that its safer to NOT wear a helmet as the helmet causes more injuries than it saves,is this correct?



No that is not correct. What the pro choice lot are saying is that whilst helmets may protect you from certain instances road rash etc the proof that they protect you from certain death experiences compared to non helmet use are inconclusive.


----------



## Monkey Spanner (27 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> Let me add my data point!
> 
> Times out walking I have fractured my skull = 0
> Times out walking I have banged my head = easily double figures.
> ...




How do you bang your head whilst out walking?


----------



## yello (27 Oct 2008)

You walk into a bar.... an iron bar.


----------



## Monkey Spanner (27 Oct 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> Are cycle helmets now designed to protect from iron bars ? Blimey the technology has certainly moved on




Ok, howabout the edge of a kerbstone?


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

Monkey Spanner said:


> How do you bang your head whilst out walking?



I would assume it would involve tripping over ones feet. I find that alcohol is the main factor here


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

Monkey Spanner said:


> Ok, howabout the edge of a kerbstone?



At what speed ?


----------



## Cab (27 Oct 2008)

Monkey Spanner said:


> Are you suggesting a helmet magically transfers 100% of the force through to your head?



Are you suggesting that if it cracks on impact, it has absorbed much of that force?



> Let me hit you over the head with an iron bar and you can tell me which feels most forceful, with or without helmet.




See, now I'm no longer viewing you as someone who has something interesting to say on this subject, I'm viewing you as someone who tried to get his point across by saying that he'll hit me over the head with an iron bar. Not only is that suggestion stupid and inapplicable (because you're not applying the same kind of force or impact as you face in real life), it is in itself a _chilling_ way to try to get across a point which is meant to be about safety.

Take a step back, take a deep breath, and think about your argument _and how you're posting it_.


----------



## swee'pea99 (27 Oct 2008)

col said:


> Well going on what the anti helmet lot are saying,or some of them,is that its safer to NOT wear a helmet as the helmet causes more injuries than it saves,is this correct?


I think there's some truth in this. 

As I understand it, even fairly keen antis wouldn't deny that helmets can provide at least some protection against minor bumps and bruises. What they do suggest is that they're pretty much useless when it comes to genuinely serious injury (to limit which, you'd really need something built more along the lines of a motorcycle helmet) _and_ - to get back to the question posed - that yes, they _can_, in relation to serious injury, be quite literally worse than useless, in that by increasing the impact area, they can invite whiplash, turning what would have at worst been a relatively minor head injury into a broken neck. 

Feel free to tell me I'm talking bollocks.


----------



## Monkey Spanner (27 Oct 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> No that is not correct. What the pro choice lot are saying is that whilst helmets may protect you from certain instances road rash etc the proof that they protect you from certain death experiences compared to non helmet use are inconclusive.



I'm pro-choice but just don't tell me that helmets don't protect you from head injuries.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Oct 2008)

Monkey Spanner said:


> What utter bollocks. Are you suggesting that you are less likely to hit your head if not wearing a helmet? How? Do the Head Fairies protect you somehow?
> 
> As for 'brittle failure', you are talking our of your hole. A helmet doesn't shatter into a million pieces as it should if it was unable to absorb energy. It absorbs a significant amout of force and then disipates it further through breaking.



LOL!

Yes, you are less likely to hit your head if not wearing a helmet. Partly through risk compensation, and partly because a Magic Foam Hat makes it all a lot larger.

As for the cracking, you're assuming rather a lot about helmet failure and energy absorption, but those assumptions are wrong.


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

Monkey Spanner said:


> I'm pro-choice but just don't tell me that helmets don't protect you from head injuries.



What head injuries are you hoping it will protect you from ? Falling iron bars ?


----------



## Crackle (27 Oct 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> I would assume it would involve tripping over ones feet. I find that alcohol is the main factor here



Actually it's threads like this which cause you to butt the edge of your desk repeatedly whilst dribbling from the side of your mouth which are in danger of overtaking cycling injury stats amongst cyclists.

I recommend the wearing of helmets for all forum reading and the fitting of emergency resuc. equipment for apoplectic rage induced heart attacks. It would also be beneficial to have one member of the household trained in CPR.........and remember kids, never enter the forum when there's no-one around to help you


----------



## magnatom (27 Oct 2008)

col said:


> Well going on what the anti helmet lot are saying,or some of them,is that its safer to NOT wear a helmet as the helmet causes more injuries than it saves,is this correct?




Col, I believe it is not so much that it is correct, but that it cannot be proved one way or the other at the moment.

As a thought experiment, imagine that an accident occurs where you fall in such a way that, as you head approaches the ground, something stops it from hitting the ground (i.e. the position of your shoulder). So you head at closes approach is about 0.5cm from the ground. It does not impact no impact forces are transmitted to the cyclists head.

Now imagine you are wearing a helmet and the same accident happens. We also need to take into account that the helmet has a weight and so would likely result in the shoulder being compressed a little more due to the extra weight (who knows this increase in weight might result in a shoulder fracture....). The thickness of a helmet is say 3cm. So in this instance the helmet would come into contact with the ground and would transfer some of the forces to the wearers head, possibly resulting in injury.

Another thing to remember in this instance is the wearers forward motion at the time of the accident. In the non-helmet situation, assuming that the cyclist was traveling forwards and 15mph there would be no extra rotational forces on the wearers head due to contact with the ground. In the helmet situation the helmet would make contact with the ground and would start accelerating the head rotationally. This would be bad, as rotational brain injuries are the worst kind to have. Of course this would also place extra pressure on the neck.

So, yes, theoretically it is possible, by the very act of wearing a helmet to increase your risk of injury, in certain situations.

What hasn't been worked out yet, is the morbidity and mortality and likely risks of these situations and situations like them for helmet wearers and non-helmet wearers. 

So the jury is still out (I'm on the fence myself )


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

swee said:


> No I think that pretty much sums up my feelings. However I am not anti helmet, I am pro choice. There is a big difference.


----------



## col (27 Oct 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> No that is not correct. What the pro choice lot are saying is that whilst helmets may protect you from certain instances road rash etc the proof that they protect you from certain death experiences compared to non helmet use are inconclusive.




Its all inconclusive barring some peoples opinions on when they had accidents isnt it?Some say it could have been their life if not for the helmet,others say not unless they prove it.I cant see how this is possible given that the accident has happened and gone,so its the word of the accident victim.I for one believe an inch of poystyrene does cushion impacts to a certain degree,and with certain impacts could save a life.But im not saying any other part of the body is protected by wearing a helmet,thats for the benefit of some.Just as a bare head on impact with concrete at ten miles an hour is more than likely going to sustain serious injury or even death,but with an inch of polystyrene between them will soften the blow,and even save life.


----------



## Maz (27 Oct 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> What head injuries are you hoping it will protect you from ? Falling iron bars ?


If you want some context, suppose you came off the bike and went headfirst towards a railing by the side of the road.


----------



## Monkey Spanner (27 Oct 2008)

Cab said:


> Are you suggesting that if it cracks on impact, it has absorbed much of that force?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Like I said, howabout the corner of a kerbsone instead of an iron bar? Force is force. 

And yes I am saying that if a helmet cracks it has absorbed some of the force. Why do you think your wrist/arm/collar bones break if you take a fall? They are designed to break in order to protect the torso. If helmets didn't break, force (in excess of what could be absorbed) would be transferred to the skull


----------



## magnatom (27 Oct 2008)

Monkey Spanner said:


> Like I said, howabout the corner of a kerbsone instead of an iron bar? Force is force.
> 
> And yes I am saying that if a helmet cracks it has absorbed some of the force. Why do you think your wrist/arm/collar bones break if you take a fall? They are designed to break in order to protect the torso. If helmets didn't break, force (in excess of what could be absorbed) would be transferred to the skull




LOL! Bones are not designed to break! They protect by absorbing force (i.e bending, redistributing force etc). Once they have broke, they can no longer provide any protection and in fact can cause injury by themselves (punctured lung for instance!). I take it you aren't medically trained then!


----------



## col (27 Oct 2008)

magnatom said:


> Col, I believe it is not so much that it is correct, but that it cannot be proved one way or the other at the moment.
> 
> As a thought experiment, imagine that an accident occurs where you fall in such a way that, as you head approaches the ground, something stops it from hitting the ground (i.e. the position of your shoulder). So you head at closes approach is about 0.5cm from the ground. It does not impact no impact forces are transmitted to the cyclists head.
> 
> ...



Well explained,and i understand what you have said,so really the question is,are the chances more or less of injury with or without a helmet?But like you also pointed out,there doesnt seem to be any information of this as fact,just opinion.
So the times when an impact is clean,as in straight onto the helmet it will help,but when its a scathing impact or an angular one,it too can cause injury just by being caused by the helmets presence,so really everyone is right,just which way do you go and what are the percentages or chances of one injury over another?


----------



## Crackle (27 Oct 2008)

magnatom said:


> As a thought experiment, imagine that an accident occurs where you fall in such a way that, as you head approaches the ground, something stops it from hitting the ground (i.e. the position of your shoulder). So you head at closes approach is about 0.5cm from the ground. It does not impact no impact forces are transmitted to the cyclists head.
> 
> Now imagine you are wearing a helmet and the same accident happens. We also need to take into account that the helmet has a weight and so would likely result in the shoulder being compressed a little more due to the extra weight (who knows this increase in weight might result in a shoulder fracture....). The thickness of a helmet is say 3cm. So in this instance the helmet would come into contact with the ground and would transfer some of the forces to the wearers head, possibly resulting in injury.
> 
> ...



Thank you Magnatom, that is precisely what it's about and for that example you gave I can refer you to my own fractured skull incident where I fractured my skull in the temple area but did not injure my shoulder because it had rotated under me so my head hit first. The point you make about rotational forces and the nature of head injuries is exactly the kind of study I'm waiting to read. 

Now shift over so I can sit next to you on the fence: Got a cushion, we could be here a long time.


----------



## yello (27 Oct 2008)

Crackle said:


> Now shift over so I can sit next to you on the fence: Got a cushion, we could be here a long time.



Easy does it there Crackle, don't want you pushing me off!


----------



## magnatom (27 Oct 2008)

col said:


> Well explained,and i understand what you have said,so really the question is,are the chances more or less of injury with or without a helmet?But like you also pointed out,there doesnt seem to be any information of this as fact,just opinion.
> So the times when an impact is clean,as in straight onto the helmet it will help,but when its a scathing impact or an angular one,it too can cause injury just by being caused by the helmets presence,so really everyone is right,just which way do you go and what are the percentages or chances of one injury over another?



Almost, but as others have pointed out, once a helmet has broken it no longer provides any further protection and in fact, due to the design of helmets (i.e. struts are wider on the outside than inside), it is even possible that they concentrate the forces on a smaller area at the skull.

Of course this is supposition, but every user should be aware that it is possible that helmets could as well as reduce injury, actually increase it. It isn't clear cut, so it is wrong for anyone to say, we should all wear helmets....


----------



## magnatom (27 Oct 2008)

yello said:


> Easy does it there Crackle, don't want you pushing me off!




This fence can only take so much weight.... I hope you lads have your helmets on..


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

yello said:


> Easy does it there Crackle, don't want you pushing me off!



Well done on restraining yourself so far. I regret I cracked (much like a cheap helmet) once it reached page 14. Just waiting for Chris James to show his face


----------



## Crackle (27 Oct 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> Well done on restraining yourself so far. I regret I cracked (much like a cheap helmet) once it reached page 14. Just waiting for Chris James to show his face




Where's Chris on this then as I normally value his posts?


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

Crackle said:


> Where's Chris on this then as I normally value his posts?



He obviously has more will power than me


----------



## swee'pea99 (27 Oct 2008)

magnatom said:


> every user should be aware that it is possible that helmets could as well as reduce injury, actually increase it. It isn't clear cut, so it is wrong for anyone to say, we should all wear helmets....


At the risk of being pedantic, I think the key point is not so much 'it is wrong for anyone to say, we should all wear helmets' - people should be free to say whatever they like - as 'it is wrong for anyone to say that anyone should be compelled by law to wear helmets'.

I would add just one further twist. While I along with even many pro-helmeters (and I'm an anti myself - tho' I will defend to the death your right to wear one if you so choose) would oppose compulsion, on account of what it implies in terms of the relationship between the state and the individual (by what right can the state compel me to put my life at risk?), there's also the wider issue of the societal impact of compulsion. 

As illustrated in NSW, Australia, eg, where the introduction of compulsion brought about a 90% fall in cycling among teenage girls. Given that the jury is so firmly out on helmets' impact on individuals' safety, but the numbers on general behaviour (and its health impacts) are so unequivocal - and so damning, for the compulsion lobby - it's amazing that compulsion even gets onto the agenda. And yet it does. And indeed into legislation, all over the world.


----------



## Cab (27 Oct 2008)

Monkey Spanner said:


> Like I said, howabout the corner of a kerbsone instead of an iron bar? Force is force.



Yes, force is force. But no, all means of applying force do not cause the same injury.

If I come off and go into a kerb head first as a result of a catastrophic collision at my mean flat speed (comfortably over 15mph) then the helmet will break. Odds are the injury I'll suffer will be more complex than a crack on the noggin; I'm expecting neck injuries, abraisons, etc. The helmet won't protect me from much of that impact if it cracks, because if it cracks then it didn't deform to protect me. If it deformed or crumpled then it may have protected me, if it cracked then it probably did not.

But, really, my entire momentum hitting the kerb head first? Really? I don't know how many times I've come off bikes over the years, but I've never experienced that. I've broken a tooth, I've hit my chin, I've broken ribs, taken scrapes on the arms, legs, shoulders... I dunno, through off-road and on-road biking I've bounced around all over the place, and you're telling me now that I'm going to encounter a new form of accident where instad of laterally scraping along an obstacle I'll be hitting it straight on with my head like its a metal bar being swung at it? Sorry, but none of that sounds very realistic to me.




> And yes I am saying that if a helmet cracks it has absorbed some of the force.



How? Really, suppose you're going at 15mph and hit your head on the ground, lets say at the same speed. You break the helmet. What speed is the helmet going at when the cracked bit impacts on your head? Where has the absorbed energy gone if the helmet has cracked? 



> Why do you think your wrist/arm/collar bones break if you take a fall? They are designed to break in order to protect the torso. If helmets didn't break, force (in excess of what could be absorbed) would be transferred to the skull



Dude, there may be some little value in the rest of your argument; by talking about hitting my head with a metal bar (which is chilling and dubious, to say the least) and then following it up with this rubbish, you're diluting the valid parts of your argument so far as to lose them.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 Oct 2008)

Cab said:


> But, really, my entire momentum hitting the kerb head first? Really? I don't know how many times I've come off bikes over the years, but I've never experienced that.



I have so your disbelief is unjustified - it happens. When mountain biking, head plants are not uncommon. All the bleating about what helmets do and do not do stop in situations like this. I saved myself a nasty bang on the head - what the effects of that would have been without a helmet I do not know, _but I am happy I did not have to find out_. On the road though, my few crashes have never involved me hitting my head, but then I have, like Magnatom, martial arts reflexes (or what's left of them) - I still wouldn't bank on them however.

A few people have mentioned risk compensation - I have yet to see a good study on the long-term effects of helmet-wearing on risky behaviour that studied such things over the long term and was actually able to differentiate between risk-compensatory behaviour from the wearing of helmet and the same resulting from perceived experience. Many people are more blase about safety than they claim in discussions like this whether they wear helmets or not. I do not doubt that especially for inexperienced cyclists there might be a small and temporary risk compensation effect from the wearing of helmets, but one would expect this to reduce over time to the point where it was not a factor. I certianly do not behave as if I am invincible when I wear a helmet, in fact I don't think I behave any differently at all.


----------



## yello (27 Oct 2008)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I certianly do not behave as if I am invincible when I wear a helmet, in fact I don't think I behave any differently at all.



Same here. Though you would perhaps acknowledge that it's difficult to be objective about that. 

Your own perception of your behaviour might also be altered! More realistically though the likelihood of you being able to compare you behaviour with and without helmet in exactly the same situations is remote.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 Oct 2008)

yello said:


> Same here. Though you would perhaps acknowledge that it's difficult to be objective about that.
> 
> Your own perception of your behaviour might also be altered! More realistically though the likelihood of you being able to compare you behaviour with and without helmet in exactly the same situations is remote.



That's very true - but then many other changes I have made to my riding have the opposite effect - notably clipless pedals, which make you _very _careful for a while...


----------



## Crackle (27 Oct 2008)

Cab said:


> But, really, my entire momentum hitting the kerb head first? Really? I don't know how many times I've come off bikes over the years, but I've never experienced that. I've broken a tooth, I've hit my chin, I've broken ribs, taken scrapes on the arms, legs, shoulders... I dunno, through off-road and on-road biking I've bounced around all over the place, and you're telling me now that I'm going to encounter a new form of accident where instad of laterally scraping along an obstacle I'll be hitting it straight on with my head like its a metal bar being swung at it? Sorry, but none of that sounds very realistic to me.



I didn't hit the kerb. I hit the flat of the road with the side of my head at about 15-25mph. I didn't bounce, I didn't scrape, my head roughly stayed where it landed and my bottom half rotated in the direction of travel.

It happened fast and I mean really fast. I don't have slow reactions and up until then I'd never not reacted to a fall but I did then, went down like a dead thing: Result one fractured skull, followed by 18 months of dizzy spells and low blood pressure incidents.

I make no assumption about whether a helmet would have helped, I'm merely stating what happened and that it contradicts what you've posted and the other theory that shoulder would hit first.


----------



## yello (27 Oct 2008)

Reckon you're right there FM. Riding fixed also changes the way I ride!

I've recently started wearing a helmet but it's only because I often ride with a group and they're helmet wearers. Peer group pressure I guess. If I go out on my own, I don't bother.


----------



## mickle (27 Oct 2008)

I saw an ANSI helmet testing rig up close during a visit to Specialized in Morgan Hill. Helmet is attached (upside down) to (upside down) head shaped buck which is then dropped a couple of feet on to a hard surface. 

ANSI is widely considered to be the worlds best helmet testing authority yet its rigs can only test the very top of a helmet and so are only really valid when considering a head first kind of impact. Such as being shot out of a cannon.


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Oct 2008)

mickle said:


> I saw an ANSI helmet testing rig up close during a visit to Specialized in Morgan Hill. Helmet is attached (upside down) to (upside down) head shaped buck which is then dropped a couple of feet on to a hard surface.
> 
> ANSI is widely considered to be the worlds best helmet testing authority yet its rigs can only test the very top of a helmet and so are only really valid when considering a head first kind of impact. Such as being shot out of a cannon.



There is an excellent coverage of testing here

If you follow the links you get to details of the requirements for various standards


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Oct 2008)

Aditional to the helmet design "dumbing down" that has been allowed, resulting in helmets that offer less and less protection to be marketed, there is also an increase in the danger of neck injuries by poor drsign.

If you are involved in an impact, then the best surface is a smooth dome that will slide.

Modern helmets with large vents offer points where this motion will be arrested na transfer into rotational forces. Now add all those nice little raised areas and flat aras and you heve designed in "snag pioints" which will also increase both the likelihood and extent of rotational injury!








Have a look at the number of points on this helmet that could arrest movement!


----------



## yello (27 Oct 2008)

I have that helmet.... a Giro Atmos


----------



## BentMikey (27 Oct 2008)

And me. There is some rumour that helmets just like this have to be duct-taped to the head form, as well as the straps, else they won't stay on for the hit the back of the head tests. Not very encouraging!!

Most of the head injuries I've seen from skating falls resulted in cut chins, broken teeth, all stuff below the helmet line.


----------



## Wolf04 (27 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> There is an excellent coverage of testing here
> 
> If you follow the links you get to details of the requirements for various standards



Thanks Thought provoking stuff. I'm off to buy (depending on fit) a Specialised Airforce 3 at the weekend, interesting that here it is only marked as EN1078 but is identical to the Snell rated model in U.S.


----------



## Crackle (27 Oct 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> There is an excellent coverage of testing *here*
> 
> If you follow the links you get to details of the requirements for various standards



That's an _excellent_ site. Did anyone follow the study link _(_Edit: Study discredited see posts below this):-

_Bicycling accidents cause many serious injuries and, in the United States, about 1300 deaths per year, mainly from head injuries. Safety helmets are widely recommended for cyclists, but convincing evidence of their effectiveness is lacking. Over one year we conducted a case-control study in which the case patients were 235 persons with head injuries received while bicycling, who sought emergency care at one of five hospitals. One control group consisted of 433 persons who received emergency care at the same hospitals for bicycling injuries not involving the head. A second control group consisted of 558 members of a large health maintenance organization who had had bicycling accidents during the previous year. Seven percent of the case patients were wearing helmets at the time of their head injuries, as compared with 24 percent of the emergency room controls and 23 percent of the second control group. Of the 99 cyclists with serious brain injury only 4 percent wore helmets. In regression analyses to control for age, sex, income, education, cycling experience, and the severity of the accident, we found that riders with helmets had an 85 percent reduction in their risk of head injury (odds ratio, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.07 to 0.29) and an 88 percent reduction in their risk of brain injury (odds ratio, 0.12; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.40). We conclude that *bicycle* safety helmets are highly effective in preventing head injury. Helmets are particularly important for children, since they suffer the majority of serious head injuries from bicycling accidents. _


----------



## Nigeyy (27 Oct 2008)

It's obvious then; you are safer wearing a helmet in the States compared to other parts of the world, notably Australia. Or, if you are in an accident wearing a helmet come over here to have it (though you'll have to have health insurance mind you).



Crackle said:


> That's an _excellent_ site. Did anyone follow the study link:-
> 
> _Bicycling accidents cause many serious injuries and, in the United States.... We conclude that *bicycle* safety helmets are highly effective in preventing head injury._


----------



## BentMikey (27 Oct 2008)

Ah yes, Thompson Rivara Thompson. That is a widely discredited study, IIRC.


----------



## jonesy (27 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Ah yes, Thompson Rivara Thompson. That is a widely discredited study, IIRC.



There is a critique of that paper here:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html


----------



## Crackle (27 Oct 2008)

Nigeyy said:


> It's obvious then; you are safer wearing a helmet in the States compared to other parts of the world, notably Australia. Or, if you are in an accident wearing a helmet come over here to have it (though you'll have to have health insurance mind you).




The Antipodean studies are based around compulsory helmet wearing and it's effects on overall risk. I find they don't really address the issue of helmet effectivness but legislation effectivness. This study sees to be addressing helmet effectiveness directly and isn't skewed towards examining legislation.

The other interesting thing about the site was an explanation of likely impact speeds; very informative.


----------



## Crackle (27 Oct 2008)

jonesy said:


> There is a critique of that paper here:
> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html



Yep OK, caught bang to rights. Forget my post quoting the study and part of my last post. I should have gone off and read the whole thing before I posted the excerpt.


----------



## jonesy (27 Oct 2008)

Crackle said:


> The Antipodean studies are based around compulsory helmet wearing and it's effects on overall risk. I find they don't really address the issue of helmet effectivness but legislation effectivness. This study sees to be addressing helmet effectiveness directly and isn't skewed towards examining legislation.
> 
> The other interesting thing about the site was an explanation of likely impact speeds; very informative.



Absolutely. It isn't just the effectiveness of helmets at reducing injury in individual accidents that counts, we also have to assess the effectiveness of promotion and compulsion when applied to large populations. It is perfectly possible both for helmets to offer a real benefit in certain types of accident (which is why I usually wear one) and for compulsion to be ineffective and/or counter-productive at the population level (which is why I'm opposed to compulsion).


----------



## BentMikey (27 Oct 2008)

I agree with crackle on the antipodean studies showing how compulsion is bad. I rather suspect that a culture of helmet wearing will have much the same effect as compulsion though, i.e. a negative effect on cycling and cycling safety.

When the benefits outweigh the risks so much, we can't afford not to have people cycling.


----------



## Crackle (27 Oct 2008)

jonesy said:


> Absolutely. It isn't just the effectiveness of helmets at reducing injury in individual accidents that counts, we also have to assess the effectiveness of promotion and compulsion when applied to large populations. It is perfectly possible both for helmets to offer a real benefit in certain types of accident (which is why I usually wear one) and for compulsion to be ineffective and/or counter-productive at the population level (which is why I'm opposed to compulsion).



I agree entirely with that and am also opposed to compulsion, not just because it's effect would be counter productive but as someone said earlier it impinges upon my rights to make an individual choice, contributes to an increasingly risk adverse society with a decreasing understanding of self sufficiency and risk managment and all the attendant litigation that accompanies it and well ............................. just takes the bloody fun out of life!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I rather suspect that a culture of helmet wearing will have much the same effect as compulsion though, i.e. a negative effect on cycling and cycling safety.



Sorry that's bollocks. There's no evidence for it. You have gone from the perfectly legitimate position that most of us share that compulsion is not desirable to the unsupported and irrational perspective that helmet wearing in general has a 'negative effect'. You've crossed this line more than once in this thread, and I wonder why - people immediately jump on emotional and irrational pro-helmet arguments, yet this is equally silly and is very unhelpful and divisive to boot.


----------



## BentMikey (27 Oct 2008)

You really feel strongly about this, don't you?

The evidence that compulsion is bad for safety and for cycling is very clear, I assume you're not debating this. Compulsion isn't really any different to a culture of helmet wearing in the effects, and it is only my opinion after all, clearly stated as such.


----------



## HJ (27 Oct 2008)

handsome joe said:


> So if there is anyone out there not wearing a helmet, please get one.



Would wearing a helmet make you less likely to make a stupid mistake??

Cycle helmet are a waste of time, simply engage brain before riding...


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

Hairy Jock said:


> Would wearing a helmet make you less likely to make a stupid mistake??
> 
> Cycle helmet are a waste of time, simply engage brain before riding...



Good summing up of the thread, like it


----------



## Maz (27 Oct 2008)

Hairy Jock said:


> Would wearing a helmet make you less likely to make a stupid mistake??
> 
> Cycle *helmet *are a waste of time, simply engage brain before riding...


That should say *helmets*. What a stupid mistake . Maybe use should wear a helmet next time.


----------



## dudi (27 Oct 2008)

Hairy Jock said:


> Would wearing a helmet make you less likely to make a stupid mistake??
> 
> Cycle helmet are a waste of time, simply engage brain before riding...




would wearing a cycle helmet *cause* you to make a stupid mistake?

Cycle helmets are another form of defense against some forms of injury, in the event of an accident occuring.

Simply engage your brain before riding whether you are wearing a helmet or not.


----------



## dudi (27 Oct 2008)

Maz said:


> That should say helmets. What a stupid mistake . Maybe *use* should wear a helmet next time.



come on. if you're correcting spelling, at least make sure your post is correct!


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

dudi said:


> Simply engage your brain before riding whether you are wearing a helmet or not.



If only the OP had done that before cycling into a concrete bollard. It would have saved over 200 posts and 21 pages


----------



## dudi (27 Oct 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> If only the OP had done that before cycling into a concrete bollard. It would have saved over 200 posts


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

dudi said:


>



By the way did you see the link at the top of the page for the cyclechat kit order form


----------



## mickle (27 Oct 2008)

I have often wondered what effect the very existence of cycle helmets has on people's perception of cycling. Every cycle shop in the land has a prominent display of shiny helmets which must at some psychological level suggest that cycling is a dangerous activity. Cycling magazines are accused of gross irresponsibility if they dare publish an image of a bare headed cyclist. 

No one (as far as I can remember) is suggesting in this thread that one shouldn't wear a helmet and I don't object to helmets in principle but I really do mind that, as a group we feel the need to wear them because of the danger posed by other road users. The solution to the problem of crap driving is not cycle lanes, helmets and hi-viz, it's driver education. By wearing a helmet and hi-viz we are merely reinforcing the myth that cycling is a dangerous activity. The bottom line is that cycling isn't dangerous, motor vehicles are dangerous. We should deal with the source of the danger not compel the victims to protect themselves against it.

Look at old images of workers leaving the ship yards in their thousands, not one of them wearing a helmet because they hadn't been thought of. Stand on a street corner in Holland or Germany, hundreds of cyclists and not a helmet in sight.

If cycling wasn't perceived as such a life threatening activity by the general population there would be a lot more cyclists on the roads. Helmets discourage cycle use.


----------



## Graham O (27 Oct 2008)

Having read some/most of this thread and read a lot of pseudo science and general re-iteration of the same old bollocks, it appears that the anti helmet people are assuming that the pro helmet people want everyone to wear a helmet. Can anyone point to a post where this is stated? All I have seen is statements to the effect that pro helmet people are pro choice, not compulsion. 

Furthermore, there are a number of statements made by the anti helmet people that a helmet can protect against minor injuries, but their main arguement is that a helmet will do nothing in the case of major accident and injuries. Can anyone point to a post where anyone claims that a helmet will protect against major injuries?

From my personal point of view, I accept that a helmet is not going to keep me alive if a 45 tonne HGV runs over my head, but it will reduce the probability of head injury in a more minor incident. I accept that increased weight above the neck may lead to a higher incidence of neck injuries, but I believe that increase to be much less than the extra protection provided. (I hope that covers all scenarios.) I wear a helmet by choice, but I defend your right to not wear a helmet.


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

Graham O said:


> Having read some/most of this thread and read a lot of pseudo science and general re-iteration of the same old bollocks, it appears that the anti helmet people are assuming that the pro helmet people want everyone to wear a helmet. Can anyone point to a post where this is stated?



Try post 1, *So if there is anyone out there not wearing a helmet, please get one.*


----------



## dudi (27 Oct 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> By the way did you see the link at the top of the page for the cyclechat kit order form



cheers for the heads up. 
that's my christmas prezzie!


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

dudi said:


> cheers for the heads up.
> that's my christmas prezzie!



I maybe picking your brains soon if thats OK about fixed conversion. I have just purchased another bike  so the old dawes looks a prime candidate for fixed.


----------



## Graham O (27 Oct 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> Try post 1, *So if there is anyone out there not wearing a helmet, please get one.*



That isn't compulsion, just a personal recommendation.


----------



## dudi (27 Oct 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> I maybe picking your brains soon if thats OK about fixed conversion. I have just purchased another bike  so the old dawes looks a prime candidate for fixed.



let me know when mate, i'll take a ride out to see you. i like the coast!


----------



## 4F (27 Oct 2008)

dudi said:


> let me know when mate, i'll take a ride out to see you. i like the coast!



Can't promise you the ice cream hut will be open this time though


----------



## Maz (27 Oct 2008)

dudi said:


> come on. if you're correcting spelling, at least make sure your post is correct!


Oops. I wasn't wearing my helmet!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You really feel strongly about this, don't you?



What I feel strongly about is poor reasoning and unjustified extreme positions hiding under more reasonable fronts - on either side in any argument. My view on helmets is exactly that of Graham O. 

There is a big, big difference between:
1. simply being anti-compulsion
2. trying to argue that helmets don't protect the individual or may increase risk; and
3. trying to argue that people chosing to wear helmets compromises the safety of other cyclists. 

There is some evidence for compulsion having an effect, the is evidence both ways on the second; but there is none for the latter - and indeed that is basically trying to blame people who wear helmets for increasing risks occuring to others. And that's what you were suggesting. 

As it implies something about the actions of many people here, I think this is quite a serious allegation, which needs some serious support if it is to be made, not a throw-away accusation.

However, you simply side-stepped the question and tried to make out that I have some agenda instead. Very poor argumentation. You've got a contentious statement to either justify with evidence or at least a decent hypothesis or withdraw. It's up to you to do either.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

And you're trying to suggest your argument is to a higher standard?

I think you're simply wrong and misguided.


----------



## Origamist (28 Oct 2008)

Flying_Monkey said:


> However, you simply side-stepped the question and tried to make out that I have some agenda instead. Very poor argumentation. You've got a contentious statement to either justify with evidence or at least a decent hypothesis or withdraw. It's up to you to do either.



You'll be lucky (he used the "hidden agenda" line with me to). Don't worry though, he will simply put you on ignore if you keep pointing out the inadequacies of his arguments.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

That's a bit uncalled for, Origamist.


----------



## jasper (28 Oct 2008)

Why all the arguements on this subject? Who really gives a flying f... If you want to wear a helmet, wear one; if you don't, don't! Until/if they are made compulsory the choice is yours.

On training runs I don't; but when racing I do (because I have to). But I'm not bothered what other people do or don't do.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> And you're trying to suggest your argument is to a higher standard?
> 
> I think you're simply wrong and misguided.



Another sidestep - why not answer the question? Do you not think it is important?

(and frankly, on this showing, the answer to your question is an emphatic 'yes' - althought I'd really rather it wasn't.)


----------



## Origamist (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> That's a bit uncalled for, Origamist.



Maybe, but you should remember that when someone disagrees with you or asks you for further clarification, accusing them of having a hidden agenda or asking them for their cycling CV is uncalled for and diversionary and will only serve to make the debate even more adversarial.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> Maybe, but you should remember that when someone disagrees with you or asks you for further clarification, accusing them of having a hidden agenda or asking them for their cycling CV is uncalled for and diversionary and will only serve to make the debate even more adversarial.



And yet that's what you do when you start trolling on a particular topic. I don't believe it's what I've done here, or previously.


----------



## dondare (28 Oct 2008)

Handsome Joe, you'd better make it a full-face helmet. Can't have you signing in one day as "Still alive but no longer handsome Joe".


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Another sidestep - why not answer the question? Do you not think it is important?
> 
> (and frankly, on this showing, the answer to your question is an emphatic 'yes' - althought I'd really rather it wasn't.)



You haven't asked a question in your last three posts, including the above. I haven't side-stepped anything, so your claim is simply dishonest debating. Perhaps you could specify exactly what question you want answered?

As for evidence on your point 3, there certainly is. The government themselves have said that helmet wearing is a vote for compulsion. More helmet wearers equals more fear of the danger of cycling from the general public. That clearly equals less cyclists, as has been proved by the effects of helmet laws. It diverts efforts from measures that actually improve safety on to helmets, which have an effect between nothing and negative for cyclist safety.


----------



## magnatom (28 Oct 2008)

Guys, we need to ease back a little. BM did say quite clearly that it was his *opinion* that the culture of helmet wearing had a negative effect. I agree that there is little if any evidence to support it, but likewise there is little evidence to refute it. Therefore, I have no problem with BM sharing his opinion. Doesn't mean it is right, but I don't think he needs to back up opinions. 

Of course if BM's opinion was true, it would certainly open up a can of worms. BM, do you really think the fact that I wear a helmet by choice might put people off? I don't. I think what puts people off are their perception of the dangers on the roads (i.e. bad driving), lack of facilities etc that make a difference, not helmets. My opinion of course .


----------



## Origamist (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> And yet that's what you do when you start trolling on a particular topic. I don't believe it's what I've done here, or previously.



I've never (to my knowledge) accused anyone of having a hidden agenda or asked for their cycling credentials when debating with them. Find me an example, or retract.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

Is it co-incidence that the US and the UK have high rates of helmet wearing, and high rates of cycling injury and death, and yet low rates of cycling, whilst Denmark, The Netherlands, and Germany have the reverse?


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

Really Origamist, whatever. It's about as much use as debating with Lee or Bonj.


----------



## Origamist (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Really Origamist, whatever. It's about as much use as debating with Lee or Bonj.



OK, I'll bow out now as you've proved my point (again).


----------



## Maz (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> And me.


Maybe I misunderstood, but you have a Giro Atmos? What do you do with it if you don't wear it on your head?:?:


----------



## Graham O (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Is it co-incidence that the US and the UK have high rates of helmet wearing, and high rates of cycling injury and death, and yet low rates of cycling, whilst Denmark, The Netherlands, and Germany have the reverse?



You can't have it both ways. All through the thread your arguement has been that you can't claim a helmet saved injury because you didn't then repeat the crash without a helmet. Now you are concluding some link between nationality, helmet wearing, injuries and rates of cycling without any evidence of the alternative, i.e. the US and UK must now have a period with helmet wearing banned in order to show that injuries decrease and rates increase.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

Maz said:


> Maybe I misunderstood, but you have a Giro Atmos? What do you do with it if you don't wear it on your head?:?:



Wear it for skating, reluctantly and under duress.


----------



## col (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> And yet that's what you do when you start trolling on a particular topic. I don't believe it's what I've done here, or previously.




And so the name calling starts,wait till he really disagrees with you,you will be blocked

Im only saying this cos he cant see it


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

Graham O said:


> You can't have it both ways. All through the thread your arguement has been that you can't claim a helmet saved injury because you didn't then repeat the crash without a helmet. Now you are concluding some link between nationality, helmet wearing, injuries and rates of cycling without any evidence of the alternative, i.e. the US and UK must now have a period with helmet wearing banned in order to show that injuries decrease and rates increase.



I'm not concluding anything with my comment, simply asking a question. Why are you leaping to assumptions like this? Your first point is wrong as well, as what I was actually claiming is that you can't tell whether a helmet saved your life in any one particular crash, because it's simply not possible to tell.


----------



## Graham O (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I'm not concluding anything with my comment, simply asking a question. Why are you leaping to assumptions like this? Your first point is wrong as well, as what I was actually claiming is that you can't tell whether a helmet saved your life in any one particular crash, because it's simply not possible to tell.



You are posing a question to strengthen your arguement, but by not claiming it as fact, you can always claim that the other person is making assumptions. Which is what you have done. It is a very poor way of making a point.

I don't see what difference there is between your "_you can't tell whether a helmet saved your life in any one particular crash, because it's simply not possible to tell"_ and my "your _arguement has been that you can't claim a helmet saved injury because you didn't then repeat the crash without a helmet._ Those two statements look very similar to me.


----------



## col (28 Oct 2008)

I think when someone has a close call,and they are lucky,it is possible to tell if a helmet or something else saved your life depending on the accident or situation.but you have to be there involved or witness it to be able to say.


----------



## Maz (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Wear it for skating, reluctantly and under duress.


I see, but why are you forced to wear it?


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

Graham O said:


> You are posing a question to strengthen your arguement, but by not claiming it as fact, you can always claim that the other person is making assumptions. Which is what you have done. It is a very poor way of making a point.



It's a very valid point to make - it shows quite clearly that helmets don't have a significant effect on cyclist safety, but not why or how this is the case. That's why I posed it as a question, because I'm not sure it's possible to claim much detail from it.

What is poor debating is how you knock down the point, and ignore the fact that you really did make unwarranted assumptions about what I was saying. Moving to minor issues, hair splitting and avoidance are not good ways to convince others of your point of view.



Graham O said:


> I don't see what difference there is between your "_you can't tell whether a helmet saved your life in any one particular crash, because it's simply not possible to tell"_ and my "your _arguement has been that you can't claim a helmet saved injury because you didn't then repeat the crash without a helmet._ Those two statements look very similar to me.



There's a big difference - your point makes fun of the view that it's not possible to know whether a helmet worked or didn't work. Your view also misses the point that whilst it's not possible to see the effects in any one particular incident, it is possible to see the effect of a sudden change in helmet wearing across a population.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

Maz said:


> I see, but why are you forced to wear it?



Because the instructor association with which I'm qualified with is originally Leftpondian, and has helmet religeon. Plus it's required in races, not that I've raced for ages.

I'm also aware that helmets may be slightly more effective in skating than in cycling, against the risk of road rash and minor scrapes given the many rolling tumbling sliding falls I've had. I often skate without a helmet on my own, and most of the skaters in London don't wear helmets.


----------



## swee'pea99 (28 Oct 2008)

This squabble seems to me to be getting ill-tempered, personal and of very doubtful benefit to anyone. Dare I suggest some general principles we might all agree to:

1) The jury is out on the extent (if any) to which helmets offer H&S benefits to riders
2) (Therefore) everyone should be free to wear one or not, as they see fit
3) Substantial evidence exists to suggest that compulsion reduces cycling rates
4) (Therefore) it's bad for the public health, so: Compulsion is a Bad Thing

Doubtless counter-posters will say 'well, who said otherwise?' My point entirely. 

Seems to me whatever our position re helmets, we virtually all oppose compulsion - and that is to me the important thing. Because compulsion very much _is_ a live issue. It's legislation in many parts of the world; it re-surfaces here regularly, on slow news days ('low hanging fruit' for rabble-rousing political pond-life); and respected bodies (the BMA for one) have declared themselves in favour. It behoves us pedellers to present - as far as possible - a united front. 

So, to the OP - "*I will wear a helmet" - *can we not all say 'Fine. No worries.'
And to everyone else let's all say: 'Leave me to decide whether I will wear one.'

Or would that just spoil the fun?


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

Except that simply wearing a helmet is a vote for compulsion. The govt. has said so in the past.


----------



## swee'pea99 (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Except that simply wearing a helmet is a vote for compulsion. The govt. has said so in the past.


I really don't want to get into the argument, but just two things on that: 1) Just 'cos the Govt says it, don't make it true, and 2) It isn't


----------



## Nigeyy (28 Oct 2008)

Well I started reading your post with great hope that it might help this thread, but then you go ahead and (I think) make statements that are questionable and not agreeable, certainly given the posts of this thread. I'll try a more succinct and less controversial approach:

Unless otherwise mandated by legislation, you are free to choose whether or not you wish to wear a helmet. It's up to you, it's your choice (a choice that is probably formulated by many factors including your political beliefs, research and personal experience). If it is mandated, you wear one or else face whatever penalties are incurred, and if you feel strongly enough about it, you are free to work for change within your political system (likewise, if you feel strongly that helmet wearing should be compulsory, then you can do similar for that belief).

No amount of squabbling will change an ardent proponent of either side -look hard enough and there will be studies or anecdotal evidence to suggest support for helmet wearing or not, and even then any study can be questioned for accuracy or how it should be interpreted. Anyway, got to go, I'm off to persuade a McCain supporter to vote for Obama :?:


[quote name='swee'pea99']This squabble seems to me to be getting ill-tempered, personal and of very doubtful benefit to anyone. Dare I suggest some general principles we might all agree to[/QUOTE]


----------



## Rhythm Thief (28 Oct 2008)

[quote name='swee'pea99']This squabble seems to me to be getting ill-tempered, personal and of very doubtful benefit to anyone. Dare I suggest some general principles we might all agree to:

[/QUOTE]

Better still, could we just agree to save this whole thread and repost it every few months?


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Except that simply wearing a helmet is a vote for compulsion. The govt. has said so in the past.



And this really is where you're coming from and it would've been more honest to have said so up front rather than confusing the whole debate with mixed up views on compulsion and effectivness.

Your view that helmet wearing may reduce cycling is valid and as Mickle said earlier wearing helmets may provide a negative image to many. For that reason we are all against compulsion (I don't believe anyone's for it on this thread are they?).

To some extent both views are negated if we have some proper studies which prove that helmets are effective. Alternatively both views are justified if the studies prove helmets are ineffective. Or worst of all we all stay different sides of the fence if the studies prove that helmets are effective in some circumstances but not in others


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

Crackle, surely that first para is neither fair nor truthful about me? My views are neither mixed up nor "less honest" as you imply.


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Crackle, surely that first para is neither fair nor truthful about me? My views are neither mixed up nor "less honest" as you imply.



Mikey I'm not trying to imply you're dishonest and apologies if it came out that way. What I'm saying is that during this debate you've presented a confused argument or at least it seems so to me and I would suggest it seems so to FM as well.

There are several strands to the helmet debate and you've crossed them over on a few occasions as evidence of one against the other. For instance using compulsion evidence and risk evidence against helmet effectiveness.

I'll re-phrase my first para.

It would've been helpful if you'd stated up front that you were against helmet wearing for many reasons and not just on the grounds that the evidence is not convincing that they are actually effective against injury.

I suspect also, that like me, you don't like being told what to do but of course I can't just say I don't like being told what to do, I generally have to find good reason not to do something I'm told to do.


----------



## Wolf04 (28 Oct 2008)

col said:


> I think when someone has a close call,and they are lucky,it is possible to tell if a helmet or something else saved your life depending on the accident or situation.but you have to be there involved or witness it to be able to say.



Surely the opposite is the case the only incontrovertible proof is when the helmet fails. If you survive an accident while wearing a helmet you can't be certain on it's role in your survival. I am not however not trying to infer people cannot or should not draw whatever conclusions they choose from their experiences.


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2008)

Wolf04 said:


> Surely the opposite is the case the only incontrovertible proof is when the helmet fails. If you survive an accident while wearing a helmet you can't be certain on it's role in your survival. I am not however not trying to infer people cannot or should not draw whatever conclusions they choose from their experiences.



It's impossible to derive any conclusion from a single real life accident, unless you've got the whole thing mapped out. This is why I said earlier that the only way to go is a kind of cycling Euro NCAP procedure.


----------



## col (28 Oct 2008)

Wolf04 said:


> Surely the opposite is the case the only incontrovertible proof is when the helmet fails. If you survive an accident while wearing a helmet you can't be certain on it's role in your survival. I am not however not trying to infer people cannot or should not draw whatever conclusions they choose from their experiences.



Well yes but im saying sometimes you can say something saved your life,for example if a piece of say slate was embedded in your helmet like a knife and just missed your scalp,could you not conclude that the helmet did indeed save you?Unlikely i know,but you get the idea?


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Oct 2008)

jonesy said:


> Absolutely. It isn't just the effectiveness of helmets at reducing injury in individual accidents that counts, we also have to assess the effectiveness of promotion and compulsion when applied to large populations. It is perfectly possible both for helmets to offer a real benefit in certain types of accident (which is why I usually wear one) and for compulsion to be ineffective and/or counter-productive at the population level (which is why I'm opposed to compulsion).




These studies have further flaws as well....

The "helmet compulsion" was part of a whole raft of safety measures including stamping down on speeding, drink driving, unlicansed vehices and drivers, prro driving standards and others.

None of this is taklemn into account, so any decrease in injury or deathis simply pigeon holed to helmet wearing...... Any of the above, or the combination should have reduced the risk of accidents and consequently the decrease in injury or deaths.

Taking this into account,the reductions claimed are even less imprssive!


----------



## Wolf04 (28 Oct 2008)

Crackle said:


> It's impossible to derive any conclusion from a single real life accident, unless you've got the whole thing mapped out. This is why I said earlier that the only way to go is a kind of cycling Euro NCAP procedure.



Agree 100% if helmets are going to be worn as protective clothing then they should have effective testing and certification.


----------



## Wolf04 (28 Oct 2008)

col said:


> Well yes but im saying sometimes you can say something saved your life,for example if a piece of say slate was embedded in your helmet like a knife and just missed your scalp,could you not conclude that the helmet did indeed save you?Unlikely i know,but you get the idea?



Yes I follow the logic.


----------



## Riding in Circles (28 Oct 2008)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Better still, could we just agree to save this whole thread and repost it every few months?



Sounds like a most excellent idea sir!


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

Crackle said:


> It's impossible to derive any conclusion from a single real life accident, unless you've got the whole thing mapped out. This is why I said earlier that the only way to go is a kind of cycling Euro NCAP procedure.



That's not quite true - we have Ravenbait, formerly of this forum, who received a neck injury because of her helmet.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

Crackle said:


> It would've been helpful if you'd stated up front that you were against helmet wearing for many reasons and not just on the grounds that the evidence is not convincing that they are actually effective against injury.
> 
> I suspect also, that like me, you don't like being told what to do but of course I can't just say I don't like being told what to do, I generally have to find good reason not to do something I'm told to do.



Not really - I hate reading long and rambling posts, so it's nicer to post one solid point at a time in response to a particular poster. Don't attribute the lack of flow to me, but rather to the many and varied points brought up on a topic like this by many different people.


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> That's not quite true - we have Ravenbait, formerly of this forum, who received a neck injury because of her helmet.



So this carries more weight than my fractured skull because I wasn't wearing a helmet. Obviously I haven't said that because I'm slightly more objective than that but it happened and I've worn a helmet ever since - draw your own conlusions.



BentMikey said:


> Not really - I hate reading long and rambling posts, so it's nicer to post one solid point at a time in response to a particular poster. Don't attribute the lack of flow to me, but rather to the many and varied points brought up on a topic like this by many different people.



I think we've both made our points so I have nothing else to add to this other than what I've already said.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

Do you not see the difference between the two examples? It's one thing wondering whether or not a helmet might have prevented your injury, and quite another when you received an injury because of a helmet. The first is theory, the second is an actual instance of harm.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (28 Oct 2008)

[quote name='swee'pea99']


BentMikey said:


> Except that simply wearing a helmet is a vote for compulsion. The govt. has said so in the past.



I really don't want to get into the argument, but just two things on that: 1) Just 'cos the Govt says it, don't make it true, and 2) It isn't 
I really don't want to get into the argument, but just two things on that: 1) Just 'cos the Govt says it, don't make it true, and 2) It isn't[/QUOTE] 

Halleluyah - I finally persuaded Mike to give me some reasoning, which it turns out is as illogical as the original claim - and someone else recognises it as such. Thanks, swee'pea...

Since when do we let the government decide for us what are the terms of discussion? Surely that's the whole point of having cycling advocacy and campaigning organisations, and of standing up for our rights - so that they are not allowed to do so?

Anyway, the discussion seems to be over. Once again everyone and the evidence generally agrees that compulsion is bad and pretty much everythig else is a matter of interpretation or lacks substantive evidence, except for a tiny number of extremists on either end.


----------



## 4F (28 Oct 2008)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Anyway, the discussion seems to be over. Once again everyone and the evidence generally agrees that compulsion is bad and pretty much everythig else is a matter of interpretation or lacks substantive evidence, except for a tiny number of extremists on either end.



Yep till the next time


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Do you not see the difference between the two examples? It's one thing wondering whether or not a helmet might have prevented your injury, and quite another when you received an injury because of a helmet. The first is theory, the second is an actual instance of harm.




Both are anecdotal: You can ascribe no more weight to one or the other but you are  Somehow Ravenbaits account is more valuable because it fits the facts as you see them. I see the difference but I just wanted to see where you're objectivity scale was.

Ergo: 

My view: I fractured my skull, it's debatable if a helmet would've have helped.
Your view: You fractured your skull but that doesn't prove anything about helmets

My view: Ravenbait twisted her neck, perhaps helmet design needs looking at.
Your view: Ravenbait twisted her neck, that proves helmets really are not good.


Or that's how it seems.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

I think you've completely missed the point, crackle. Sure, both are anecdotal, that's not in contention. The point is that your incident proves nothing about helmets either way, and neither would a helmeted crash, though both are often used to "prove" that helmets do protect. Ravenbait's proves that helmets can sometimes injure. It's not biased, it's simply fact.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Halleluyah - I finally persuaded Mike to give me some reasoning, which it turns out is as illogical as the original claim - and someone else recognises it as such. Thanks, swee'pea...



The govt. has said that if there were something like 80% helmet wearing rates, then they would consider bringing in helmet legislation. My point is thus correct, and you are clutching at straws.

No, you're doing more than that - you're avoiding logic and debate, and just decrying my argument, without basis in fact. It's pretty funny seeing you and Origamist blame me for your own faults!!


----------



## BentMikey (28 Oct 2008)

You'll have to ask her that, but ISTR that the helmet snagged and yanked and twisted her head via the straps.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Ravenbait's proves that helmets can sometimes injure. It's not biased, it's simply fact.



Not necessarily. She could have cricked her neck without the helmet. You can't say for sure either way, and as such, your example carries no more weight than the "last night a helmet saved my life" posts.
However, I swore I wouldn't get involved in this one again ...


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I think you've completely missed the point, crackle. Sure, both are anecdotal, that's not in contention. The point is that your incident proves nothing about helmets either way, and neither would a helmeted crash, though both are often used to "prove" that helmets do protect. Ravenbait's proves that helmets can sometimes injure. It's not biased, it's simply fact.



I think you have too but look! We ain't going to reach any consensus on this and I'm done here I think, unless someone picks on one of my posts. So let's part friends and agree to disagree. We can have another 'right old discussion' when a new study comes out. Until then........adios on the helmet thread.

...and well done Handsome Joe. 38 posts in he must be wondering what the hell he's joined up to


----------



## 4F (28 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> and it is nice to have that extra bit of insurance



You mean like riding with lights and not rlj'ing ?


----------



## 4F (28 Oct 2008)

Crackle said:


> ...and well done Handsome Joe. 38 posts in he must be wondering what the hell he's joined up to



At least he will be safe in the knowledge that if he does ride into a concrete post again his helmet will save him


----------



## 4F (28 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yes, thank you FFFF. Although I now ride with lights on my trike, as for RLJing



Sorry, could not resist


----------



## col (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> I think you've completely missed the point, crackle. Sure, both are anecdotal, that's not in contention. The point is that your incident proves nothing about helmets either way, and neither would a helmeted crash, though both are often used to "prove" that helmets do protect. Ravenbait's proves that helmets can sometimes injure. It's not biased, it's simply fact.




So if you claim this, it seems your claiming that because there are no facts to prove otherwise,helmets have not been proven to help against injury?The logic you say is missing from others is definitely missing from this.


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2008)

The only thread on here by Ravenbait referring to the incident:-

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=55396&postcount=68


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2008)

In fact look - Deja Vu

http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=530


----------



## Flying_Monkey (28 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> The govt. has said that if there were something like 80% helmet wearing rates, then they would consider bringing in helmet legislation. My point is thus correct, and you are clutching at straws.
> 
> No, you're doing more than that - you're avoiding logic and debate, and just decrying my argument, without basis in fact. It's pretty funny seeing you and Origamist blame me for your own faults!!



As Michael Caine said, you a big bloke, but you're out of shape and I do this for living...

Tell me exactly how and where I have 'avoided logic and debate' and I will deal with this. Go on.


----------



## Origamist (28 Oct 2008)

Flying_Monkey said:


> As Michael Caine said, you a big bloke, but you're out of shape and I do this for living...
> 
> Tell me exactly how and where I have 'avoided logic and debate' and I will deal with this. Go on.



That misquotation (from one of my favourite films) reminds me of another piece of Hodges' dialogue that seems apposite:

[_Harry, who's playing poker, is disturbed by Carter's presence in the room_] 
*Harry*: Thought you were going soon. 
*Jack Carter*: Soon. When you've lost your money. Won't take long. 
*Harry*: Clever sod, aren't you? 
*Jack Carter*: Only comparatively.


----------



## snapper_37 (28 Oct 2008)

Wolf04 said:


> Apology if you consider my comments as Bolshy however you quoted my comment re: anecdotal observation then use anecdotal observation. To the best of my knowledge I have never told anyone not to wear or indeed wear a helmet.
> So by all means please your bloody self but lets try and keep it civilised.



I will please my bloody self - there was enough of it at the time 

Wolf - apologies if I took your post the wrong way. *white flag*

I'm with a few of the posters on this one, without the helmet and in the 2 instances I've experienced, I believe it would have been a lot more serious without the helmet. Whether it was a 6" gash and concussion or a something a lot worse, I don't care. I will continue to wear it and will advise others to do the same.

I'm not saying that I think it will save my life if I'm knocked off in an accident involving another vehicle. I'm not that naive. I don't believe anything could save my life apart from a bit of luck, in that situation.

It's all down to personal choice and I'm sure this subject has been discussed to death.


----------



## Wolf04 (28 Oct 2008)

snapper_37 said:


> Wolf - apologies if I took your post the wrong way. *white flag*
> :



No problem, helmet threads always seem to get a bit heated.

Hmmm heated helmets now there's an idea!
:-)


----------



## dudi (28 Oct 2008)

Wolf04 said:


> No problem, helmet threads always seem to get a bit heated.
> 
> Hmmm heated helmets now there's an idea!
> :-)




could have done with one of them tonight. 

it'll be bibtights and a head warmer tomorrow!


----------



## snapper_37 (28 Oct 2008)

Wolf04 said:


> Hmmm heated helmets now there's an idea!
> :-)



Not for me dear ..... 

Oh, sorry... you meant the cycling ones..


----------



## Mr Phoebus (28 Oct 2008)

Bump.

























Ouch!


----------



## Maz (28 Oct 2008)

Mr Phoebus said:


> Bump.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You should've worn a helmet!


----------



## Mr Phoebus (28 Oct 2008)

Maz said:


> You should've worn a helmet!



Eh? I banged my knee.


----------



## Mr Phoebus (28 Oct 2008)




----------



## handsome joe (28 Oct 2008)

I've finally decided to purchase.................................







This should do the tick eh? + or - the Guns. May come in handy round my area.
I think I'll need the guns if i ever end up in a room with you guys....what have i started? Pandora's box or what?


----------



## handsome joe (28 Oct 2008)

handsome joe said:


> I've finally decided to purchase.................................
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just realised the lack of protection around the finger and knee areas. Looks like its back to the drawing board.


----------



## Maz (28 Oct 2008)

Mr Phoebus said:


> Eh? I banged my knee.


In that case a cap, not a helmet.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (29 Oct 2008)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Tell me exactly how and where I have 'avoided logic and debate' and I will deal with this. Go on.



:tumbleweed:

I guess that accusation was completely without substance after all then... shame about the lack of apology, but that's modern manners for you.


----------



## Niall Estick (29 Oct 2008)

handsome joe said:


> I've finally decided to purchase.................................
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Idiot, everybody knows wearing protection like that _causes_ injuries. 

I have statistics....


----------



## BentMikey (29 Oct 2008)

Flying_Monkey said:


> :tumbleweed:
> 
> I guess that accusation was completely without substance after all then... shame about the lack of apology, but that's modern manners for you.




Err, no. I think it's just pointless arguing with you. You can carry on being a legend in your own mind.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (30 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Err, no. I think it's just pointless arguing with you. You can carry on being a legend in your own mind.



You haven't really tried - you have just made accusations which you can't back up and insults which merely diminish you and do no service to your claims. And all because I dared to question the views you hold to be self-evidently true...


----------



## yello (30 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You can carry on being a legend in your own mind.



I like that! Do I have your permission to use it?!


----------



## BentMikey (30 Oct 2008)

yello said:


> I like that! Do I have your permission to use it?!



Carry on, it's not mine - I think it might be a famous quote.


----------



## Mr Phoebus (30 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Carry on, it's not mine - I think it might be a famous quote.


"Dirty" Harry Callahan.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Oct 2008)

Thanks, yes, just googled it.

FlyingMonkey, that's not my perception of your posts on this topic.


----------



## mickle (31 Oct 2008)

Graphs is wicked.


----------



## Riding in Circles (31 Oct 2008)

mickle said:


> Graphs is wicked.



It needs a line for population as well. The U.S. figure can be answered purely from the population being immense.


I suspect driver attitudes and general driving standards come into play a lot.


----------



## BentMikey (31 Oct 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> It needs a line for population as well. The U.S. figure can be answered purely from the population being immense.
> 
> 
> I suspect driver attitudes and general driving standards come into play a lot.



You realise the difference between rate and totals, right?


----------



## Riding in Circles (31 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> You realise the difference between rate and totals, right?



True, my bad reading of the graph, driving standards are still key though, the US have about the lowest standard of driving I have seen outside of the third world.


----------



## Graham O (31 Oct 2008)

I wonder why Spain and Italy don't figure in that graph? IIRC Helmet wearing is compulsory on Spanish main roads and Italy has, or is portrayed as having, a cycling culture.


----------



## Nigeyy (31 Oct 2008)

Woo hoo, USA number 1, USA number 1!!!!!! We're number 1 baby!!!

U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A

errr.... hang on, wait a minute.....




mickle said:


> Graphs is wicked.


----------



## Nigeyy (31 Oct 2008)

You must have visited Boston or Manhattan, right?

I think you are right; and it's not just the standards -admittedly there are some bad driving standards here -but I think there's much more than that. Road design, safety attitudes, attitudes to cyclists and the types of vehicles driven all contribute to that figure.

Just an FYI: a true story from last Saturday.....
My son is out playing football and I'm talking with some of the other dads at the game. Somehow the talk gets round to a an accident that had happened in the town when a woman had driven head on into an oncoming car, and later died of injuries. Police stated she'd been changing her radio station at the time, and had simply wandered over to the wrong side of the road. I almost blanched when quite a few dads started nodding their heads and saying "yeah, that's happened to me a few times when I'm looking in the car for something or changing stations and I look up and I'm on the wrong side of the road.....", Honest, I kid you not.




Catrike UK said:


> True, my bad reading of the graph, driving standards are still key though, the US have about the lowest standard of driving I have seen outside of the third world.


----------



## swee'pea99 (31 Oct 2008)

Americans, I have to say, have a reputation for including many peeps who are...how can I put this....none too bright. I read the other day that 1 in 5 think the sun revolves around the earth, and that around a quarter of high school biology teachers - that's teachers, mark you, not students - believe dinosaurs and humans lived on the planet at the same time.


----------



## PpPete (31 Oct 2008)

As an aside from main argument...

I had an experience analogous to Joe's (1st post) on skis last year.... Fell, hit my head, knocked myself out for a few minutes, I shall be buying and using a skiing helmet next year. I've been skiing for years - never considered a helmet previously - even though the ski schools now insist the kids wear them. 

Will wearing a helmet it make me a safer skiier? - no. But I now know that, despite my confidence in my own (skiing) abilities, it is possible for such things to happen and I'd just feel happier knowing there was a little more energy absorbtion round my skull than the usual woolly bobble hat.

I'll leave you to guess whether I wear a helmet when cycling....


----------



## 4F (31 Oct 2008)

porkypete said:


> I'll leave you to guess whether I wear a helmet when cycling....



OK I will have first guess. Is it, no you don't ?

am I right am I right ?


----------



## Riding in Circles (31 Oct 2008)

Nigeyy said:


> You must have visited Boston or Manhattan, right?
> 
> I think you are right; and it's not just the standards -admittedly there are some bad driving standards here -but I think there's much more than that. Road design, safety attitudes, attitudes to cyclists and the types of vehicles driven all contribute to that figure.
> 
> ...



Often as not a 15 year old has 10 minutes around the car park at Krogers and is then sent out on the road, passing the test is achieved by getting back to the test center with the examiner still in posession of all limbs.


----------



## Nigeyy (31 Oct 2008)

My test (didn't realize at the time I could convert my UK license) consisted of:

driving around one block taking all right turns -about 1/4 of a mile -with a State Trooper yawning in the passenger seat, and my mother-in-law in the rear seat (relatives are allowed to sit in the car during the test, though you have to wonder if that is a good idea).

You know, to this day I'm entirely sure the State Trooper even looked up more than twice. I've also heard of people who had to drive less than I did to pass their driving test and have no reason to disbelieve them ("drive up 100 yards, turn around, come back").

But I think you're being a little harsh; sometimes it's not Krogers you know.



Catrike UK said:


> Often as not a 15 year old has 10 minutes around the car park at Krogers and is then sent out on the road, passing the test is achieved by getting back to the test center with the examiner still in posession of all limbs.


----------



## yello (31 Oct 2008)

On driving licences, when I did mine in NZ the tester traffic cop was a bloke in my football team. (I was 16 but played senior grade. Btw,in NZ there are traffic police as separate and distinct from your ordinary plod. Traffic police do the testing, there are no specific examiners). Anyway, he asked me to drive around the block and that was it; no parallel parking, 3 point turns - nothing. He passed me, gave me my licence and that was that. When I got home, I told my mum and was obviously a little concerned about the ethics of it. She said, in an even tone, "take it back if you feel that strongly about it". I thought for a moment and said no more about it. I'd already got my motorbike licence at that stage so I figured I was safe enough!


----------

