# Having to wear a helmet to do a sportive



## jayonabike (29 Aug 2010)

Before i start this IS NOT another you should/should not wear a helmet ( enough of them threads already




) 

I have been cycling longer and longer distances on my own which i enjoy but i would like to take it a stage further.
I think i'm ready now to do a sportive or two and have made a few enquiries and it looks like i'll have to wear a helmet to take part. Now i don't wear a helmet and have no intention to either. I can't even sign a disclaimer apparently, bloody health and safety. So is that it then, either wear a helmet or don't do sportives?

jay


----------



## Smokin Joe (29 Aug 2010)

We have two local sportives, one (which I ride) does not insist on a helmet, though they say you are not covered by the clubs insurance if you don't. Fair enough.

The other (Tour of Pembrokeshire) has a compulsory helmet rule, and for that reason I give it a miss. Most events sem to take the latter stance, unfortunately.


----------



## Eoin Rua (29 Aug 2010)

I only wear a helmet at certain times, but doesn't it seem a bit silly to not do an event just because of quite a sensible ruling?

The phrase cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind...


----------



## Paul_L (29 Aug 2010)

i guess the organisers of events can make whatever rules they want, and if you don't like them don't enter.

Simple as. 

The Tour de France brought in mandatory helmet rules a few years back, and i don't recall too many riders not entering in protest.


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Aug 2010)

Paul_L said:


> i guess the organisers of events can make whatever rules they want, and if you don't like them don't enter.
> 
> Simple as.
> 
> The Tour de France brought in mandatory helmet rules a few years back, and i don't recall too many riders not entering in protest.



I don't participate if helmets are required.

Personal choice - I stopped organising sponsored rids for the local Scouts due to the insistence on helmets.

The Group is now some 25% down on its fundraising.... but that is the cost of the restriction.


----------



## Smokin Joe (29 Aug 2010)

Eoin Rua said:


> I only wear a helmet at certain times, but doesn't it seem a bit silly to not do an event just because of quite a sensible ruling?
> 
> The phrase cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind...


I don't refuse to enter a sportive which requires me to wear a helmet because my dislike of wearing one for up to six hours outweighs the enjoyment I would get from the event. It is nothing to do with a dogmatic principle because if I was still racing I would wear one as the reverse is true. Whether it is a sensible ruling or not is a matter of opinion. Interesting article from this weeks CW, or maybe the French know nothing about cycling and are just plain stupid.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/blog/497142/brittany-not-a-helmet-in-sight.html

As for pro riders, they don't get a choice as they need to earn a living.


----------



## jayonabike (29 Aug 2010)

Eoin Rua said:


> I only wear a helmet at certain times, but doesn't it seem a bit silly to not do an event just because of quite a sensible ruling?
> 
> The phrase cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind...



That's why i asked is it a case of helmet or no sportive, just seems a bit of to much 'health and safety gone mad' and not even given the choice even by waiving all rights.

Looks like a new purchase is in order....or not.


----------



## moggsy100 (29 Aug 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> I don't participate if helmets are required.
> 
> Personal choice - I stopped organizing sponsored rids for the local Scouts due to the insistence on helmets.
> 
> The Group is now some 25% down on its fundraising.... but that is the cost of the restriction.




I'm sorry but I'm amazed by this last quote.... I find it hard to even put into words how ridiculous your decision to stop help organize bike rides for these youngsters purely based on the fact of been told they must wear helmets.... 
To not be able to see the benefits of having a lid on and not wanting to encourage the youngsters in the safe equipment to wear when cycling totally baffles me to be honest... I don't blame the scout movement for implementing this ruling and as a parent myself I'd be amazed if i let my son take part in a cycling event where the wearing of helmets wasn't compulsory.
Suppose you don't wear a seat belt either as these aren't really comfortable either are they!!!!!!!


----------



## jimboalee (29 Aug 2010)

Helmets were not a legal issue ( or are now ) on a skateboard.
Helmets were mandatory in a skatepark. We either wore them or went home.
Elbow and knee pads were also mandatory on parts of the skatepark that had a vertical.

At least Sportive organisers are not calling for elbow and knee pads. You know how agressive some of those racey boys get  .


----------



## jimboalee (29 Aug 2010)

moggsy100 said:


> I'm sorry but I'm amazed by this last quote.... I find it hard to even put into words how ridiculous your decision to stop help organize bike rides for these youngsters purely based on the fact of been told they must wear helmets....
> To not be able to see the benefits of having a lid on and not wanting to encourage the youngsters in the safe equipment to wear when cycling totally baffles me to be honest... I don't blame the scout movement for implementing this ruling and as a parent myself I'd be amazed if i let my son take part in a cycling event where the wearing of helmets wasn't compulsory.
> Suppose you don't wear a seat belt either as these aren't really comfortable either are they!!!!!!!



Maybe he fell off once and slapped his head on the pavement. The result of this is he's been living with an ( up to now ) unknown impaired sense of judgement.


----------



## moggsy100 (29 Aug 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Maybe he fell off once and slapped his head on the pavement. The result of this is he's been living with an ( up to now ) unknown impaired sense of judgement.




Haha.... yeh maybe... i know its a personal choice but to then not help with a kids organisation for that reason just baffles me... oh well each to their own...


----------



## TrevorM (29 Aug 2010)

I have no legal knowledge but wonder what the legal position is. If someone was unable to wear a helmet for, let's say, religious reasons (e.g. Sikh) presumably they couldn't be refused entry as it would be discrimination. But on the other hand if they dropped the helmet requirement for them, what grounds would they have for insisting I should wear one. Has anyone ever asked organisers what their position is on this? Anyone with more legal knowledge have any comments?

I registered for a 100 mile event in June because they stated clearly that helmets were optional. 
*Only 4 days* before the event they changed their minds and said helmets were now compulsary. I objected but they wouldn't budge and so I withdrew my entry. But rather than let down my training partners I rode the route with them anyway without a helmet. None of the marshalls made any comment.


----------



## moggsy100 (29 Aug 2010)

But the thing that gets me is if you and any good lbs will tell you this... That if you choose your helmet carefully and go to a decent shop with good fitting knowledge you should be able to ride without even realising you are even wearing a helmet... its only feels uncomfortable if you have bought the incorrect one that doesn't fit your head... you wouldn't buy and pair of shoes you couldn't wear all day would you!!!!!


----------



## MacB (29 Aug 2010)

moggsy100 said:


> But the thing that gets me is if you and any good lbs will tell you this... That if you choose your helmet carefully and go to a decent shop with good fitting knowledge you should be able to ride without even realising you are even wearing a helmet... its only feels uncomfortable if you have bought the incorrect one that doesn't fit your head... you wouldn't buy and pair of shoes you couldn't wear all day would you!!!!!



Oh, come on, read what you just typed, do you have an interest in helmet sales or something? They are becoming compulsory due to insurance liability issues and heavy lobbying from helmet manufacturers piggy backing on health and safety agendas. 

Assess your own risk and then ride as you want to ride but spare us the pseudo science and anecdotal nonsense.


----------



## ianrauk (29 Aug 2010)

and here goes another helmet debate.. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## MacB (29 Aug 2010)

ianrauk said:


> and here goes another helmet debate.. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz




WAKEY WAKEY


----------



## screenman (29 Aug 2010)

I have got a fantastic idea, why not organise your own even for non wearers of helmets. 

Me, I wear one because it want to.


----------



## jimboalee (29 Aug 2010)

Best shut up about helmets.

I hear a rumour about 'Flashing amber lamps' on vehicles that cannot do 25 mph.

That includes most cyclists, so if you want helmets to become law, and have amber flashing lamps on them compulsory too, carry on arguing.


----------



## MacB (29 Aug 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Best shut up about helmets.
> 
> I hear a rumour about 'Flashing amber lamps' on vehicles that cannot do 25 mph.
> 
> That includes most cyclists, so if you want helmets to become law, and have amber flashing lamps on them compulsory too, carry on arguing.



You wait until you need flashing indicators, brake lights, reversing lights and one of those gadgets that beeps when you reverse as well.


----------



## ianrauk (29 Aug 2010)

screenman said:


> I have got a fantastic idea, why not organise your own even for non wearers of helmets.
> 
> Me, I wear one because it want to.



Or just organise an event for cyclists....


----------



## MacB (29 Aug 2010)

ianrauk said:


> Or just organise an event for cyclists....



controversial mate, next you'll be suggesting that anyone can get on a bike


----------



## ianrauk (29 Aug 2010)

MacB said:


> controversial mate, next you'll be suggesting that anyone can get on a bike



I know mate. Living on the edge.. that's me!


----------



## robgul (29 Aug 2010)

I'm assuming that the non-helmet wearers also ride wearing earphones and listening to music too?

BTW, I organise a sportive and helmets are compulsory, and earphones banned. It has over 400 entrants this year, and entries are still coming in ... nuff said.

Rob


----------



## MacB (29 Aug 2010)

robgul said:


> I'm assuming that the non-helmet wearers also ride wearing earphones and listening to music too?
> 
> BTW, I organise a sportive and helmets are compulsory, and earphones banned. It has over 400 entrants this year, and entries are still coming in ... nuff said.
> 
> Rob



Nuff said indeed, does it feel good, do you get off on the power?


----------



## MacB (29 Aug 2010)

[QUOTE 1170087"]
He's just making a point Mac, ffs.
[/quote]


what, are you saying my 'post a few beers' knee jerk reaction is unreasonable?


----------



## Smokin Joe (29 Aug 2010)

robgul said:


> *I'm assuming that the non-helmet wearers also ride wearing earphones and listening to music too?
> *
> BTW, I organise a sportive and helmets are compulsory, and earphones banned. It has over 400 entrants this year, and entries are still coming in ... nuff said.
> 
> Rob


What makes you assume that?

Isn't it just possible that people can look at the available evidence on the effectiveness of helmets and come to a different conclusion to you while still taking all precautions to keep themselves safe in areas where they think it is warranted?

BTW, the only person I have ever seen texting while riding a bike was wearing a helmet. He nearly wobbled into the ditch when I shouted a greeting as he hadn't seen me coming towards him. Perhaps he thought he was so safe with the helmet on he could ride like a dick.


----------



## MacB (29 Aug 2010)

[QUOTE 1170090"]
Yes, asking if someone 'get's off' on the power when all they are doing is making a point that is relevant to the OP is a touch much.
[/quote]


Nope, reviewed my post and I think I went a bit easy on him:-

cycling without a helmet - perfectly legal
cycling with headphones - perfectly legal
cycling, in this manner, on the roads his sportive will use - perfectly legal


It's all a bit, it's my ball and I'll take it home if you don't play by my rules, seriously what's to be done? I can enter a sportive and pootle off in any manner I like. What would the organsisers do, manhandle me off the road? I think not. If the roads are closed to the public then they might have a chance, barring that I'll ride when, where and how I like, I'm pretty easy with the idea.

No I don't have any plans to enter, and subversively disrupt, any sportives, but I have an instinctive dislike of rules that are contrary to the laws of the land.


----------



## HJ (29 Aug 2010)

lazyj said:


> Before i start this IS NOT another you should/should not wear a helmet ( enough of them threads already
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Some do and some don't make you wear a juju hat. Personally, it really puts me off entering sportives and I will _never_ pay to enter an event that makes it compulsory.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Aug 2010)

moggsy100 said:


> I'm sorry but I'm amazed by this last quote.... I find it hard to even put into words how ridiculous your decision to stop help organize bike rides for these youngsters purely based on the fact of been told they must wear helmets....




Why should I have to exclude parents, adults and others because of an decision to enforce an unproven and non-evidence besed decision...not ridiculous at all. I do not wish to remove the right of these indivuduals to make an informed decision on their own (and their children's) safety

Who gives you the right to do so?



> To not be able to see the benefits of having a lid on and not wanting to encourage the youngsters in the safe equipment to wear when cycling totally baffles me to be honest... I don't blame the scout movement for implementing this ruling and as a parent myself I'd be amazed if i let my son take part in a cycling event where the wearing of helmets wasn't compulsory.



What is baffling is your erroneous assumptions about safety - If you were truly concerned they would be wearing helmets when playing games as well or can you not see the benefits of that?

Of course the other aspect is how would you feel if I sent your child home because I felt the helmet was inadequate r fitted wrongly?

I am quite aware of the benefits of helmets and unlike you have no illusions about their limitations.

Far more Scouts suffer head injuries playing games inside the HQ then on bikes. Or are you OK with these injuries, are they somehow acceptable. 

Again you seem to know so much better than anyone else and wish to impose your wishes on others - please provide the evidence on which you based this right





> Suppose you don't wear a seat belt either as these aren't really comfortable either are they!!!!!!!



The only assumption here is your ridiculous one..... who mentioned comfort?

If you are going to make stupid statements at least make them based on fact.... you don't even know if I am old enough to drive!


----------



## lukesdad (30 Aug 2010)

Flounce from the scouts,,,,eh? Thats a new one


----------



## Bill Gates (30 Aug 2010)

I was watching a television programme the other day about Rolf Harris retracing the steps his father took during the first world war in France. He had with him the helmet his father wore on the day he was hit on the head by a piece of shrapnel. It turned out that his assumption of what was the front of the helmet turned out to be the back. Evidently the strap of the helmet was not placed under the chin but at the back of the neck. Everyone wore it like that.

If you had the misfortune to be struck by a piece of shrapnel and you had the strap under the chin then it could take your head off. I alsowatched the Battle of Britain the other night and noticed that Kenneth More in the film jumped into a bomb shelter having placed a helmet on his head with the strap at the back of the neck.

The protection provided by a cycling helmet is limited due to the requirement for lightness. On the other hand it made me think that with the strap fastened tightly under the chin any glancing blow is going to jerk the head and could cause brain damage.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Aug 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> I was watching a television programme the other day about Rolf Harris retracing the steps his father took during the first world war in France. He had with him the helmet his father wore on the day he was hit on the head by a piece of shrapnel. It turned out that his assumption of what was the front of the helmet turned out to be the back. Evidently the strap of the helmet was not placed under the chin but at the back of the neck. Everyone wore it like that.
> 
> If you had the misfortune to be struck by a piece of shrapnel and you had the strap under the chin then it could take your head off. I alsowatched the Battle of Britain the other night and noticed that Kenneth More in the film jumped into a bomb shelter having placed a helmet on his head with the strap at the back of the neck.
> 
> The protection provided by a cycling helmet is limited due to the requirement for lightness. On the other hand it made me think that with the strap fastened tightly under the chin any glancing blow is going to jerk the head and could cause brain damage.



The problem is worse than that... many helmets nw are so poorly designed that they need to be held in place by masking tape when tested!

The common vents and flat rear portions are also causingthse helmets to be ejected and fail in use.

This is summed up in the following email to the body regulating helmet standards in the US:



> *Subject:* streamlined helmet ejection *To:* ASTM F08.53 Chairman: P. David Halstead
> 
> *From:* Hugh H. Hurt, Jr, Head Protection Research Laboratory
> 
> ...


----------



## Keith M (30 Aug 2010)

There was a case here recently in Bournemouth where a cyclist fractured his cheekbone in an accident as a result of his helmet lip smashing into it.


----------



## jayonabike (30 Aug 2010)

I have given this some serious thought, i really have. The thought of cycling on a long ride with fellow cyclists is an appealing one, but also, the thought of having to wear a helmet through no choice of my own is something i don't like. I don't wear a helmet for various reasons and personal choice. And that's exactly it, personal choice. I should be able to have that choice and if that means waiving my rights to any claims by way of a disclaimer then i'll take my chances. So i shan't be buying a helmet and i will still keep looking at various sportives and enquiring whether i can take part without wearing one. 


Cutting my nose off to spite my face? No it's my personal choice.

jay


----------



## PpPete (30 Aug 2010)

Precisely..... personal choice. I choose to wear one. I don't wish to impose my choice on anyone else. But I do find it sad that certain events impose helmet wearing when UK law does not require it and where there is so much contradictory evidence.


----------



## steve52 (30 Aug 2010)

no helmet fine by me as long as if u get a head injury we dont have to finance treatment, fair?


----------



## snorri (30 Aug 2010)

steve52 said:


> , fair?


No.


----------



## Smokin Joe (30 Aug 2010)

steve52 said:


> no helmet fine by me as long as if u get a head injury we dont have to finance treatment, fair?


And if you fall on the pavement and get a head injury or bang your head on a cupboard door you don't expect us to finance your treatment because you wern't wearing a helmet either, equally fair?


----------



## Alien8 (30 Aug 2010)

porkypete said:


> But I do find it sad that certain events impose helmet wearing when UK law does not require it and where there is so much contradictory evidence.



Yeah, but as (probably) said already, its likely to be a stipulation of their insurers or maybe reduces the insurance cost.

I'd be surprised if any event organiser made it mandatory just because they were pro-helmet, after-all, it would only reduce their customer numbers.


----------



## Fiona N (30 Aug 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> The problem is worse than that... many helmets nw are so poorly designed that they need to be held in place by masking tape when tested!
> 
> The common vents and flat rear portions are also causingthse helmets to be ejected and fail in use.
> 
> This is summed up in the following email to the body regulating helmet standards in the US:



That's really interesting Cunobelin. My only head injury from cycling was when I was attempting to pass pedestrians on a country lane - I was down to barely walking pace as the woman turned throwing her rucksac into my handlebars, pulling them suddenly to the side. The bike fell slowly in the opposite direction and I plopped down onto my coccyx then fell backwards hitting the back of my head on the ground. This resulted in a bit of abrasion but nothing worse. I was taken to task by the doctor who checked the wound about why I wasn't wearing a helmet. When I suggested that the injury might have been a good deal more serious if I'd been wearing my usual helmet which is a distinctly pointy one - would this have caused a neck injury rather than a superficial wound? He, of course, pooh-poohed such an idea - but then he was the usual motorist who has a mysterious faith in the ability of helmets to 'save lives' but wouldn't, naturally, countenance their wearing by car occupants - which as many people have pointed out, would save many more lives as substantial helmets could be worn.


----------



## PpPete (30 Aug 2010)

Alien8 said:


> Yeah, but as (probably) said already, its likely to be a stipulation of their insurers or maybe reduces the insurance cost.
> 
> I'd be surprised if any event organiser made it mandatory just because they were pro-helmet, after-all, it would only reduce their customer numbers.



Is it the insurers though? Any sportive organisers on here confirm or deny ?
IME insurers are very very good at cutting through the BS and using statistics properly.
I have a (totally unfounded) suspicion that it is fear of litigation rather than insurance.


----------



## MacB (30 Aug 2010)

steve52 said:


> no helmet fine by me as long as if u get a head injury we dont have to finance treatment, fair?



care to flesh this out at all or is it just a nasty little post?


----------



## Chuffy (30 Aug 2010)

HJ said:


> Some do and some don't make you wear a juju hat. Personally, it really puts me off entering sportives and I will _never_ pay to enter an event that makes it compulsory.


I paid to enter the Dartmoor Classic last year. Checked regs beforehand, there was no indication that magic hats were compulsory, so I signed up. Received bumf for ride, noted in small print that everyone must wear a magic hat. This vexed me as I don't own a magic hat. I pondered pulling out but decided to turn up for the day regardless. Braced myself for an Unpleasant Scene and rehearsed pulling off my race number in dramatic fashion before hurling it at the feet of some prissy jobsworth in a reflective vest. In the end nothing was said by anyone and I rode the event quite happily. However, had I known up front that they were de-riguer then I wouldn't have entered. I have some sympathy for the OP.

And if no-one else has mentioned it - try audaxes. Long distance, cake, no insistence on magic hats and they're a damn sight cheaper than sportives!


----------



## ferret fur (30 Aug 2010)

> These popular helmets have a teardrop design which tapers to a wedge at the rear of the helmet,



So, let's be clear. We are talking about TT helmets here?


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Aug 2010)

robgul said:


> I'm assuming that the non-helmet wearers also ride wearing earphones and listening to music too?
> 
> BTW, I organise a sportive and helmets are compulsory, and earphones banned. It has over 400 entrants this year, and entries are still coming in ... nuff said.
> 
> Rob



Do you scrutinise helmets?

Do you ensure that they are well fitted, properly adjusted and of a suitable standard?

In particular do you accept EN1078 helmets?

( I am sure that you are aware that these are banned from competition in the US as they offer so little protection)

All sounds a bit like posturing with no real effect on safety


----------



## Smokin Joe (30 Aug 2010)

ferret fur said:


> So, let's be clear. We are talking about TT helmets here?


No.

Most road helmets are teardrop shaped, not as extreme as TT helmets but still teardrop.


----------



## Fab Foodie (30 Aug 2010)

porkypete said:


> Is it the insurers though? Any sportive organisers on here confirm or deny ?
> IME insurers are very very good at cutting through the BS and using statistics properly.
> I have a (totally unfounded) suspicion that it is fear of litigation rather than insurance.



I reckon it's the insurers.
We need them at our club for training and TT's though not certain whether needed for club runs.
Insurance issues have curtailed aspects of our former training program.

At work insurers requirements are becoming far worst than H&S, I'm not sure how specific the evidence they use is, but it seems to me that any evidence that protects them is fair enough...


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Sep 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Do you scrutinise helmets?
> 
> Do you ensure that they are well fitted, properly adjusted and of a suitable standard?
> 
> ...



Are we going to get a reply?

Rivara the researcher who provided the "Holy Grail" of pro-helmet papers points out that :


> Individuals whose helmets were reported to fit poorly had a 1.96-fold increased risk of head injury compared with those whose helmets fit well.
> 
> Poor fit of helmets may be associated with an increased risk of head and brain injury.



If this is a cosmetic approach with no real safety mesage behind it then admit it...

If you are serious ....why are provenly ineffective EN1078 helmets allowed and why are the helmets not scrutineered to ensure rider safety?


----------



## jimboalee (1 Sep 2010)

The answer is....

Go on an Audax. If you can get round a 200 Rando and have to wait for the Finish control to open, you'll thank yourself you didn't waste your money on a sportive.


----------



## PpPete (1 Sep 2010)

jimboalee said:


> The answer is....
> 
> Go on an Audax. If you can get round a 200 Rando and have to wait for the Finish control to open, you'll thank yourself you didn't waste your money on a sportive.



lol..... waiting for control to open.... That's never going to happen to me.... helmet or no helmet.


----------



## Threelionsbrian (1 Sep 2010)

I'm in the for camp, i have saved a nasty bump on the head getting my bike out of the shed many times. 

Personal choice maybe, but just putting my helmet on is a reminder of the dangers ahead on the road. I don't feel a lot safer although i hope should the worst come to the worst it would offer some protection. Events can set their own rules IMO if you don't like then tough don't ride. I did see a couple on the Classic as they passed me. DQ'd in my book.


----------



## Fiona N (1 Sep 2010)

Threelionsbrian said:


> I'm in the for camp, i have saved a nasty bump on the head getting my bike out of the shed many times.


There's good evidence to show that wearing a helmet, which effectively increases the size of your head, actually increases the likelihood on clunking your head on something. Just ask anyone who wears a helmet in a restricted space - cavers, climbers - all will be able to tell you about the number of times they've caught their head on something because they hadn't learnt to deal with the extra size. 





Threelionsbrian said:


> Personal choice maybe, but just putting my helmet on is a reminder of the dangers ahead on the road.



Sadly, too many rather marginally competent cyclists feel safer with a helmet on (I have been involved with 'beginner' road cyclists groups so this is based on experience) - because the helmet reduces their perceived risk, they've actually endangered themselves more than if they rode without the helmet and improved their road skills/took more care.


----------



## Threelionsbrian (1 Sep 2010)

Fiona N said:


> There's good evidence to show that wearing a helmet, which effectively increases the size of your head, actually increases the likelihood on clunking your head on something.





No i just made the opening height too low




see your point though.


----------



## MacB (1 Sep 2010)

Threelionsbrian said:


> No i just made the opening height too low
> 
> 
> 
> see your point though.



or you have an abnormally large head


----------



## Keith M (3 Sep 2010)

steve52 said:


> no helmet fine by me as long as if u get a head injury we dont have to finance treatment, fair?




Oh this old specious argument. Wrap yourself up in shoulder pads, knee protectors or cotton wool, there is always the possibility of an accident. The point is, how far do we want to go to restrict our personal freedom after we have all conducted our own internal risk-assessment. There are actually more head injuries to pedestrains that cyclists, yet I don't see anyone calling for everyday helmet wearing on the street - probably because helmet manufacturers would know thy would have no luck with that one.

I go back a way. Nobody in this country wore a helmet until about 1981, but about then our US cousins "invented" cycling. My first view of this was a party of US scouts on a cycling tour checking into Salisbury Youth Hostel about 1981/2 and we all rolled about laughing at these hulking great blokes all wearing their daft looking white Bell helmets. I guess because of who they were and some insurance jim-jams they had deemed them necessary, but even in the USA they would have been unusual. Take a look at Jennifer Beales in _Flashdance_ cycling around Pittsburgh helmetless in 1983. Then some young guy joined our company about '83 and he wore one. A couple of us used to race him home. We'd take him on the straight and hammer him on the hill, but he always caught up with us at the intersections because he rode like a madman with no regard for safety.

I watched helmet manufacturers work the health & safety ticket for all they were worth over the next ten years. They were into the local councils and through them to the schools, insinuating the idea. A work colleague had to wear one because his daughters bought him one and used moral blackmail on him. I even found Dorset County Council one day operating a promotional stand in Poole High Street for the sole purpose of "educating" people into helmet wearing. The guys on the stand seemed utterly bemused when I objected to them that I did not expect my rates (council tax) to be wasted this way, it was the helmet manufacturers' job to promote their product.

The helmet manufacturers achieved tipping point about 1990. So please excuse my long term cynicism, there is more commercial interest that safety concern here.

But I rejoice more of late . . . I am noticing a bit of a backlash.

Keith


----------



## jimboalee (3 Sep 2010)

Helmets are not a legal requirement in the UK.
It is my opinion the organisers of Sportives insist on their use because there are some pillocks who swerve across the road without warning due to inexperience of group riding.


----------



## Smokin Joe (3 Sep 2010)

Keith M said:


> Oh this old specious argument. Wrap yourself up in shoulder pads, knee protectors or cotton wool, there is always the possibility of an accident. The point is, how far do we want to go to restrict our personal freedom after we have all conducted our own internal risk-assessment. There are actually more head injuries to pedestrains that cyclists, yet I don't see anyone calling for everyday helmet wearing on the street - probably because helmet manufacturers would know thy would have no luck with that one.
> 
> I go back a way. Nobody in this country wore a helmet until about 1981, but about then our US cousins "invented" cycling. My first view of this was a party of US scouts on a cycling tour checking into Salisbury Youth Hostel about 1981/2 and we all rolled about laughing at these hulking great blokes all wearing their daft looking white Bell helmets. I guess because of who they were and some insurance jim-jams they had deemed them necessary, but even in the USA they would have been unusual. Take a look at Jennifer Beales in _Flashdance_ cycling around Pittsburgh helmetless in 1983. Then some young guy joined our company about '83 and he wore one. A couple of us used to race him home. We'd take him on the straight and hammer him on the hill, but he always caught up with us at the intersections because he rode like a madman with no regard for safety.
> 
> ...


Very good post, Keith.

You've summed up precisely how people were blackmailed into accepting helmets as absolutely essential, when in essence they are largely a solution to a problem that never existed except in the minds of the high vis tabard and clipboard safety "experts".


----------



## cyclecraig (3 Sep 2010)

My helmet almost certainly saved my life or at least serious head injuries when I had my one and only really bad accident.

Thats about it really, I would never leave for a ride without one!


----------



## Smokin Joe (4 Sep 2010)

cyclecraig said:


> My helmet almost certainly saved my life or at least serious head injuries when I had my one and only really bad accident.
> 
> Thats about it really, I would never leave for a ride without one!


Every helmet debate throws up scores of people whose lives have been saved by wearing one. There must have been absolute carnage in the 100+ years before helmets came about...except that there wasn't. Deaths through head injuries caused by falling from a bicycle would have come up as a statistical zero.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Sep 2010)

Keith M said:


> I even found Dorset County Council one day operating a promotional stand in Poole High Street for the sole purpose of "educating" people into helmet wearing. The guys on the stand seemed utterly bemused when I objected to them that I did not expect my rates (council tax) to be wasted this way, it was the helmet manufacturers' job to promote their product.
> Keith



We had a similar case at a bike event, two nurses - no idea about fit, adjustment and / or use. Simply handing out subsidised polystyrene shells with a netting outer.

When challenged they had the same reply that their job was to make sure they were worn, not how as any protection is better then nothing!

When challenged about Rivara's paper stating that poorly fitted helmets would exacerbate any injury and make them 2 - 3 times as likely it was pointless, yet more "professionals" with no idea of evidence based practice.


----------



## PK99 (4 Sep 2010)

MacB said:


> Nope, reviewed my post and I think I went a bit easy on him:-
> 
> cycling without a helmet - perfectly legal
> cycling with headphones - perfectly legal
> ...





refuse entry to feed stations?


refuse to rescue following mechanical?


----------



## screenman (4 Sep 2010)

I would like to say a big thank you to people who give up their time to organize events, be it with a helmet or without. Now this may say something about my club but the majority of organisers/marshalls etc. wear crash helmets when cycling.

As for going against an organizers wishes, totaly bad manners in my opinion.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Sep 2010)

moggsy100 said:


> I'm sorry but I'm amazed by this last quote.... I find it hard to even put into words how ridiculous your decision to stop help organize bike rides for these youngsters purely based on the fact of been told they must wear helmets....
> To not be able to see the benefits of having a lid on and not wanting to encourage the youngsters in the safe equipment to wear when cycling totally baffles me to be honest... I don't blame the scout movement for implementing this ruling and as a parent myself I'd be amazed if i let my son take part in a cycling event where the wearing of helmets wasn't compulsory.
> Suppose you don't wear a seat belt either as these aren't really comfortable either are they!!!!!!!


it's a question of choice. If you don't want to be associated with something, and choose not to, it's your choice and nobody else's


----------



## pig on a bike (5 Sep 2010)

Did an audax today one lad fell on a bend in the rain first thing to hit the floor was his helmet he was ok after a few min and carried on if he had no helmet he would have been badly 
hurt.Anybody who does not wear them must be abit daft or dont understand that thay save your life, I suppose being abit daft does lead to a lack of understanding on certain things.
Helmets should be law you are not allowed on a moter bike at any speed without one.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Sep 2010)

pig on a bike said:


> Did an audax today one lad fell on a bend in the rain first thing to hit the floor was his helmet he was ok after a few min and carried on if he had no helmet he would have been badly
> hurt.Anybody who does not wear them must be abit daft or dont understand that thay save your life, I suppose being abit daft does lead to a lack of understanding on certain things.
> Helmets should be law you are not allowed on a moter bike at any speed without one.



Ridiculously naive faith in magic hats.....

Walking:
Was out walking today one lad slipped in the rain first thing to hit the floor was his head he was badly hurt.Anybody who does not wear a helmet must be abit daft or dont understand that thay save your life, I suppose being abit daft does lead to a lack of understanding on certain things.
Helmets should be law when walking you are not allowed on a motor bike at any speed without one.

Driving:

Was out in the car today one lad skidded on a bend in the rain first thing to hit the window was his head if he had been wearing a helmet he would have been ok.....Anybody who does not wear them must be abit daft or dont understand that thay save your life, I suppose being abit daft does lead to a lack of understanding on certain things.
Helmets should be law you are not allowed to race a car at any speed without one.


----------



## Smokin Joe (5 Sep 2010)

pig on a bike said:


> Did an audax today one lad fell on a bend in the rain first thing to hit the floor was his helmet he was ok after a few min and carried on if he had no helmet he would have been badly
> hurt.Anybody who does not wear them must be abit daft or dont understand that thay save your life, I suppose being abit daft does lead to a lack of understanding on certain things.
> Helmets should be law you are not allowed on a moter bike at any speed without one.


His helmet hit the floor because it increased the radius of his head by two inches and even the lightest helmet will lever your neck downwards. Fall without one and you will take the impact with your shoulders - as has been the case for around a centuary before helmets were worn. 

Loads of posts about people who were saved by this magic bit of foam when they fell off, none detailng how someone was killed or disabled because they were bare headed. The uninformed sort of mumbo jumbo in your post is more an indication of a lack of understanding than anything else.


----------



## pig on a bike (5 Sep 2010)

mybe you could go out with the hat on in your picture clint.All pro riders have to have them on, mybe the govening body of pro bike racing has got it wrong could be down to a lack of understanding.Dident one of lances freinds die in the tour years ago without a helmet my be he might have lived with one.




Smokin Joe said:


> His helmet hit the floor because it increased the radius of his head by two inches and even the lightest helmet will lever your neck downwards. Fall without one and you will take the impact with your shoulders - as has been the case for around a centuary before helmets were worn.
> 
> Loads of posts about people who were saved by this magic bit of foam when they fell off, none detailng how someone was killed or disabled because they were bare headed. The uninformed sort of mumbo jumbo in your post is more an indication of a lack of understanding than anything else.


----------



## pig on a bike (5 Sep 2010)

Your reply is to daft to answer




Cunobelin said:


> Ridiculously naive faith in magic hats.....
> 
> Walking:
> Was out walking today one lad slipped in the rain first thing to hit the floor was his head he was badly hurt.Anybody who does not wear a helmet must be abit daft or dont understand that thay save your life, I suppose being abit daft does lead to a lack of understanding on certain things.
> ...


----------



## Smokin Joe (5 Sep 2010)

pig on a bike said:


> mybe you could go out with the hat on in your picture clint.All pro riders have to have them on, mybe the govening body of pro bike racing has got it wrong could be down to a lack of understanding.Dident one of lances freinds die in the tour years ago without a helmet my be he might have lived with one.


Lance's friend (Fabio Casartelli) hit his forehead on the edge of a concrete block at 90kph. No he would not have survived with a helmet on, which is what the coroner concluded at the time. The pros wear helmets when they race because it is a UCI rule, look at pictures of them training and most don't. 

Probably due to knowing that prior to widespread helmet use a decade ago deaths from head injuries in the pro peloton were remarkable by their abscence, and this in a branch of cycling where the participants crash many times more often than any other catagory of rider. 

The word "daft" that you used in answer to Cunobelin would more aptly apply to your uninformed gibberish.


----------



## Flying Dodo (5 Sep 2010)

pig on a bike said:


> Your reply is to daft to answer





No, he's making a valid point. By the same logic that all cyclists "should" wear helmets, therefore all pedestrians and car users "should" also wear helmets. He also forgot to mention that anyone going up a ladder must also wear one, in case they fall off.


----------



## snorri (5 Sep 2010)

pig on a bike said:


> .Anybody who does not wear them must be abit daft or dont understand that thay save your life, I suppose being abit daft does lead to a lack of understanding on certain things.
> Helmets should be law you are not allowed on a moter bike at any speed without one.


Yes, they are wonderful, no one gets killed on motor bikes any more.


----------



## PalmerSperry (5 Sep 2010)

pig on a bike said:


> Did an audax today one lad fell on a bend in the rain first thing to hit the floor was his helmet he was ok after a few min and carried on if he had no helmet he would have been badly
> hurt.Anybody who does not wear them must be abit daft or dont understand that thay save your life, I suppose being abit daft does lead to a lack of understanding on certain things.
> Helmets should be law you are not allowed on a moter bike at any speed without one.



Not a bad effort at parodying the usual mandatory-magic-plastic-hat zealotry, but you did miss out the often included laughable justifications involving either head butting brick walls or having someone hit you over the head with a hammer!


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Sep 2010)

Flying Dodo said:


> No, he's making a valid point. By the same logic that all cyclists "should" wear helmets, therefore all pedestrians and car users "should" also wear helmets. He also forgot to mention that anyone going up a ladder must also wear one, in case they fall off.







The point is that he has no real argument other than anyone who doesn't agree with me is daft, an extremely constructive contribution

Lets not forget that peer reviewed BMJ articles have placed the likelihood of cyclists and pedestrians as equal, and the number of pedeatrian and car occupants exceed those of cyclists many fold.

However I suspect that they they will be dismissed as daft and not worth reading as they don't support compulsion


----------



## snorri (5 Sep 2010)

Interesting prog on R4 tonight, the cycling safety segment starts at 10minutes 55seconds in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00tjsj3


----------



## PpPete (6 Sep 2010)

pig on a bike said:


> Your reply is to daft to answer




Your argument, specious as it is, is weakened by your inability to spell "too" or to distinguish it from "to"

Regards,
A helmet wearer, (but not a helmet evangelist)


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Sep 2010)

pig on a bike said:


> mybe you could go out with the hat on in your picture clint._*All pro riders have to have them on, mybe the govening body of pro bike racing has got it wrong could be down to a lack of understanding*_.Dident one of lances freinds die in the tour years ago without a helmet my be he might have lived with one.



My emphasis

So if helmets were compulsory for professional racing drivers this would be an argument for all drivers to wear them?

Or do the RAC /ACU and the racing authorities also have it wrong?

Incidentally the point avoided earlier..... There is also scrutineering of helmets for standard, condition and fitting for car racing under these regulations


Finally Fabio Castelli's injuries were mostly facial and it was breathing problems that caused his fatality rather than the head injury. ONly a full face helmet would have offered any protection.

SO from your arguments we are loking at full face helmets for cyclists and helmets for all car drivers - excellent


----------



## screenman (6 Sep 2010)

Did I actually read on here that when you fall off your bike your shoulder will hit the ground first and therefore your head will not get damaged at all? Well I have a flexible neck and the weight of my head I am sure will keep it moving for a while after the rest of my body stops. Now I want my head to reasonable close to where my shoulders stop, we are not talking cars, walkers sky divers or even skinny dippers we are talking cyclist. I think even the most dedicated anti helmet guy will give credit to a helmet offering some protection in some kinds of unfortunate circumstances.


----------



## Harry73 (6 Sep 2010)

I agree with the previous post, my 13 year old son is getting into road cycling and I won't let him anywhere near the road without a helmet. It's madness not to promote that safety aspect.


----------



## Harry73 (6 Sep 2010)

As a new poster, really like the discussions. The argument about the motor racing driver helmets is ever so slightly flawed as I can't say I drive my Mazda 180 mph around the roads exposing my head to the elements. I did however yesterday fly down the same hills at 40 mph on the Tour stage in Devon as Wiggins will! 

As far as I can see it is a choice thing but for me, helmets can simply save your life on a ride is how I see it. For kids, I feel if they are riding on roads or dangerous areas, it's a no brainer.


----------



## snorri (6 Sep 2010)

As is the usual case with helmet threads, we are not defining the branch of cycling we are commenting on. 
It would not seem unreasonable to me for competitive cyclists and off-roaders to decide to wear helmets as these appear to be at higher risk than utility and leisure cyclists on the road.


----------



## PpPete (6 Sep 2010)

And I think I've read that helmets are pretty ineffective in collisions with motor vehicles anyway...so I'm afraid Harry that your argument may also be flawed.


----------



## Threelionsbrian (6 Sep 2010)

porkypete said:


> And I think I've read that helmets are pretty ineffective in collisions with motor vehicles anyway...so I'm afraid Harry that your argument may also be flawed.



Regardless of hypothetical incidents as we know it doesn't happen like is does in the lab, if you wear a lid you have at least tried to protect yourself to the best of your ability. Should injury or worse occur you have no regrets on the protection issue.


----------



## Baggy (6 Sep 2010)

I don't usually wear a helmet as I have very mixed feelings about them. Wore mine helmet on the Tour Ride yesterday as was concerned about geting swiped by someone else/falling off when I was worn out etc and ending up in a big munch of pointy bikey metal. In the end we were so far behind the pack I needn't have worried! Still, at least it kept the rain out of my eyes.


----------



## Fiona N (6 Sep 2010)

snorri said:


> Yes, they are wonderful, no one gets killed on motor bikes any more.



I while ago I saw some really interesting statistics from the States about deaths due to head injuries in motorcyclists. The paper compared stats from states which had compulsory helmet wearing and those which didn't. Given that motorcycling helmets are pretty robust beasts capable of preventing quite a bit of damage to the head (unlike cycling polystyrene) you'd have expected to see a decrease in head injuries in those states which made helmets compulsory compared to static or even increasing deaths in states without such compulsion. In fact what happened was that death rate per X mototcyclists increased in the states where helmets were compulsory and amazingly decreased in states where they weren't. When the stats were unravelled, it turned out that many experienced riders emigrated, taking their experience and 'calming effect' on younger riders with them, from states when they brought in helmet compulsion to states where no such laws were passed. So the effect was that in helmet compulsory states, the motorcycling population became smaller, younger, less experienced and more risk (and death)prone while in non-hemet compulsory states there was a corresponding increase in numbers and experience, thus a decrease in death rate. 

Just goes to show that helmet wearing isn't quite as straight forwards as the pro-compulsionists would have you believe.


----------



## Fiona N (6 Sep 2010)

Harry73 said:


> The argument about the motor racing driver helmets is ever so slightly flawed as I can't say I drive my Mazda 180 mph around the roads exposing my head to the elements.



Actually the speed is fairly immaterial in a car - I received a head injury in a car accident where I was travelling about 20mph and was shunted from the side by a car doing about 50mph (according to the police). Obviously it wasn't fatal  but it did give me concussion and a few stitches. On personal anecdotal experience, it's obvious I should wear a helmet in a car and not while cycling.

More seriously, the arguments against helmets for non-racing drivers (other than the people considering it are all drivers themselves and clearly don't wish to be so inconvenineced) is on the basis that racing/rally drivers don't have to cope with road traffic which requires observations of the whole environment around the car (i.e. for racing drivers the other cars are going in the same direction and there (usually) aren't any pedestrians or cyclists in the mix). 

I'm not sure this is a valid argument and anyway doesn't pertain to pedestrians who, as far as I'm concerned would be much better off in a helmet - especially the drunk ones  Hospitals are always complaining about the numbers of head-injured drunks, so why not do something about it: New law - you can drink but you have to wear a helmet in case you get drunk and fall over. I don't see that this is any more restrictive on personal freedom that forcing cyclists to wear helmets.


----------



## Amanda P (6 Sep 2010)

cyclecraig said:


> My helmet almost certainly saved my life or at least serious head injuries when I had my one and only really bad accident.
> 
> Thats about it really, I would never leave for a ride without one!



Just to introduce some balance, I was hit side-on by a car. My speed was neglible at the time; the car was reported to have been doing about 30. I was not wearing a helmet, and here I am fit and healthy writing this post a year later. I had no injuries that a helmet could have prevented.

I still don't wear a helmet.


----------



## Ticktockmy (6 Sep 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> I don't participate if helmets are required.
> 
> Personal choice - I stopped organising sponsored rids for the local Scouts due to the insistence on helmets.
> 
> The Group is now some 25% down on its fundraising.... but that is the cost of the restriction.



You amaze me, that you deprive a worthwhile charitable organisation like the Scouts of some of its much needed income because YOU personally don’t like to wear a helmet. As someone involved, within scouting; which you course must be because you would need a CRC to organise any event for the Scouts, dont you feel ashamed that you are letting your own abhorrence of wearing a helmet take away the fun and pleasure the sponsored rides give the scouts. I guess in your mind, sport like Canoeing, Climbing and Caving are out as well, as the Scouts Will be required to wear Helmets.


Being a youth organisation the Scouts Organisation and it leaders and helpers have a duty of care to provide, and that includes any activity with any risk, a safe environment; of course as a arranger of sponsored rides for the Scouts, you will be well aware of doing risk assessments. 

Stop acting like spoilt Brat, put your helmet back on and go and gives those guys and gals some of your quality time, and help them to become better citizens by impacting your skills and knowledge onto them.


----------



## pig on a bike (6 Sep 2010)

Anyway thats me done with this subject I will always wear one makes me feel abit safer,It was a good comment from screenman,Sorry dident know fabio hit mainly his face.Anyway good debate one which no one can win due to points of view been different (VERY).Happy and safe bike riding everybody with or without that helmet. P.s just a note to porkypete sorry about the spelling.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Sep 2010)

Ticktockmy said:


> You amaze me, that you deprive a worthwhile charitable organisation like the Scouts of some of its much needed income because YOU personally don’t like to wear a helmet.




Ridiculous and ill informed - you have no idea whether I wear a helmet or not.

I object to excluding half the boys and most of the parents who wish to help.



> As someone involved, within scouting; which you course must be because you would need a CRC to organise any event for the Scouts, dont you feel ashamed that you are letting your own abhorrence of wearing a helmet take away the fun and pleasure the sponsored rides give the scouts. I guess in your mind, sport like Canoeing, Climbing and Caving are out as well, as the Scouts Will be required to wear Helmets.



Again ridiculous and unfounded (you are not doing well) What fun is there in telling a parent that as they choose (their right) notto wear a helmet they have to go back to their friends and work colleagues and tell them they were not allowed to paricipate?

You have no idea what my stance is on helmets - you are making assumptions to suit your own agenda

As for the pathetic guesses about other activities - how do you know what activities I do and do not participate in, or my attitudes?



> Being a youth organisation the Scouts Organisation and it leaders and helpers have a duty of care to provide, and that includes any activity with any risk, a safe environment; of course as a arranger of sponsored rides for the Scouts, you will be well aware of doing risk assessments.



Yep we have had three head injuries in the last four years (two requiring hospital treatment) One falling on ice in the road opposite the HQ, one playing a wide game when they slipped on a stream bank, and the most serious when two beavers collided in a bouncy castle.... Am I remiss for not assessing these situations properly and making them wear helmets for these activities?



> Stop acting like spoilt Brat, put your helmet back on and go and gives those guys and gals some of your quality time, and help them to become better citizens by impacting your skills and knowledge onto them.



Again you are making ridiculous and foolish assumptions... with absolutely no knowledge of my history or what I do or do not do....

What would be really enlightening is your explanation how excluding a child or their parents on a valid personal choice from an activity helps them become "better citizens"


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Sep 2010)

There is so much that could be done in saving lives if the majority groups were tackled instead of a small minority.

Whilst we discuss cycle helmets to prevent children's head injuries and make them compulsory like this we may save a few lives, but allow many more children to die and accept it if it happens in other circumstances.

The good old USA is a prime example in this..

Taking 2006 as an example because I can get the facts


1,593 children under the age of 17 were killed by firearms (2.16 per 100,000 population) compared to 138 killed in accidents involving cycles (0.19 per 100,000 population)

So children are 11 times more likely to be shot than die on their bicycle!

Yet this carnage is not discussed, debated or even raises an eyebrow......... surely laws enforcing bullet proof armour should be the order of the day rather than cycle helmets?


----------



## screenman (6 Sep 2010)

Mighty oaks _from little acorns_ grow.

I spent a hour training in the forest just outside my back garden this afternoon, got whacked clean across the forehead by a branch that came down in the wind, I was pleased I had my helmet on.

I think the banning of handguns in the UK was supposed to be an alternative to bullet proof vests.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Mighty oaks _from little acorns_ grow.
> 
> I spent a hour training in the forest just outside my back garden this afternoon, got whacked clean across the forehead by a branch that came down in the wind, I was pleased I had my helmet on.
> 
> I think the banning of handguns in the UK was supposed to be an alternative to bullet proof vests.



Yep - ban bikes?


----------



## jimboalee (7 Sep 2010)

I took a ride along the canal tow path earlier in the summer. I fell in. Luckily, my polystyrene helmet kept my head above the surface and I didn't sink to the mirky bottom.

I will always wear my helmet.


----------



## rich p (7 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 1170160"]
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

HELMETS SAVE LIVES
[/quote]


 Nice try Lee but I don't think that will convince the doubters!


----------



## jimboalee (7 Sep 2010)

The best thing to do with cycle helmets is to cut the straps off.
Then you get all the benefits of thermal insulation and sun shading; and when you take a tumble, the helmet flies off out of harm's way and your head is as safe as houses.


----------



## PpPete (7 Sep 2010)

pig on a bike said:


> Anyway thats me done with this subject I will always wear one makes me feel abit safer,It was a good comment from screenman,Sorry dident know fabio hit mainly his face.Anyway good debate one which no one can win due to points of view been different (VERY).Happy and safe bike riding everybody with or without that helmet. P.s just a note to porkypete sorry about the spelling.



That's alright .... I'm a spelling Nazi not a helmet Nazi


----------



## Smokin Joe (7 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 1170160"]
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

HELMETS SAVE LIVES
[/quote]
Be interesting to see the evidence for that statement.

Up to a decade ago few professionals wore helmets, two decades ago none did. So for over 100 years these guys were racing around two hundred days a year with no head protection, and anyone whose crash count for the year was only in single figures would be considered remarkable lucky. They have just the sort of accidents helmets are said to prevent, falls from the bike involving no motor vehicle collision with a heavy impact on the ground. Now if helmets were a nescessary safety item you would expect the number of deaths and serious head injuries among pro cyclists to have reduced dramatically during the past decade - except that it hasn't, and it hasn't because there was nothing that was there to be reduced. Cycling has always been a sport where fatalities are so rare as to be remarkable, and those very few that did occur were almost always for reasons other than a head injury.

The same goes for amateur racing, people have been killed virtually every season during the four decades I have been involved in the sport but always after being hit by a vehicle, not even one that I can remember from just a fall. The same goes for all the club runs, chain gangs, group rides etc that I have gone on. Loads of crashes, everyone walked away. Yet to hear some of the helmet evangelists you would think that anyone who rode round the block without a helmet on was taking the same risk as someone playing Russian Roulette with 4 rounds in the chamber. 

Feel free to challange the above if you can find statistics to disprove what I have written above, but if you can you will be doing well because no one else ever has dispite rigorous reserch from the compulsion lobby.

So, wear a helmet if you like, no-one will laugh, but when you see someone riding without one mind your own bloody business.


----------



## screenman (7 Sep 2010)

Are you saying that a helmet has absolutely no use at all in head protection?


----------



## Smokin Joe (7 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Are you saying that a helmet has absolutely no use at all in head protection?


I'm saying it makes so little difference that I wouldn't even consider one. There will always be a particular set of circumstances where a helmet will help prevent injury, but those instances are so few as to be statistically insignificant.

Wear one if you want, freedom of choice is a great thing but please respect mine too.


----------



## Ticktockmy (7 Sep 2010)

lazyj said:


> Before i start this IS NOT another you should/should not wear a helmet ( enough of them threads already
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL..But it looks like its heading for another long winded helmet thread, each to there own I say, on my part, and looking at my helmet after my tumble the other week saved some damage to my head, but it did not save me knocking out some front teeth, one buggered arm and two broken ribs. but the Bike was ok:-)


----------



## PpPete (7 Sep 2010)

Well said Joe.... despite your spelling error!

Baffles me why the CTC, BC (or some other suitable body) cannot fund the TRL to do some proper independent research.	Everything I've read seems to be "loaded" with a prior agenda.


----------



## snorri (7 Sep 2010)

porkypete said:


> Baffles me why the CTC, BC (or some other suitable body) cannot fund the TRL to do some proper independent research. Everything I've read seems to be "loaded" with a prior agenda.


I don't think more research would tell us very much, helmets offer some protection against certain head injuries, but may present risk of other types of injury.
The risks involved in cycling are very much up to the individual cyclist. From the lone cyclist who travels a half a mile at slow speed on a traffic free path to collect his daily newspaper to the competitive type who speeds down a rock strewn mountain track through a forest and eager to beat the other guy by a split second. 
It would be sad if precautions deemed important for one class of user were applied across all cycle users, and indeed it is difficult to understand why so many individuals seem to think this should be the case.


----------



## screenman (7 Sep 2010)

Here is a test you could try yourself, press your head hard against a normal road surface, keeping it pressed there walk along at say 5mph for 10 feet, now try doing the same with an helmet on. Now I know this test is not scientific and I am not wanting to be the person that does it.

Can I ask just as a matter of interest of course, does anyone who does not wear a helmet do the lottery?

I must say that I am all for freedom of choice and I wear a helmet.


----------



## Smokin Joe (7 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Here is a test you could try yourself, press your head hard against a normal road surface, keeping it pressed there walk along at say 5mph for 10 feet, now try doing the same with an helmet on. Now I know this test is not scientific and I am not wanting to be the person that does it.
> 
> Can I ask just as a matter of interest of course, does anyone who does not wear a helmet do the lottery?
> 
> I must say that I am all for freedom of choice and I wear a helmet.


Not only is it not scientific, it's laughable bollox.


----------



## screenman (7 Sep 2010)

Why?


----------



## jimboalee (7 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Here is a test you could try yourself, press your head hard against a normal road surface, keeping it pressed there walk along at say 5mph for 10 feet, now try doing the same with an helmet on. Now I know this test is not scientific and I am not wanting to be the person that does it.
> 
> Can I ask just as a matter of interest of course, does anyone who does not wear a helmet do the lottery?
> 
> I must say that I am all for freedom of choice and I wear a helmet.



What you are describing is similar to the 'wheelbarrow race' accident on a gritted roadsurface. The over jealous chap holding your ankles runs too fast and you lose your arms and go crashing down forehead first onto the tarmac.
The argument here is the wearing of a helmet would have saved you a lifelong scar.

The main reason cyclists wear leather mittens is to stop grit being pushed into the palm of the hand when a fall occurs. At speeds of 20mph, can it be guaranteed that the cyclist can outstretch his hand and perform a judo roll when falling off ( or being knocked off ) his bike. Probably not with clipless pedals.

The helmet can't be proved to be a 'lifesaver', but I'd rather keep my good looks if my head bounces on the pavement.


----------



## jimboalee (7 Sep 2010)

jimboalee said:


> What you are describing is similar to the 'wheelbarrow race' accident on a gritted roadsurface. The over jealous chap holding your ankles runs too fast and you lose your arms and go crashing down forehead first onto the tarmac.
> The argument here is the wearing of a helmet would have saved you a lifelong scar.
> 
> The main reason cyclists wear leather mittens is to stop grit being pushed into the palm of the hand when a fall occurs. At speeds of 20mph, can it be guaranteed that the cyclist can outstretch his hand and perform a judo roll when falling off ( or being knocked off ) his bike. Probably not with clipless pedals.
> ...



Interestingly, my head has bounced on the ice at Solihull Ice Rink. I woke up in the medical room about fifteen minutes later ( which seemed like 0.001 second to me ).
More interestingly, my head bounced on the sidewalk after being knocked off my bike during my LEJOG attempt in 2006. My left elbow was broken and I definitely remember the thud of plastic on cement slab.


----------



## Smokin Joe (7 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Why?


If you have statistics that disproves what I wrote in post 103 it would help your case far better than some silly analogy about walking on your head or hitting yourself with a hammer. 

You could just as easily make a case for flameproof underpants by setting fire to your pubes with a match.


----------



## rich p (7 Sep 2010)

I wasn't going to get involved in this as nobody ever changes their mind through and because of these threads, so the whole exercise is one of entrenchment. Live and let live is the way to look at the issue.

For what it's worth, I wear a helmet sometimes, I don't at others; I ride thousands of miles touring up and down mountains without one and sometimes wear one going into town.
Illogical perhaps. The only persuasive argument I have found in favour of helmet wearing is that my kids of 27 &29 both cycle commute in London and I'm glad that they wear helmets. Make what you will of that!


----------



## Fiona N (7 Sep 2010)

rich p said:


> I wasn't going to get involved in this as nobody ever changes their mind through and because of these threads, so the whole exercise is one of entrenchment. Live and let live is the way to look at the issue.
> 
> For what it's worth, I wear a helmet sometimes, I don't at others; I ride thousands of miles touring up and down mountains without one and sometimes wear one going into town.



I think that pretty much sums up my approach - I always wear a helmet mountain biking for the simple reason that falls are mainly (for me, anyway) low speed where a helmet might actually do some good. Likewise, when learning to ride my recumbent bike, I wore a helmet for the first few weeks as I had a tendency to fall sideways while stationary so there was always the possibility that I'd clonk by head on a pavement or road furniture (although helmet wearers, please note, helmets are only any good at absorbing shock of hitting a flat surface and invariably fail when hitting a shaped object due mainly to the air vents). I often wear a helmet when I going to be around loads of other riders of unknown skill level - my only serious injuries have come from an idiot amateur racer (on a bike) taking out my front wheel in a badly judged overtaking manoevre in a mass start race (and still I didn't hit my head).

On the road, all my big accidents have involved cars/trucks and not my head (plus, I should add, I have a long history of parachuting - before the days of standing landings when learning a 'para roll' was de rigeur, climbing, bouldering, martial arts etc. all of which tend to emphasise knowing how to fall) so although I acknowledge that a helmet might save me some superficial wounds in the event of, say, clipping the pavement with a pedal a la Lance, I am confident that it wouldn't do anything to 'save my life' in the event of a collision with a car. 

So it's thousands of hours of lidless comfort and possibly minor wounds v. thousands of hours of sweating under the helmet, finding somewhere to put it in the cinema/restaurant/meeting, trying not to drop it (they're so flimsy dropping them will damage them to a state of uselessness - expensive) and then what - saves me a couple of stitiches - no deal


----------



## pig on a bike (7 Sep 2010)

porkypete ,smokin joe spelt bollox wrong can you have a word please


----------



## jimboalee (7 Sep 2010)

Fiona N said:


> I think that pretty much sums up my approach - I always wear a helmet mountain biking for the simple reason that falls are mainly (for me, anyway) low speed where a helmet might actually do some good. Likewise, when learning to ride my recumbent bike, I wore a helmet for the first few weeks as I had a tendency to fall sideways while stationary so there was always the possibility that I'd clonk by head on a pavement or road furniture (although helmet wearers, please note, helmets are only any good at absorbing shock of hitting a flat surface and invariably fail when hitting a shaped object due mainly to the air vents). I often wear a helmet when I going to be around loads of other riders of unknown skill level - my only serious injuries have come from an idiot amateur racer (on a bike) taking out my front wheel in a badly judged overtaking manoevre in a mass start race (and still I didn't hit my head).
> 
> On the road, all my big accidents have involved cars/trucks and not my head (plus, I should add, I have a long history of parachuting - before the days of standing landings when learning a 'para roll' was de rigeur, climbing, bouldering, martial arts etc. all of which tend to emphasise knowing how to fall) so although I acknowledge that a helmet might save me some superficial wounds in the event of, say, clipping the pavement with a pedal a la Lance, I am confident that it wouldn't do anything to 'save my life' in the event of a collision with a car.
> 
> So it's thousands of hours of lidless comfort and possibly minor wounds v. thousands of hours of sweating under the helmet, finding somewhere to put it in the cinema/restaurant/meeting, trying not to drop it (they're so flimsy dropping them will damage them to a state of uselessness - expensive) and then what - saves me a couple of stitiches - no deal



My Mom never wore a helmet in her sixty five years of cycling. She much prefered a headscarf.
The day will come, Fiona.....


----------



## jeltz (7 Sep 2010)

No specialist knowledge on sportives but my martial arts teacher states that full protective equipment must be worn during sparring and tournaments, he's not fussed but his insurance company are and wont cover any claims if the participants were found not to be wearing the "right kit". 

Whether there is much protection given is debatable but it does give an avenue for a loss adjuster to try and wriggle out of paying a claim if one occurs. 

Disclaimers might (or might not) cover the organisers but if there was a fatality its entirely possible that grieving relatives would try testing the validity of them in court, which could cost the organisers all sorts of inconvenience and money even if totally exonerated of any liability. 

Irrespective of an organisers view on whether or not helmets are beneficial it is almost certainly easier, and probably more sensible, to say ride with a lid or don't ride.


----------



## 4F (7 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Here is a test you could try yourself, press your head hard against a normal road surface, keeping it pressed there walk along at say 5mph for 10 feet, now try doing the same with an helmet on. Now I know this test is not scientific and I am not wanting to be the person that does it.
> 
> Can I ask just as a matter of interest of course, does anyone who does not wear a helmet do the lottery?
> 
> I must say that I am all for freedom of choice and I wear a helmet.




Do the same test wearing a saucepan and a scooped out water melon and compare the result ?

I don't think that anyone disagrees that a helmet could prevent road rash but when did road rash kill anyone ?

Non helmet wearer since 1965


----------



## threebikesmcginty (7 Sep 2010)

4F said:


> Non helmet wearer since 1965



Hey, snap!!

Although I'm tempted by the saucepan and melon headgear, suppose it'd have to be a watermelon wouldn't it, cantaloupe could be a bit snug?


----------



## 4F (7 Sep 2010)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Hey, snap!!
> 
> Although I'm tempted by the saucepan and melon headgear, suppose it'd have to be a watermelon wouldn't it, cantaloupe could be a bit snug?




It's a new concept I am designing, Vegetable helmets I am on Dragons Den next week

Here is my model all ready to go


----------



## threebikesmcginty (7 Sep 2010)

I'm in...


----------



## Crackle (7 Sep 2010)

4F said:


> It's a new concept I am designing, Vegetable helmets I am on Dragons Den next week
> 
> Here is my model all ready to go



They'll eat it up.


----------



## 4F (7 Sep 2010)

These are my other prototypes still in the design stage


----------



## threebikesmcginty (7 Sep 2010)

Is this going too far?


----------



## threebikesmcginty (7 Sep 2010)

Looks like you might be a bit late with the melon idea looking at these bad-ass dudes


----------



## Fiona N (7 Sep 2010)

jimboalee said:


> My Mom never wore a helmet in her sixty five years of cycling. She much prefered a headscarf.
> The day will come, Fiona.....



No doubt  - in the meantime, does a buff count?


----------



## 4F (7 Sep 2010)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Looks like you might be a bit late with the melon idea looking at these bad-ass dudes



Grrrrr, looks like I will have to go with plan B


----------



## ianrauk (7 Sep 2010)




----------



## Alun (7 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Here is a test you could try yourself, press your head hard against a normal road surface, keeping it pressed there walk along at say 5mph for 10 feet, now try doing the same with an helmet on. Now I know this test is not scientific and I am not wanting to be the person that does it.
> 
> Can I ask just as a matter of interest of course, does anyone who does not wear a helmet do the lottery?
> 
> I must say that I am all for freedom of choice and I wear a helmet.



I tried this but was unable to walk in this position at all never mind at 5 mph, and it made my back hurt. Are there any other tests available, which would demonstrate a cycle helmets effectiveness?


----------



## screenman (7 Sep 2010)

You are obviously not doing enough stretching, for those less flexible I suppose it could be tested on a brick wall.


Now I am just having fun with this post as many are, I agree at the end of the day we are all lucky to have choice to wear or not to wear, even to this day we have a choice of events some that enforce and some do not.

I never for once consider my helmet to be a life saver, now a saver of my extremely good looks, and saver of severe scaring to my brain box, these are some of the reasons why I wear a helmet. 

Always a helmet wearer by choice, not only that but it makes me look younger, leaner, fitter and far more intelligent.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Here is a test you could try yourself, press your head hard against a normal road surface, keeping it pressed there walk along at say 5mph for 10 feet, now try doing the same with an helmet on. Now I know this test is not scientific and I am not wanting to be the person that does it.
> 
> Can I ask just as a matter of interest of course, does anyone who does not wear a helmet do the lottery?
> 
> I must say that I am all for freedom of choice and I wear a helmet.



(Now repeat wearing a large fruit...... as it will be as effective as the helmet, does this mean all cyclists should wear fruit on their heads?) Sorry missed the other fruit related posts

Actually you have a relevant point as modern designs of helmets would arrest the movement due to poorly designed "snag points" and often eject the helmet entirely....so what type of helmet do you advocate for the test?


----------



## screenman (7 Sep 2010)

Not really bothered which type of helmet, I will also volunteer for the part of the test that includes the helmet, now all I need is a volunteer from the non wearing community to do the other part of the test.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Sep 2010)

The saddest and most ironic thing here is that we are talking about a product that is far less effective now than ten years ago as the design has increased the number of vents, decreased the amount of working material and increased the density of the remaining material.

The UK standard (EN1078) is considered so weak that in a US Sportive it would be banned, and the modern designs are heavily criticised by the experts. MAny pointing out that these designs are virtually useless in an impact.

The most severe brain injuries (Diffuse Axonal Injury) are caused by rapid deceleration of the head, or twisting. Both of which become more likely when the helmet loses a smooth spherical shape. Snag points now common on many helmets can actively contribute to these injuries.

Then we have the issue of facial injuries. The British Dental Association points out that present helmet design does not cover the face, and two thirds of serious injuries occur in this unprotected area. They are now looking at a campaign for full face helmets for this reason.

So really we must ask the helmet evangelists whether they are really interested in safety and will be wearing the optimum protection of a round smooth, non vented helmet with thick absorbent material and a full face, and if not please explain why?

After all if it is really about protection, why compromise with a lesser product?


----------



## screenman (7 Sep 2010)

Has there ever been a successful court action against the manufacturer of a cycle helmet when involved in an accident? 

I will ask again do any non wearers do the lottery?


----------



## snorri (7 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> I will ask again do any non wearers do the lottery?


No takers in eight hours, looks as if there are none.


----------



## screenman (7 Sep 2010)

You could be right.

There is an old saying that ends,( beat you with experience), looks like I am beaten.

I will now get my crash helmet and await the flack.

Good fun guys thanks for joining in the banter, I hope nobody has taken any offence whilst the discussion has been going on.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Has there ever been a successful court action against the manufacturer of a cycle helmet when involved in an accident?
> 
> I will ask again do any non wearers do the lottery?



Please tell me you are not going to claim that amongst all the other phenomenal and mythical attributes that helmets will help you win the lottery....


----------



## threebikesmcginty (7 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> I will ask again do any non wearers do the lottery?



I do - won twenty million quid the other week.


----------



## screenman (7 Sep 2010)

The lottery bit was about taking chances, gambling. What are the odds, maybe greater that a helmet may help or winning the top money. Just trying to keep the banter going that's all.

threebikes, does that mean you are going to change your name to a alotmorebikes


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> The lottery bit was about taking chances, gambling. What are the odds, maybe greater that a helmet may help or winning the top money. Just trying to keep the banter going that's all.
> 
> threebikes, does that mean you are going to change your name to a alotmorebikes


Which is why I asked which lottery... you alter your chances with each one.

Do you decide to take more chances by wearing an "aerodynamic" as opposed to round helmet?
Do you decide to compromise your safety by not wearing full face?
DO you decide to wear an EN1078 knowing how inferior they are?


----------



## jimboalee (8 Sep 2010)

Have a look at the results of the Verenti Cheshire Cat Sportive earlier in the year.

Look at the times posted on the 67 mile event.

To complete a 108 km Audax at maximum speed would take the rider 3hrs 36mins. Damned good going.

Of the 736 people who entered the event, 556 posted a time. TEN went round quicker than 3hrs 36mins.

I have completed a 105 km Audax in 4 hours and a few seconds. I could have been in the top 25 on this Sportive.. 
For the price I paid to ride the Audax compared with the cost of a Sportive, and considering AUK rules ( Present road laws, therefore helmets are optional ), there's no contest.


You can do two things on a Sportive. You can..

a/ Prove you are amongst the 2% of riders who would need to wait for the AUK control to open, or

b/ wish you had saved your money by going on an Audax because anyone on the internet can view your crap sportive time.


----------



## MartinC (8 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Here is a test you could try yourself, press your head hard against a normal road surface, keeping it pressed there walk along at say 5mph for 10 feet, now try doing the same with an helmet on. Now I know this test is not scientific and I am not wanting to be the person that does it.




OK, you want bang away at this so I'll bite. :-)

To do your test I'd much rather be wearing a roller skate on my head not a helmet (especially not a cycling helmet). Does this mean:
a. the test is irrelevant
or
b. your better off wearing a roller skate on your head than nothing when cycling?

Yes, I know I'm being silly - but you started it!


----------



## PpPete (8 Sep 2010)

Is that a Snell standard roller skate or one of the inferior EN1078 models?


----------



## snorri (8 Sep 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Have a look at the results of the Verenti Cheshire Cat Sportive earlier in the year.


Wrong thread jimboalee :?: 
Or are you just helping to make this into the longest helmet thread ever?


----------



## PpPete (8 Sep 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> The saddest and most ironic thing here is that we are talking about a product that is far less effective now than ten years ago as the design has increased the number of vents, decreased the amount of working material and increased the density of the remaining material.
> 
> The UK standard (EN1078) is considered so weak that in a US Sportive it would be banned, and the modern designs are heavily criticised by the experts. ....



Seriously though. does anyone know of any campaigns or efforts to strengthen or replace the EN - which we could all (presumably?) support whether we personally choose to wear a helmet (or roller skate, or anything else, or nothing)


----------



## screenman (8 Sep 2010)

Martinc, I was just trying to show that a helmet does have a benefit in some circumstances. Have you tried cleaning gravel rash, not much fun.


----------



## MacB (8 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Martinc, I was just trying to show that a helmet does have a benefit in some circumstances. Have you tried cleaning gravel rash, not much fun.



Yes, and we get that but there's no guarantee that any of us will ever experience those circumstances. I don't race, I don't descend stupidly fast, I don't offroad, I don't have my feet attached to the pedals. So I can argue that I've already reduced the risk of having an incident. I then weigh up what's left and how likely a helmet is to be of assistance and I decide that I won't wear one.

So I'e done my own risk assessment and would consider reassessing if new evidence comes to light. Anecdotal tales from people as to what might have happened in the absence of a helmet isn't new evidence. In fact it's about as far from evidence as it's possible to get.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Sep 2010)

porkypete said:


> Seriously though. does anyone know of any campaigns or efforts to strengthen or replace the EN - which we could all (presumably?) support whether we personally choose to wear a helmet (or roller skate, or anything else, or nothing)



YEp - In the States, the pro helmet Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute recommends a "rounder smoother safer" helmet







Secondly there is the paper quoted by "Headway" the pro helmet head injury charity

Bicycle Helmets 1 - Does the dental profession have a role in promoting their use? Chapman HR,Curran ALM. British Dental Journal 2004;196(9):555-560.


This states that:



> The dental profession could: play an active role in promoting cycle helmet use; support calls for the compulsory wearing of cycling helmets, particularly for children; press for modification of helmet design and standards to increase protection of the face.





> As dentists, we are particularly interested in the face. With current helmets there is a weaker, though noticeable, reduction in the risk of middle third facial injuries. We should therefore be lobbying for improvements in design



So back to my question, why are people wearing vented, angular helmets that are not full face.... surely they must be (insert adjective here)


----------



## Ravenbait (8 Sep 2010)

I wear my helmet when banging my head on the desk in response to yet another bloomin' helmet debate.

Sam


----------



## gavintc (8 Sep 2010)

I think the subtitle for this thread must be the most misleading on the CC forum.


----------



## jimboalee (8 Sep 2010)

snorri said:


> Wrong thread jimboalee :?:
> Or are you just helping to make this into the longest helmet thread ever?



Not wrong thread. You are not paying attention.

This thread is about sportive organisers making helmets mandatory.

Read my post again.

I am making a point that an Audax ride can be as fast/personally competative/physically demanding as any Sportive.

Read further down and you will see in brackets I have said Audax UK only demand the rider obeys the law of the land, which as we know, does not make wearing of helmets compulsory.

Therefore, those who are not wishing to wear a helmet and feel it is a damned cheek for a Sportive organiser to impose their ruling, an Audax ride is a perfectly acceptable alternative.

Comparing the Minimum time for a 100 km Audax against the meagre few who equalled it riding the Sportive, the vast majority of the Sportive participants could have saved their loot and rode an Audax instead without the organiser demanding the riders wear a helmet. ( without fear of being arrested by the self appointed Cranium Protection Police ).


----------



## snorri (8 Sep 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Not wrong thread. You are not paying attention.
> 
> This thread is about sportive organisers making helmets mandatory..



I just didn't see the relevance of the times you quoted, the organisers want you to wear a helmet regardless of whither you are likely to take the longest or shortest time.


----------



## jimboalee (9 Sep 2010)

Sportives are cycling events for cyclists who want to pretend to be in a race, but can't be bothered to join a club and/or become a member of the national sporting body.

They dress up in their fancy kit and ride round the course as fast as they can, knowing that they are being timed and those times will be on the internet for anyone to view.

Most Audax organisers set the Maximum speed to 30 kmh, as per ACP. For a 200 km ride, its pretty fast and not many get back before the final control opens. A 100 km ride however is about the right distance to hammer round and beat the 30 kmh limit.
For 100 km rides, many oganisers set the Max speed at 30 kmh simply because there are lots of raceboys without mudguards who chose not to pay the rediculous fee to ride a Sportive. It was 20 kmh once upon a time when mudguards were compulsory.

[One aspect that annoys me is the raising of the minimum speed by many organisers from 10 to 15 kmh. This discounts a lot of youngsters ( school age ) from enjoying a 100 km BP ]

Audax rides that are organised by cycle clubs usually have a competative slant in each of the distances. There will be rival clubs attending and speeds will be high. For anyone who want's a speedy 200, go on the Beacon Cotswold Expedition. Beacon, Halesowen, Wolverhampton, Solihull, Worcester, Evesham and Cheltenham will all be there. Tag along with the group if you dare.

As I have said before, there is NO helmet ruling. You could wear a blonde wig and be ushered to the front, and then to the back when they see your backside is a bloke's


----------



## PpPete (9 Sep 2010)

jimboalee said:


> [One aspect that annoys me is the raising of the minimum speed by many organisers from 10 to 15 kmh. This discounts a lot of youngsters ( school age ) from enjoying a 100 km BP ]



100 km with a minimum of 10 kph is a long day - for kids, and for organisers.
15kph shouldnt be a problem ... my 12 y.o. made it OK on his first one, and that was despite an hour on mechanicals & punctures (on both his bike and on the tandem that I was using so his younger brother could get his first BP)	Maybe they will grow up to beat 30kph on a BP, I'll certainly never make it, (with or without a helmet)

Had to add last bit.... just to keep on-thread


----------



## MartinC (9 Sep 2010)

jimboalee said:


> Sportives are cycling events for cyclists who want to pretend to be in a race, but can't be bothered to join a club and/or become a member of the national sporting body.



I have some sympathy with this view but it doesn't bother me - whatever reason someone wants to ride a bike for is fine with me and I'd want them to enjoy it. If people want to pretend to race without actually taking on the challenge of doing it for real then I think it's slightly precious but I think sportives are a good idea and we should enjoy and encourage them. It does go some way to explaining the mandatory helmet stance - it's all part of the image that wannabe racers and the promoters want. 





edit for typo


----------



## MartinC (9 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Martinc, I was just trying to show that a helmet does have a benefit in some circumstances. Have you tried cleaning gravel rash, not much fun.



I agree with you - that's about the only expectation I think I can have for a helmet too. I've had my fair share of gravel rash - rarely on my head and then only while wearing a helmet. The old old hairnets were just as good at dealing with scrapes. 

Sorry, but I couldn't resist the opportunity to respond to your use of one of the non sequiturs that the helmet botherers (I'm not including you in this by the way) base their faith on.


----------



## jimboalee (9 Sep 2010)

porkypete said:


> 100 km with a minimum of 10 kph is a long day - for kids, and for organisers.
> 15kph shouldnt be a problem ... my 12 y.o. made it OK on his first one, and that was despite an hour on mechanicals & punctures (on both his bike and on the tandem that I was using so his younger brother could get his first BP) Maybe they will grow up to beat 30kph on a BP, I'll certainly never make it, (with or without a helmet)
> 
> Had to add last bit.... just to keep on-thread



10 kmh or 15kmh, it is still 25 kCals per km for a 12 yr old. At a lower speed, the power requirement, rate of energy burn and heartrate per time are less, so it is an easier day.


----------



## screenman (9 Sep 2010)

Martinc, bringing Latin into the forum, it just goes to show how clever some of us are. I do not wish anyone to do anything they do not want to that is for sure, however I am glad they banned smoking in pubs and restaurants.


----------



## Threelionsbrian (9 Sep 2010)

jimboalee said:


> 10 kmh or 15kmh, it is still 25 kCals per km for a 12 yr old. At a lower speed, the power requirement, rate of energy burn and heartrate per time are less, so it is an easier day.




I suggest kittiing your kids out with a helmet for safety and a garmin to keep the calorie requirement down to a far lower level.


----------



## Fiona N (9 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Martinc, I was just trying to show that a helmet does have a benefit in some circumstances. Have you tried cleaning gravel rash, not much fun.



But I don't wear a helmet on my knees, hips or forearms - where I tend to get gravel rash from time to time


----------



## threebikesmcginty (9 Sep 2010)

Fiona N said:


> But I don't wear a helmet on my knees, hips or forearms - where I tend to get gravel rash from time to time



Good point - I might get some knee pads, last time I fell off I took the knee clean out of a pair of Bikesters!


----------



## 4F (9 Sep 2010)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Good point - I might get some knee pads, last time I fell off I took the knee clean out of a pair of Bikesters!




I have a good line of banana knee and elbow pads, any colour you want as long as that colour is green, yellow or black .


----------



## screenman (9 Sep 2010)

Maybe if gravel rash on your elbows is a regular thing you should consider elbow pads, now if the only place you get gravel rash is on your knee's or elbows you have just lessened your chance of gravel rash by 50%. This is why I choose to wear a helmet, it lessens the chances, in my opinion.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (9 Sep 2010)

4F said:


> I have a good line of banana knee and elbow pads, any colour you want as long as that colour is green, yellow or black .



 I'll take the green ones mate - them black ones are a bit squishy.


----------



## jimboalee (9 Sep 2010)

Fiona N said:


> But I don't wear a helmet on my knees, hips or forearms - where I tend to get gravel rash from time to time



That's OK. Most bone and soft tissue cells can be synthetically produced in the lab, but neurons and brain calls are a different matter.


----------



## Ravenbait (9 Sep 2010)

jimboalee said:


> That's OK. Most bone and soft tissue cells can be synthetically produced in the lab, but neurons and brain calls are a different matter.



That would explain a lot about me.

Sam


----------



## 4F (9 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Maybe if gravel rash on your elbows is a regular thing you should consider elbow pads, now if the only place you get gravel rash is on your knee's or elbows you have just lessened your chance of gravel rash by 50%. This is why I choose to wear a helmet, it lessens the chances, in my opinion.




I would suggest that if anyone kept falling off their bike then lessons on staying on would be a good idea, or if that did not work out then maybe consider getting a trike.

Non helmet wearer since 1965


----------



## PpPete (9 Sep 2010)

I thinks this post will take us to 18 pages....
Pretty sure that's not even close to the record for a helmet thread. Come on folks - a bit more moral fibre, invective, unproveable anectodotal evidence and I'm sure we can get there.


----------



## Crackle (9 Sep 2010)

Look cycling is so dangerous, that whenever I take the dog with me on the bike, I insist he wears his helmet.


----------



## Fiona N (10 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Maybe if gravel rash on your elbows is a regular thing you should consider elbow pads, now if the only place you get gravel rash is on your knee's or elbows you have just lessened your chance of gravel rash by 50%. This is why I choose to wear a helmet, it lessens the chances, in my opinion.



The last time I had gravel rash of the forearm was rolling the Windcheetah spectacularly in Northern California in 2001. Last knee 'gravel rash' ca. 2003 Mallorca (not technically gravel rash as the limestone aggregate was smooth enough to give friction burns), last time I fell off bike under any circumstances was aforementioned feral pedestrian throwing rucksac in 2009, before that it was mtb-ing in 2008 (wearing helmet but head came nowhere near the deck or anything else). Average mileage 12,000km per year, so I'm averaging more than 12,000km for any sort of fall and upwards of 60,000 km for a gravel rash injury. Don't think I'll bother with knee, elbow or head protection at this rate of incidents. I'll leave to those who are less experienced and fall off more often


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Sep 2010)

Fiona N said:


> . I'll leave to those who are less experienced and fall off more often



Don't be so ridiculous!

How could you possibly think that experience, skills and a well maintained bike can offer any addition to road safety?

You are not allowed to make reasonable statements like that.

Bad riding with a helmet is the way to go!


----------



## Mark_Robson (10 Sep 2010)

18 pages and still no picture of a thudguard? Your slipping Cunobelin ;-)


----------



## screenman (10 Sep 2010)

Have we any event organisers on the forum who could give their opinion on this. Fiona N I bow to your superior skills and knowledge, I have on 50 years of cycling in varying conditions, this may explain why I decide to wear a helmet and you do not.

Dress for the accident not the journey.



www.essortment.com/family/bicyclesafetyg_sjwr.htm

Got it! Eureka! Fantastic! guys wear a wig over your helmet or even someone design a helmet that looks like a females long hair, research shows that drivers give more room to women on cycles than men, personally I call that sexist.


----------



## MacB (10 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Dress for the accident not the journey.



Oh, now that's good, it's getting very close to sig material, I bet you had always wear clean underwear in case of an accident, drummed into you as a kid as well


----------



## ianrauk (10 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Have we any event organisers on the forum who could give their opinion on this. Fiona N I bow to your superior skills and knowledge, I have on 50 years of cycling in varying conditions, this may explain why I decide to wear a helmet and you do not.
> 
> Dress for the accident not the journey.



And how far into those 50 years did you suddenly decide that wearing a helmet was essential cycling clobber?


----------



## screenman (10 Sep 2010)

About 20 and I have a nice big war wound that would not or may not have been there if I had started wearing one earlier. I have nutted the ground a couple of times since and I am convinced they saved my bonce. It is also 36 years since I decided smoking was no good for me also. Now what that has got to do with the price f bread I have no idea, but hey ho.


*The hardest thing about learning to ride a bicycle is the road*


----------



## lukesdad (10 Sep 2010)

Cap for social, helmet for racing(find it helps when I have to nut another rider  ).


----------



## ianrauk (10 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> About 20 and I have a nice big war wound that would not or may not have been there if I had started wearing one earlier. I have nutted the ground a couple of times since and I am convinced they saved my bonce. It is also 36 years since I decided smoking was no good for me also. Now what that has got to do with the price f bread I have no idea, but hey ho.
> 
> 
> *The hardest thing about learning to ride a bicycle is the road*



Just wondering how long that's all. A simple question. 20 years, wow, that's along time. Was it one of those weird leather things that looked like sausages strapped to your head?


----------



## screenman (10 Sep 2010)

Not a lot different from todays helmet, the bunch of banana's were around for a long time and I must admit I wish I had been wearing one when I split my head open, as I honestly feel it would not have been such a bad injury.


*My granny started cycling at 97 years old.* She has been doing ten miles per day - and now we don't know where the heck she is!


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Sep 2010)

ianrauk said:


> And how far into those 50 years did you suddenly decide that wearing a helmet was essential cycling clobber?



..and given that the most frequent head injury 20 % of ALL head injuries are males greater than 65 years (NICE) how soon before you start wearing a helmet full time?


----------



## screenman (10 Sep 2010)

Is that last question aimed at me?

*Did you hear about the cyclist who used viagra eye drops?* They made him look hard!


----------



## Crackle (10 Sep 2010)

I presume none of you are riding safety bicycles yet?


----------



## screenman (10 Sep 2010)

www.cartoonstock.com/vintage/directory/numbers/1895.asp scan down a few pictures.


----------



## Mark_Robson (10 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> www.cartoonstock.com/vintage/directory/numbers/1895.asp scan down a few pictures.


Have you linked to your own HDD?


----------



## nickprior (10 Sep 2010)

I must be one of the few people in this thread to have fallen on his head during a sportive! Skidded on a greasy bend at the start of the 3 Counties ride last year, thought I'd caught the slide by steering into it but over cooked the correction and got flipped over the handlebars at about 12 mph. Went down like a sack of spuds on my shoulder and hips, then my head touched down. I got some good road rash on my chin, some good cuts from where my glasses were forced into my face by the helmet, and some impact marks from the helmet itself. The helmet was somewhat dented over my right temple and has since been replaced.

The extent of the superficial grazing and the impact of my head hitting the road (sufficient to give me concussion for 2-3 days afterwards) has convinced me that without the helmet, the consequences of the crash would have been far more uncomfortable. I don't think I would have died but head injuries are funny things. I would however have been kept in Lancaster Infirmary for observation much longer than I was.

This incident was exactly the type of crash I was hoping the helmet would protect me from - low speed with some forward momentum. The helmet protected me from severe abrasion damage to my scalp, and, given the extent of the gravel rash on my face, minimised the consequences of a hard impact on my skull.

So for particular types of incident a helmet for me has worked. None of the sportives I have participated in recently have made helmets mandatory (3 Counties, Pendle Pedal, Brian Robinson, Roses Round). I would vehemently defend anyone's right not to have to wear "safety" equipment of any sort, especially where the the safety case is not well made, statistically.

However, when there's potential for litigation I can understand the desire to minimise any organisation's exposure especially to vexatious claims. People are getting funny about injury claims these days. "But no one told me I should have worn a helmet" - there may well be no case to answer but the cost and inconvenience of preparing to defend an action would make any organizer think twice about their position on helmets.

BTW painful but not yet fatal incidents in helmet-less climbing, canoeing, skiing and cycling incidents over the years have led me to wear helmets for all these activities these days. Anecdotal empiricism in action!


----------



## threebikesmcginty (10 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Dress for the accident not the journey.




That's the kind of 'always look on the bright side' attitude this thread's been missing.


----------



## screenman (10 Sep 2010)

I must say this posting thing is hard work, nickprior that is the very sort of incident that I wear a helmet for.


----------



## Dave5N (10 Sep 2010)

*A point.*

After a minute or two, I genuinely forget I have a helmet on. It fits well, is light and comfortable.
*
A question.*

I have personally witnessed a good many horrendous crashes where helmets have been in pieces, yet the riders escaped serious head injury.

Why not wear one? 

(I don't always, depends if it is a 'transport' ride or a 'sport' ride.)


----------



## 4F (11 Sep 2010)

Dave5N said:


> Why not wear one?
> 
> (I don't always, depends if it is a 'transport' ride or a 'sport' ride.)



If cycling is so dangerous why do the countries with a high cycle usage such as Holland, Denmark and China not insist on wearing them ?


----------



## 4F (11 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> I have on 50 years of cycling in varying conditions, this may explain why I decide to wear a helmet and you do not.



I have 45 and having not fallen off as many times as you is why I decide not to


----------



## lukesdad (11 Sep 2010)

How long you have ridden a bike or, how many miles you do has nothing to do with the likelihood of having an accident don t be so smug. I have a number of accidents every year mainly due to some of the type of riding I do, hence I wear a helmet during these disciplines.
Its about time the anti s who, campaign so much against them came clean and, declared their real reason for doing so. Its got nothing to do with the flimsey evidence. Its becuase they are afraid that at sometime in the future it may become mandatory, and they are trying to whip up support to fight it.
Its a personal choice as has been said many times before,why dont you leave it at that.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Sep 2010)

I have worked for many years with Casualty and A/E departments...


*
A question.*

I have personally witnessed a good many horrendous crashes where helmets would have saved pedestrians and car occupants

Why not wear one?


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Sep 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> 18 pages and still no picture of a thudguard? Your slipping Cunobelin ;-)



Don't know many two year olds in Sportives!


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Have we any event organisers on the forum who could give their opinion on this.



Firstly about 10 pages ago the organiser of one Sportive was asked if they accepted EN1078 helmets when these was banned in other countries as unacceptably poor in performance. I also asked if there was any scrutineering of helmet standards, condition or fitting (Given Rivara's paper on increased injuries with poorly fitting helmets) 

Neither got the courtesy of an answer - so don't hole your breath



> Dress for the accident not the journey.



Couldn't agree more

When do these become compulsory - after all they are in professional events!


----------



## lukesdad (11 Sep 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> I have worked for many years with Casualty and A/E departments...
> 
> 
> *
> ...


Car occupants in motorsport do. I have competed in off road motorcycle sport XC downhill and Road Racing all my life, and have witnessed many accidents, Helmets do save lives. In some cases unfortunately they can t. Its all about perceived risk. As Ive said I don t wear a helmet for casual cycling or training. As I consider the risk of having a serious "off" to be greatly dimminished.


----------



## Smokin Joe (11 Sep 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Car occupants in motorsport do. I have competed in off road motorcycle sport XC downhill and Road Racing all my life, and have witnessed many accidents, *Helmets do save lives*. In some cases unfortunately they can t. Its all about perceived risk. As Ive said I don t wear a helmet for casual cycling or training. As I consider the risk of having a serious "off" to be greatly dimminished.


So where were all the lives that were lost before helmets became commonplace twenty years ago? People fell off as much as they do now, but the number who died from head injuries were so low that it would be classed as a statistical zero. No one ever seems to come up with an answer to that.


----------



## screenman (11 Sep 2010)

Times have changed in 20 years, more traffic, more road signs, more complete idiots and numpties. Can you absolutely say and on heart that you can see no benefit whatsoever in a helmet? can you say that wearing a helmet will not protect you in some way from some head damage in the case of some accidents. Of course helmets do not protect completely in the case of some high speed impacts, but I would have thoughts most off's were slow speed one's.

Come who is going to be post 200.

I must warn you that I have been called an idiot before now.


*Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.*


----------



## Crackle (11 Sep 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> So where were all the lives that were lost before helmets became commonplace twenty years ago? People fell off as much as they do now, but the number who died from head injuries were so low that it would be classed as a statistical zero. No one ever seems to come up with an answer to that.



Show me the stats that prove the opposite, that before cycle helmets head injuries didn't exist. Certainly I'm not one of them. 30 years of cycling I've hit my head once, I fractured it, it hurt and I suffered with the effects for a good 18 months. 

Both sides of this debate irritate me, it's a curious conundrum. On the one hand there's the luddite uninformed approach coupled with irrelevant statistical comparisons of entirely different risk groups (you all know who you are ) and on the other hand there's the other uninformed, a helmet will save your life, your culpable for not wearing one, my God how can you contemplate such a dangerous sport without a helmet group. I think the latter irritate me more but only slightly.

I'm fairly sceptical about what a helmet can actually do but it costs me little to wear one and I know from experience I'd prefer to hope it will help. If you don't want to wear one you won't find me pulling a bunch of irrefutable evidence out my back pocket or regaling you with emotive anecdotes.

In our family I wear one, my wife wears one, my kids no longer do in most circumstances. One of them finds it irritating and won't cycle with it, he ends up scratching his scalp as he's riding along, so for him it's less safe to wear one. Mostly they scrat about on their bikes, they don't need a helmet for that, mtn biking on trails is different, I just want them to use their bikes. I've gone to some lengths to explain the protection and limitations of helmets, I fear for anyone in authority who blithely tells them they should wear a helmet, they're likely to be blinded with informed opinion.


----------



## Smokin Joe (11 Sep 2010)

Crackle said:


> Show me the stats that prove the opposite, that before cycle helmets head injuries didn't exist. Certainly I'm not one of them. 30 years of cycling I've hit my head once, I fractured it, it hurt and I suffered with the effects for a good 18 months.
> 
> Both sides of this debate irritate me, it's a curious conundrum. On the one hand there's the luddite uninformed approach coupled with irrelevant statistical comparisons of entirely different risk groups (you all know who you are ) and on the other hand there's the other uninformed, a helmet will save your life, your culpable for not wearing one, my God how can you contemplate such a dangerous sport without a helmet group. I think the latter irritate me more but only slightly.


I didn't say there were no instances of head injuries prior to the introduction of helmets. What I said was if you looked at head injuries in racing, particularly professional racing where crashing is a regular occupational hazard that the number would statistically come up as zero, unless you were to start the figure with a decimal point. That's hardly an irrelevant statistic, but a very valid one.

There is no "Anti Helmet" brigade. I've never known anyone who chose to ride without one have a go at a helmet wearer by questioning and ridiculing their choice, those of us who chose not to don't care what you wear, we just want the same respect in return. We get irritated with the emotional blackmail from the evangelists who want to force everyone to wear one, and especially those who favour compulsion. This is why these threads run and run, you have to wonder why many of the pro helmet lobby try to force everyone into their way of thinking. Why not just live and let live and mind your own business at something that has no effect on you at all? (Not directed at you btw Crackle as you are not trying to force your views on anyone, but at those who are).


----------



## MacB (11 Sep 2010)

I'm not anti helmet, couldn't care less who wears one and I would wear one if I was doing proper off roading or racing in a group.

But I do fear compulsion creeping in and so find the anecdotal 'a helmet saved my life' crap to be really irritating. I can even understand compulsion for Sportives as I can envisage a lot of inexperienced racers trying to race.

I think LukesDad summed it up, assess your own risk and wear one if you're participating in any disciplines where you feel the risk warrants it.


----------



## screenman (11 Sep 2010)

I completely agree.


----------



## Crackle (11 Sep 2010)

Well I think we can all agree that we're anti-compulsion, I'd even stop wearing mine if it was made compulsory and I'm totally against this insidious creeping safety culture, I just want to bite people who repeat the mantra of safety when you can see there isn't a light on inside their head and they are just repeating word junk, surprising though how many otherwise bright people do this.

As for Sportives, it's probably an insurance thing. I bet if we all bigged up rotational injury and the chances of catching your chin strap in passing street furniture whilst gurning for the photographer, the insurance companies would forbid helmets.

I always end up posting in these threads, even though I swear I'm not going to.


----------



## Smokin Joe (11 Sep 2010)

Crackle said:


> I always end up posting in these threads, even though I swear I'm not going to.


I know the feeling


----------



## Fiona N (11 Sep 2010)

I reckon this debate is like religionists v. atheists. 

Helmet wearers (and especially compulsionists) being the equivalent of religionists, naturally, and trying to convert everyone else to their superstitions, whereas the atheists/non-helmet wearers (or mainly non-helmet wearers) don't actually care whether people wear helmets or not but do object to being lectured to by the former. Especially when the former claim greater insight/knowledge/morality etc. on the basis of their superstitions....



Now I will run away and hide for a few days


----------



## Threelionsbrian (11 Sep 2010)

Fiona N said:


> I reckon this debate is like religionists v. atheists.
> 
> Helmet wearers (and especially compulsionists) being the equivalent of religionists, naturally, and trying to convert everyone else to their superstitions, whereas the atheists/non-helmet wearers (or mainly non-helmet wearers) don't actually care whether people wear helmets or not but do object to being lectured to by the former. Especially when the former claim greater insight/knowledge/morality etc. on the basis of their superstitions....
> 
> ...





Surely the opposite, Religionists are off to a better place so don't worry about a helmet, whereas Atheists know better and wear one to hang around for a little longer.


----------



## Threelionsbrian (11 Sep 2010)

And no helmet burning threats


----------



## PpPete (11 Sep 2010)

Fiona N said:


> I reckon this debate is like religionists v. atheists.
> 
> Helmet wearers (and especially compulsionists) being the equivalent of religionists, naturally, and trying to convert everyone else to their superstitions, whereas the atheists/non-helmet wearers (or mainly non-helmet wearers) don't actually care whether people wear helmets or not but do object to being lectured to by the former. Especially when the former claim greater insight/knowledge/morality etc. on the basis of their superstitions....
> 
> ...



Disagree - reading this thread there are just as many helmet wearers who are decidely non-compulsionist ... they just don't post as often !


As for the anecdotal evidence .. I find it tiresome, because of its irrelevance.... but then I can't help noticing the comparative lack of anecdotal evidence from people who'se injuries have been more serious because they were wearing a helmet.


----------



## ferret fur (11 Sep 2010)

Hmm.... Anecdotal evidence... One of the things in the Helmet Debate I find most problematic is the idea that as adults we should rely on making an 'informed choice' as to whether or not to wear a helmet. Well, without wishing to sound like a fanatic (gribble) I have a passing acquaintance with the arguments ( I was going to say facts) involved. Enough to wonder how anyone can think they can be fully informed enough to make a choice. The research which is there is contradictory, unconvincing & subject to a lot of tendentious reasoning. Being someone who on the whole thinks it is better to wear a helmet I make no bones about the fact that I do it based on my experience as a cyclist (or anecdote), but I'm pretty darn sure that those who don't wear helmets do so on the same basis.
Let me put it this way. At some point in the debate Cunobelin will rock up with his 'cycling is safer than walking' diatribe & maybe present a picture of a ThudguardTM' . At this point I notice that 5 times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed each year & then I think, 'but on any given day I see _far_ more peds than cyclists': no idea how many but certainly significantly more than 5 times... I would thefore conclude that either the accident rates are misleading or I just don't notice all the cyclists out there. I can suggest some ideas as to why the figures are wrong but I've no way of knowing how valid they are. This before you start getting down to whether your own personal risk rate is above or below the average. What it boils down to is that I base my decsion on what I experience on the road every day..... or on anecdotes if you prefer.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Sep 2010)

Threelionsbrian said:


> And no helmet burning threats



Helmets don't even manage to do this well!

Helmet Melting threats are possible.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Sep 2010)

ferret fur said:


> Hmm.... Anecdotal evidence... One of the things in the Helmet Debate I find most problematic is the idea that as adults we should rely on making an 'informed choice' as to whether or not to wear a helmet. Well, without wishing to sound like a fanatic (gribble) I have a passing acquaintance with the arguments ( I was going to say facts) involved. Enough to wonder how anyone can think they can be fully informed enough to make a choice. The research which is there is contradictory, unconvincing & subject to a lot of tendentious reasoning. Being someone who on the whole thinks it is better to wear a helmet I make no bones about the fact that I do it based on my experience as a cyclist (or anecdote), but I'm pretty darn sure that those who don't wear helmets do so on the same basis.
> Let me put it this way. At some point in the debate Cunobelin will rock up with his 'cycling is safer than walking' diatribe & maybe present a picture of a ThudguardTM' . At this point I notice that 5 times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed each year & then I think, 'but on any given day I see _far_ more peds than cyclists': no idea how many but certainly significantly more than 5 times... I would thefore conclude that either the accident rates are misleading or I just don't notice all the cyclists out there. I can suggest some ideas as to why the figures are wrong but I've no way of knowing how valid they are. This before you start getting down to whether your own personal risk rate is above or below the average. What it boils down to is that I base my decsion on what I experience on the road every day..... or on anecdotes if you prefer.



...and the point that is missed is simple

If helmets work we would save 5 times as many people if pedestrians also wore helmets

Surely this is a worthwhile aim?

Is there some reason why pedestrian head injuries are somehow acceptable,less traumatic or have less effect on relatives and carers.


----------



## ferret fur (11 Sep 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> ...and the point that is missed is simple
> 
> If helmets work we would save 5 times as many people if pedestrians also wore helmets
> 
> ...



Nope. We are talking about relative risk: very few people die skydiving, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't wear a parachute. Lots of people die while walking. This, perhaps, is a function of the number of people who do it. The nub of the question is whether cycling is high risk enough to justify wearing a helmet. My own opinion is that it is & I base this on my everday experience. I would rather have incontrovertible fact either way. But it doesn't exist.


----------



## Hover Fly (12 Sep 2010)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Looks like you might be a bit late with the melon idea looking at these bad-ass dudes




Thats it. If helmets are ever made compulsory that's how mine will be painted. Or alternatively as a ladybird.


----------



## PalmerSperry (12 Sep 2010)

Hover Fly said:


> Thats it. If helmets are ever made compulsory that's how mine will be painted. Or alternatively as a ladybird.



How about making ones covered with a large wig? If enough people where to do this then eventually the police would get tired of stopping people who they thought where not wearing a helmet who actually where, and then we could all stop bothering!


----------



## screenman (12 Sep 2010)

It is funny how many non wearers of helmets wear track mits.


----------



## dellzeqq (12 Sep 2010)

Ride organisers (and that includes me) make rules. Some are sensible, some are not. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who look at the FNRttC rules (nothing on helmets, mind you) and think 'this isn't for me'. That's fine. If you don't like them, don't enter. There are plenty of events around. Just pick the ones that suit you.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Sep 2010)

ferret fur said:


> Nope. We are talking about relative risk: very few people die skydiving, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't wear a parachute. Lots of people die while walking. This, perhaps, is a function of the number of people who do it. The nub of the question is whether cycling is high risk enough to justify wearing a helmet. My own opinion is that it is & I base this on my everday experience. I would rather have incontrovertible fact either way. But it doesn't exist.




Exactly the point....

The question here is as a "Society" at what level do you impose _*your*_ assessment of risk on someone else.

The unequivocal fact is that as a population we could do more to alleviate head injuries by wearing pedestrian and driver helmets as well as cycle helmets. Yet we choose not to do so.... on the grounds that the "risk" is less. 

What we are saying here is that someone has a right to weigh up their risks and choose not to wear a helmet when walking or driving, but that same right is invalid and the same person becomes unable to make the same decisions for themselves when it comes to cycle helmets!

Total rank hypocrisy.... which really sums it up.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Sep 2010)

Hover Fly said:


> Thats it. If helmets are ever made compulsory that's how mine will be painted. Or alternatively as a ladybird.



Nogginsox helmet covers!


----------



## Smokin Joe (12 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> It is funny how many non wearers of helmets wear track mits.


Because those of us who have crashed without wearing track mitts know from experience that your hands will be painfully cut up.


----------



## screenman (12 Sep 2010)

Bit like a crash helmet does for your head, Hmmmm!


----------



## 4F (12 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Bit like a crash helmet does for your head, Hmmmm!



If you fall you instinctivly put your hands out to protect yourself, I have yet to fall and decided to use my head first as a form of protection.

I wear track mits with gel inserts for comfort on the bars rather than their obvious life saving properties.


----------



## 4F (12 Sep 2010)

Fiona N said:


> I reckon this debate is like religionists v. atheists.
> 
> Helmet wearers (and especially compulsionists) being the equivalent of religionists, naturally, and trying to convert everyone else to their superstitions, whereas the atheists/non-helmet wearers (or mainly non-helmet wearers) don't actually care whether people wear helmets or not but do object to being lectured to by the former. Especially when the former claim greater insight/knowledge/morality etc. on the basis of their superstitions....
> 
> Now I will run away and hide for a few days




No need to run Fiona, very well put


----------



## screenman (12 Sep 2010)

Sometimes you do not get a choice as to where your body parts end up.


----------



## Crackle (12 Sep 2010)

4F said:


> If you fall you instinctivly *put your hands out to protect yourself*, I have yet to fall and decided to use my head first as a form of protection.
> 
> I wear track mits with gel inserts for comfort on the bars rather than their obvious life saving properties.



Probably, 99% of the time, 1% of the time you have no time to react, Jens Voight crash 2009 TDF and another one which I can't find on Youtube which pretty much mimics my crash where a guy just slid suddenly on a bend, he didn't react at all and his head hit first. All of his teams negotiated the bend, more or less on the same line but for some reason his bike just went from under him. Wish I could find that now.


----------



## Smokin Joe (12 Sep 2010)

Crackle said:


> Probably, 99% of the time, 1% of the time you have no time to react, Jens Voight crash 2009 TDF and another one which I can't find on Youtube which pretty much mimics my crash where a guy just slid suddenly on a bend, he didn't react at all and his head hit first. All of his teams negotiated the bend, more or less on the same line but for some reason his bike just went from under him. Wish I could find that now.


Riders have been falling like that for years and escaping with a few cuts and bruises, it was nothing unusual and not particularly hard. Who's to say his head would have even made contact without a helmet on?


----------



## ferret fur (12 Sep 2010)

> Who's to say his head would have even made contact without a helmet on?



Isaac Newton


----------



## Over The Hill (12 Sep 2010)

TrevorM said:


> I have no legal knowledge but wonder what the legal position is. If someone was unable to wear a helmet for, let's say, religious reasons (e.g. Sikh) presumably they couldn't be refused entry as it would be discrimination.



Of course they could. If you are a sikh and feel that you cannot comply then you do not enter. Same as a woman who chooses to wear a burkah will not enter Miss World. 
Neither have a right to do whatever it is so therefore have to decide to not do it if it breaks there individual life choices. 

Next you will be saying alton towers is discriminating against short people for not allowing them on some rides. 

It is your own choice now just live with it. You will be marginalised but that is up to you.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Sep 2010)

Over The Hill said:


> Of course they could. If you are a sikh and feel that you cannot comply then you do not enter. Same as a woman who chooses to wear a burkah will not enter Miss World.
> Neither have a right to do whatever it is so therefore have to decide to not do it if it breaks there individual life choices.




Totally untrue.....

Sikhs are exempt from helmet laws and you would in fact be commiting an offence to exclude them on these grounds!

They do have a right to enter and it is a religious choice not a lifestyle one.


----------



## Crackle (12 Sep 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> Riders have been falling like that for years and escaping with a few cuts and bruises, it was nothing unusual and not particularly hard. Who's to say his head would have even made contact without a helmet on?



The crash nearly put him out the sport his face hit with such force. I don't think the helmet played much of a part in his crash but my point was that his head hit first, with little time to react and no chance of getting his hands out. OK he was racing but for the same thing to happen to any of us you just need an unforeseen event. I hit a giant nut off a lorry once, in the dark, doing about 20mph. Over the bars I went and sliding along on my back, bike on top of me. Another time a cat shot between my wheels, in neither instance did I have time to react. There have been plenty of other times where I've had minor accidents where I have had time to react but the time you're most likely to hit your head is when you go base over apex and on a bike your centre of gravity is much more against you when this happens and your speed makes reaction much more unlikely.

That said, I fully take your point, the chances of you actually getting a serious head injury from that are fairly small but the consequences are so much greater if you do. Cunobelin is often keen to point out how bad pedestrian head injuries can be, well as cyclists we're generally doing two, three, four times the speed, with a higher centre of gravity, hence the greater consequence if we do bash the noggin. I don't see wearing a helmet as too much of a burden for what is a small risk, given my history (I'm not accident prone honest), nor am I expecting it to save my life, just prevent a more serious injury.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Sep 2010)

Crackle said:


> The crash nearly put him out the sport his face hit with such force.



Does support the British Dental Association's suggestions for redesign of helmets full face helmets as standard.


----------



## Crackle (12 Sep 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Does support the British Dental Association's suggestions for redesign of helmets full face helmets as standard.




I knew you'd type that. Of course downhill racers do but for the rest of us, cooling might be an issue, along with peripheral vision so it's a slightly laughable proposition from the BDA unless they're trying to pass on business to casualty units and lighten their load.


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Sep 2010)

Crackle said:


> I knew you'd type that. Of course downhill racers do but for the rest of us, cooling might be an issue, along with peripheral vision so it's a slightly laughable proposition from the BDA unless they're trying to pass on business to casualty units and lighten their load.



Naughty.... Cooling and being hot / uncomfortable are factors you are not allowed to use when deciding on helmets.

The BDA is absolutely bang on though, facial injuries are serious and should be reduced. 

Again it is a problem with the pro-helmet lobby, who try and suggest that we have no right to ignore "medical advice", and are then selective selective as to which we should observe.

Any doctor / nurse / cleaner in A/E says we should wear a helmet,and we are "fools" to ignore his personal opinion, yet when a peer reviewed and evidenced paper suggests something like full face helmets then its OK to ignore it?

Should we observe the "medical evidence" or ignore it... you can't have it both ways


----------



## Crackle (13 Sep 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Naughty.... Cooling and being hot / uncomfortable are factors you are not allowed to use when deciding on helmets.
> 
> The BDA is absolutely bang on though, facial injuries are serious and should be reduced.
> 
> ...



Facial injuries are serious, cracking a rib and puncturing a lung is serious, in fact there are a host of serious injuries, I would hope to recover from most of them, I may not recover from a serious brain injury though, even a simple one can affect you for a long time, so there is much more of a case for wearing a helmet only rather than full body armour, so yes you can have it both ways. Anyway I'd like to see the context of the BDA's recommendation, any link?


----------



## Mark_Robson (13 Sep 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Should we observe the "medical evidence" or ignore it... you can't have it both ways


You promote the BDA's stance on full face helmets because it somehow suits your argument yet you choose to ignore the BMA's stance on standard helmets because it doesn't suit your argument?


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Sep 2010)

Crackle said:


> Facial injuries are serious, cracking a rib and puncturing a lung is serious, in fact there are a host of serious injuries, I would hope to recover from most of them, I may not recover from a serious brain injury though, even a simple one can affect you for a long time, so there is much more of a case for wearing a helmet only rather than full body armour, so yes you can have it both ways. Anyway I'd like to see the context of the BDA's recommendation, any link?




Bicycle Helmets 1 - Does the dental profession have a role in promoting their use? Chapman HR, Curran ALM. British Dental Journal 2004;196(9):555-560.

You can google, but will need access of some sort to rad the full paper

Interesting paper as it is being used by Headway to promote compulsion!


----------



## Crackle (13 Sep 2010)

I just had a look at the Headway site: Selective sh!te. Spare me from do gooders.


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Sep 2010)

Mark_Robson said:


> You promote the BDA's stance on full face helmets because it somehow suits your argument yet you choose to ignore the BMA's stance on standard helmets because it doesn't suit your argument?



Not promotion, I simply present this one as another example of the hypocrisy of the pro helmet lobby and the selective way that medical evidence is used.

Same as the Thudguard, the evidence of health care professionals is meaningless as it undermines a cycle helmet agenda

My "agenda" is simple.......

If you believe that helmets work and should be worn then:


The BMA stance is inadequate and does not go far enough.... As I have pointed out it does not cover most preventable head injuries.


My agenda is greater helmet use. I have suggested that there is evidence for pedestrian helmets and for driver helmets. (There are also lots of nice juicy anecdotes and stories of vegetables sucking soup through straws)

I also promote a meaningful and worthwhile level of protection as opposed to the useless EN1078 that is banned elsewhere in the world as inadequate

I have asked why there is no scrutineering of helmets by Sportive organisers, but apparently there is none - so no real concept of safety

Don't get your agendas twisted....


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Sep 2010)

Crackle said:


> I just had a look at the Headway site: Selective sh!te. Spare me from do gooders.



Including the same old trick of implying that ALL cycle injuries can be prevented by helmets!



> It is estimated that 90,000 on-road and 100,000 off-road cycling accidents occur every year in the UK, of which 53%(100,000) involve children under 16.



But then agaiin this is a respected charity and is on the side of the pro compulsionist.


----------



## ferret fur (13 Sep 2010)

> My agenda is greater helmet use. I have suggested that there is evidence for pedestrian helmets and for driver helmets.



No. Your agenda is that you don't want to wear a cycle helmet. As a result you are prepared to repeatedly trot out an argument that you don't actually believe in and which everyone else recognizes as specious.


----------



## Ravenbait (13 Sep 2010)

I had an injury that was made worse by wearing a helmet. I don't post on these threads because "anecdote" is not the same as "science" and frankly I've heard it all before a squillion times and I'm sick to the back teeth of it. It did, however, change me from a default helmet-wearer to a cyclist who wears a helmet only for off-road or when required ot by race regulations because the only time I've had a serious head or neck injury when falling off my bike has been when I was wearing a lid.

But far be it from me to insist that my experience should inform anyone else. It informs me, and that's quite enough.

Sam


----------



## screenman (13 Sep 2010)

Very interesting read Sam, what happened and how can you be certain that the helmet caused further injury.


----------



## 4F (13 Sep 2010)

screenman said:


> Very interesting read Sam, what happened and how can you be certain that the helmet caused further injury.




Rotational injury caused by the helmet being snagged by one of the vents if my memory from the old C+ days is correct.


----------



## screenman (13 Sep 2010)

Is it possible the item that snagged the vent might have snagged a nice soft piece of skin instead and caused the same problem? Just wondering.


----------



## Crackle (13 Sep 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> But far be it from me to insist that my experience should inform anyone else. *It informs me*, and that's quite enough.
> 
> Sam



Indeed. Funny isn't it, I can read this stuff until my eyes shrivel but ultimately, like you, my own experience is my guide.


----------



## Ravenbait (13 Sep 2010)

4F said:


> Rotational injury caused by the helmet being snagged by one of the vents if my memory from the old C+ days is correct.



Was just the side of the lid, not the vent. It was a very low speed fall and, from experience in similar crashes when not wearing a lid, I wouldn't have hit my head at all if I hadn't been wearing it.

The result was an injury to the disc in my neck that took a lot of physio and time to put right.

How do I know? My opinion and the physio's opinion. For sure, if you wish to be pedantic, I can't be 100% certain that the injury wouldn't have been worse without it, any more than anyone can be 100% certain that his helmet saved his life in different circumstances; but I was there (and the physio treated my injury) and therefore have more data on which to form an opinion than anyone who wasn't. I'm not using my experience to tell anyone else what to do, however, merely demonstrating that there is at least one cyclist who has gone from wearing a helmet to not wearing one after being injured while wearing it.

Sam


----------



## Ravenbait (13 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 1170308"]
Indeed, nice bit of your scalp and cranium all over the road.
[/quote]

Broken skin heals a helluva lot faster than a damaged disc. I'd rather have had a severe scalp bleed (pain heals, chicks dig scars, glory lasts forever).

Sam


----------



## 4F (13 Sep 2010)

Ravenbait said:


> merely demonstrating that there is at least one cyclist who has gone from wearing a helmet to not wearing one after being injured while wearing it.
> 
> Sam



There is another person who posts on Cycle Chat who also has first hand of rotational injury just as you described through wearing a helmet, however they don't often get drawn into the helmet debate threads.


----------



## adscrim (13 Sep 2010)

It is of course possible for a helmet to have a positive effect on rotational forces just as it can have a negative effect; highlighting the problem with most of the studies that are quoted for and against - no two accidents can be said to be the same because they did not happen under standardised conditions.

Having said that, most of the 'evidence' that is used in research would appear to be suggesting, to the researchers at least (such as last years study by Hynd where currently available information was used), that helmets are the way forward and I wouldn't be too surprised to see helmet compulsion introduced in the not too distant future.

Helmet wearer, non-compulsionist.


----------



## MacB (13 Sep 2010)

last night a DJ saved my life


----------



## Kestevan (13 Sep 2010)

Hang The DJ


----------



## 4F (13 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 1170315"]
Have we reached an agreement yet?
[/quote]


Yep, where do you want your thudguard posted to ?


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Sep 2010)

ferret fur said:


> No. Your agenda is that you don't want to wear a cycle helmet. As a result you are prepared to repeatedly trot out an argument that you don't actually believe in and which everyone else recognizes as specious.



You have absolutely no idea whatsoever about whether I do (or do not) wear a helmet - so that is a very silly post indeed.


----------



## ferret fur (13 Sep 2010)

> You have absolutely no idea whatsoever about whether I do (or do not) wear a helmet



So.... Do you wear a helmet?


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Sep 2010)

ferret fur said:


> So.... Do you wear a helmet?



Totally irrelevant.....


----------



## ferret fur (13 Sep 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Totally irrelevant.....



I laid a bet with myself and just won. There was of course no chance that you would answer the question.

Actually it isn't totally irrelevant because if you don't wear a helmet then I am justified in questioning the tendentious manner in which you conduct the argument. If you do wear a helmet it would be interesting to see why you do given what you have repeatedly said. 

Tell you what I'll let you into a little secret that I haven't told _anyone. _I do wear a helmet.


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Sep 2010)

The reason it is irrelevant is simple....

I wear a full face Snell rated helmet with no snag points, following the suggestions of the "rounder smoother safer" campaign in the US.

Or do I?

Will you ever be able to prove otherwise?


----------



## ferret fur (13 Sep 2010)

As I said. There was no chance you would answer the question. I think we will leave everyone to draw thier own conclusions.


----------



## MacB (13 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 1170327"]
Do you think helmets save lives FF?
[/quote]

No, next?


----------



## ferret fur (13 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 1170327"]
Do you think helmets save lives FF?
[/quote]

Yes, but I have no idea how many:
But less than the pro-compulsion lobby think. More than the anti-helmeteers would give credit for.


----------



## MacB (13 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 1170329"]
I wasn't asking you but since you feel the need to answer - have you got any proof that backs up the above?
[/quote]

Nope


----------



## threebikesmcginty (13 Sep 2010)

MacB said:


> Nope



I haven't either, if that helps.


----------



## MacB (13 Sep 2010)

threebikesmcginty said:


> I haven't either, if that helps.



I was still trying to work out if the whole world was just my fevered imagination, but could I come up with something as weird as 3BM?


----------



## Crackle (13 Sep 2010)

MacB said:


> I was still trying to work out if the whole world was just my fevered imagination, but could I come up with something as weird as 3BM?



Blimey! that's rich isn't it 3BM.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (13 Sep 2010)

Crackle said:


> Blimey! that's rich isn't it 3BM.



I'm taking it as a compliment.


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 1170324"]
Cunobelin is the founder, and only, member of the Lee On Solent Elmet Renegades Cycle Club. He has a special helmet which he bought at the Barnardos charity shop in Stubbington, he has painted it the same colour as his hair,at least it would be if his hair was blue, complete with wavy effect.

There is a regular club meeting in the meeting room at the Bluebird cafe, although this rarely happens as he doesn't get home from work until after the cafe has shut.
[/quote]


The NHS is a hard task master!


----------



## jimboalee (14 Sep 2010)

No helmet - hair goes 'sticky-uppy' uniformally.

Helmet - triple Mohican.


----------



## PpPete (14 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 1170324"]
Cunobelin is the founder, and only, member of the Lee On Solent Elmet Renegades Cycle Club. He has a special helmet which he bought at the Barnardos charity shop in Stubbington, he has painted it the same colour as his hair,at least it would be if his hair was blue, complete with wavy effect.

There is a regular club meeting in the meeting room at the Bluebird cafe, although this rarely happens as he doesn't get home from work until after the cafe has shut.
[/quote]

And therein lies the problem.... my kids tell me that the Penguins cafe, two doors down from the Bluebird, has the better ice creams. They should know, their grandmother takes them to both !


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Sep 2010)

porkypete said:


> And therein lies the problem.... my kids tell me that the Penguins cafe, two doors down from the Bluebird, has the better ice creams. They should know, their grandmother takes them to both !



New Forest as opposed to the "Whippy" - No choice....


----------



## jimboalee (15 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 1170343"]
Without wanting to go far off topic.......

I went for a curry one night with a mate, in the curry house on Lee on Solent 'pier'. Now we were a bit pissed, and when his arrived he dished up the rice, added the curry.... then the waiter arrived with a plate  He had dished his food straight onto the tablecloth  They were very good about it and saw the funny side. 

Nice curry house though.
[/quote]


Plate,,, table cloth?? Blimey, that's posh.

It's suppose to arrive at the table in a Hindustan Ambassador ( Morris Oxford if not available in UK ) hub cap WITHOUT rice but with a naan the size of a skateboard ( size two. Size one is a frisbee and size three is a wakeboard ).
Knives and forks don't exist, you've got fingers, haven't you?


----------



## snorri (17 Sep 2010)

http://momentumplanet.com/videos/australian-wins-helmet-law-case


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Sep 2010)

snorri said:


> http://momentumplane...helmet-law-case



Very interesting case........


However it will simply be dismissed by the compulsionistas - you are not allowed to talk about the shortcomings in helmet design and how they can be improved!


----------



## Smokin Joe (18 Sep 2010)

Cunobelin said:


> Very interesting case........
> 
> 
> However it will simply be dismissed by the compulsionistas - you are not allowed to talk about the shortcomings in helmet design and how they can be improved!


And of course someone will pop up to triumphantly exclaim how he has just beaten himself over the head with a mallet while wearing a helmet and has suffered nothing more than mild concussion, then invite you to do the same on your bare head...


----------



## PpPete (18 Sep 2010)

Joe.... and Cunobelin

I'm (usually) a helmet wearer, but absolutely, always, and firmly a non-compulsionist. I just don't think you are doing the anti-compulsionist argument any good with those last two posts. They come across like you both have massive chips on one (or both) shoulders....


Oh yes... and I fully support all discussion of how we can get helmet safety standards improved.


----------



## TrevorM (18 Sep 2010)

snorri said:


> http://momentumplane...helmet-law-case



Interesting indeed. It's encouraging to see cracks appearing at this level in the 'helmets save lives' nonsense.

Based on this case it's probably only a matter of time before a cyclist with this type of injury sues the Australian government for putting their life at risk with this law against medical evidence.

It's given me an idea (going all the way back to the topic of this thread). If, like me, you are anti-compulsion then write to the organisers of each event you enter where helmets are compulsary with something like....

"You should be aware that here is a legitimate debate being waged by international medical and transportation experts regarding the safety and risks associated with helmet use. In particular there may be greater risk of brain damage from ''diffuse external injury'' (cite the appropriate studies). The purpose of this letter is to make you aware that by making helmet use compulsary you may be exposing participants, including myself, to a greater risk of injury. Should this occur, as you have been notified of the risks in advance, my lawyers will be in contact."


----------



## Smokin Joe (18 Sep 2010)

porkypete said:


> Joe.... and Cunobelin
> 
> I'm (usually) a helmet wearer, but absolutely, always, and firmly a non-compulsionist. I just don't think you are doing the anti-compulsionist argument any good with those last two posts. They come across like you both have massive chips on one (or both) shoulders....
> 
> ...


We have no chips on our shoulders Porkypete, I would defend anyone's right to wear a helmet and I have never criticised anyone who does. What irritates those of us who chose not to wear one is the significant minority who are either in favour of compulsion or come out with emotive moral blackmail to try and force everyone to do the same as them.

Live and let live brothers.


----------



## MacB (23 Sep 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> We have no chips on our shoulders Porkypete, I would defend anyone's right to wear a helmet and I have never criticised anyone who does. What irritates those of us who chose not to wear one is the significant minority who are either in favour of compulsion or come out with *emotive moral blackmail* to try and force everyone to do the same as them.
> 
> Live and let live brothers.



I think that hits to the heart of the problem


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Sep 2010)

MacB said:


> I think that hits to the heart of the problem



Hits the nail on the head?????


----------

