# Helemt or not??



## Bugner (18 Jul 2008)

I am a relative newbie here and have just been reading the thread re the newspaper article. 

There seems to be a lot of people that despise helmets?? WHY?

I realise that wearing a helmet is a personal choice, but I really can't understand the opinions of the anti-helmet brigade??

Statements of there is no proof and that helmets increase safety and they can in fact cause additional injuries (yet no proof of that either)

Surely, simple logic suggests that a helmet offer some sort of additional protection

For example, if you were to drop a cricket ball from 3 feet onto someone with a helmet and someone with out, who is going to come of worse??

or if you were to run and headbutt a wall, again who is going to suffer more of an injury.

Also if the headgear is such a waste of time, why do all tour-de-france cyclists wear them, surely they add extra weight and increase drag?

I would be interested to know why some people are so anti-helmets? and if was to become compulsory, would you ignore the law and take a fine each time caught, or stop cycling out of principal??

I would be interested in peoples opinions.

PS. I do wear a helmet


----------



## BentMikey (18 Jul 2008)

*sigh*

Go adn read www.cyclehelmets.org for evidence both for and against. Helmets are a peculiarly US and UK thing, for something that is as safe as walking.


----------



## spindrift (18 Jul 2008)

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/


----------



## Bugner (18 Jul 2008)

Mikey, apologies if this has been done to death for the Senior members, but as a newbie, I am interested and maybe after looking at your link (thanks by the way) i may stop wearing mine?!?!


----------



## BentMikey (18 Jul 2008)

I wouldn't say stop wearing it, but definitely read up on the issues. One thing that's not debated much is that helmets are probably quite good at preventing scalp lacerations and other minor injuries. That could be reason enough for some, but me, I'm most worried about serious head injuries, and that's where helmets are *very* controversial.


----------



## Disgruntled Goat (18 Jul 2008)

I have yet to hear someone who has had an accident say that they would have been worse off if they had worn a helmet.

But then again it's pretty difficult to make out what they say since there congnative abilities have been impaired.


----------



## snapper_37 (18 Jul 2008)

2 fairly nasty accidents, 2 split helmets. 1 head still intact.

Enough for me to keep on loving a helmet 

Each to their own and that.


----------



## domtyler (18 Jul 2008)

I find the above site has the distinct air of a propaganda site, some man on mission, a single issue kind of thing. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but certainly not somewhere to find a balanced argument.


----------



## John the Monkey (18 Jul 2008)

Read up on it, make your mind up. I have no problem with your decision either way.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Jul 2008)

Disgruntled Goat said:


> I have yet to hear someone who has had an accident say that they would have been worse off if they had worn a helmet.
> 
> But then again it's pretty difficult to make out what they say since there congnative abilities have been impaired.



You can't say that any more - Ravenbait posted about her neck injuries sustained in a crash as a result of her helmet.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Jul 2008)

domtyler said:


> I find the above site has the distinct air of a propaganda site, some man on mission, a single issue kind of thing. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but certainly not somewhere to find a balanced argument.



LMAO - when you compare the numbers of pro-helmet studies versus the number of sceptical ones listed and discussed on the site. Don't be silly, they do a great job of showing the pro-evidence as well as the rest.


----------



## dodgy (18 Jul 2008)

Bugner said:


> Also if the headgear is such a waste of time, why do all tour-de-france cyclists wear them, surely they add extra weight and increase drag?



They don't get a choice.

Dave.


----------



## numbnuts (18 Jul 2008)

do whatever floats your boat


----------



## domtyler (18 Jul 2008)

BentMikey said:


> LMAO - when you compare the numbers of pro-helmet studies versus the number of sceptical ones listed and discussed on the site. Don't be silly, they do a great job of showing the pro-evidence as well as the rest.



So you are saying that the site is totally non-biased?


----------



## BentMikey (18 Jul 2008)

Of course not, but it's about the most neutral out there. FFS, some of the authors behind the site are ardent helmet wearers. Unfortunately many pro-helmeteer religionistas don't like anyone to discuss the evidence against helmets, and thus call the site biased.


----------



## 4F (18 Jul 2008)

The choice really is yours and if you feel safer by wearing one then wear one.

Personally I feel that the level of protection they provide is minimal and am prepared to take my chances.


----------



## domtyler (18 Jul 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> The choice really is yours and *if you feel safer by wearing one then wear one*.
> 
> Personally I feel that the level of protection they provide is minimal and am prepared to take my chances.



That is the epitome of bad advice 4F. I'll explain why. Anything that makes you feel safer while not doing anything to actually increase your safety will actually make you far less safe due to the risk compensation involved.


----------



## domtyler (18 Jul 2008)

BentMikey said:


> Of course not, but it's about the most neutral out there. FFS, some of the authors behind the site are ardent helmet wearers. Unfortunately many pro-helmeteer religionistas don't like anyone to discuss the evidence against helmets, and thus call the site biased.



Mikey, this time you are this ========> WRONG.


I haven't worn a helmet for years and I can still see a biased web site when I see one. Whether other sites are more or less biased than this one is is not relevant to my statement.


----------



## 4F (18 Jul 2008)

domtyler said:


> That is the epitome of bad advice 4F. I'll explain why. Anything that makes you feel safer while not doing anything to actually increase your safety will actually make you far less safe due to the risk compensation involved.



I disagree. The advantages of cycling far outweigh not cycling in the health stakes and therefore if the OP is more likely to ride a bike whilst wearing a helmet than not, then they should wear a helmet.


----------



## dondare (18 Jul 2008)

"Distrust any enterprise that requires new clothes" - Henry Thoreau.

If cyclists dress like downhill skiers it sets them apart from the crowd, and the crowd then distrust cyclists and bikes. Wearing a helmet and lycra turns you into an object of ridicule and scorn, even if you look damn' good in them. Even if you wear everyday clothes and don the helmet when you're on the bike, it still makes you look different enough. Actually I'm not too bothered by what people think of me personally, but I am concerned by anything that makes cyclists look like fringe people, because it enhances prejudices and discourages people from cycling, and we all benefit if cycling is seen as an everyday activity that normal people can do rather than a peculiar eccentricity. One of the biggest problems with helmet wearing is that it reinforces the myth that cycling is dangerous, and that myth can do us a lot of harm. Cyclists who are involved in accidents are often blamed because they "knew the risks". Cyclists who don't wear helmets are accused of putting an unacceptable burden on the NHS and making the poor innocent motorists who kill them feel bad, the selfish bastards! 
In reality normal cycle commuting and touring are as safe as walking. Cycle sports and some forms of recreation have higher risks associated with them so a helmet might be advisable, or even compulsory for participants.


----------



## Twenty Inch (18 Jul 2008)

Most people focus on the post-accident effects of a helmet. One of the most interesting studies of recent years is the 2006 Bath study that shows that motorists pass closer when the cyclist is wearing a helmet. In other words, helmets can make collisions more likely.


----------



## Riding in Circles (18 Jul 2008)

I hear that in Scotland, woks are becoming popular as an alternative to cycle helmets.


----------



## domtyler (18 Jul 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> I disagree. The advantages of cycling far outweigh not cycling in the health stakes and therefore if the OP is more likely to ride a bike whilst wearing a helmet than not, then they should wear a helmet.



I must admit you have a very good point there, and we all know that the more cyclists there are on the roads the safer they will be for all of us!


----------



## domtyler (18 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> I hear that in Scotland, woks are becoming popular as an alternative to cycle helmets.



Woks or chip pans?


----------



## Riding in Circles (18 Jul 2008)

I rarely wear one and if I do then it is for warmth and visibility, but then I have three wheels.


----------



## domtyler (18 Jul 2008)

User1314 said:


> I'd love to go helmetless, with just a cap.
> 
> I'm fed up with a sweaty head, even with a bandana underneath.
> 
> ...



It is an easy habit to break, just forget it a few times and you'll be one of us!


----------



## Riding in Circles (18 Jul 2008)

domtyler said:


> Woks or chip pans?



Definitely woks, wide brimmed and big enough for a head and a camera.


----------



## dondare (18 Jul 2008)

In spite of my opinion that helmets are unnecessary because serious accidents are not more common among cyclists than any other group, I do sometimes wear one if I am travelling on a stretch of road which is so poorly desgned that it increases the risk of an accident. It isn't that I believe the helmet will do the slightest bit of good if I'm hit from behind by a speeding car, it's that I don't want the driver to be able claim contributary negligence. I'd sooner see all reference to cycle helmets removed from the Highway Code.


----------



## snorri (18 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> I hear that in Scotland, woks are becoming popular as an alternative to cycle helmets.



You heard correctly.
The acrid fumes given off when heated make cycle helmets quite impractical.


----------



## Cab (18 Jul 2008)

dondare said:


> In spite of my opinion that helmets are unnecessary because serious accidents are not more common among cyclists than any other group, I do sometimes wear one if I am travelling on a stretch of road which is so poorly desgned that it increases the risk of an accident. *It isn't that I believe the helmet will do the slightest bit of good if I'm hit from behind by a speeding car, it's that I don't want the driver to be able claim contributary negligence.* I'd sooner see all reference to cycle helmets removed from the Highway Code.



(hilighted bit that I think is sadly very true)

Its simply spurious to claim that there is a clear advantage in wearing a helmet. Leaving aside, for the moment, the argument that making people wear helmets discourages people from cycling (as its irrelevent to my individual decision) the biggest problem we face is that if you end up as witness in court to an accident in which you've been hit, and you weren't wearing a helmet, the prosecutor will use that against you. And many a judge will believe that this is evidence of being irresponsible. And yes, its barking mad, but thats how it is.

If it is appropriate for cyclists to wear helmets to ride, say, three miles, then pedestrians (who suffer a similar rate of head injury per unit distance travelled) should also wear helmets for walking, say, three miles. No one believes that they should; the problem is that there is such a widely held, popular misconception that cycle helmets are _obviously_ good.

The solution? Well, the only one I can think of is to encourage more people to cycle. This misconception only works because most people aren't cyclists.


----------



## Wolf04 (18 Jul 2008)

I've often wondered about the TdF and whether helmets being made compulsory has had any effect on injuries. Seems to me it would be a pretty good model for a study. They seem to have enough accidents to demonstrate any helmet effect either pro or con.
Pete


----------



## Origamist (18 Jul 2008)

I prefer a pumpkin - if it's good enough for a PTW rider, then it's good enough for me (I do worry about the stalk and rotational forces though).


----------



## domtyler (18 Jul 2008)

Wolf04 said:


> I've often wondered about the TdF and whether helmets being made compulsory has had any effect on injuries. Seems to me it would be a pretty good model for a study. They seem to have enough accidents to demonstrate any helmet effect either pro or con.
> Pete



Bunch riding is an entirely different matter surely?


----------



## John the Monkey (18 Jul 2008)

Wolf04 said:


> I've often wondered about the TdF and whether helmets being made compulsory has had any effect on injuries. Seems to me it would be a pretty good model for a study. They seem to have enough accidents to demonstrate any helmet effect either pro or con.


Arguably not, because their crashes aren't with motor vehicles, for the most part.


----------



## spindrift (18 Jul 2008)

Do as the elefunt does:


----------



## Wolf04 (18 Jul 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> Arguably not, because their crashes aren't with motor vehicles, for the most part.



Don't remember reading any convincing evidence showing helmets have much effect when motor vehicles are brought into the equation .


----------



## spindrift (18 Jul 2008)

Helmets work best at walking-speed topples.


----------



## Tynan (18 Jul 2008)

for any accident that knocks you off your bike there's going to be a meeting with the tarmac that may involve cracking your head into the road, I've done that in crash helmets and cycle helmets and been damn happy I was wearing them at the time, that's me, being crushed by a bus isn't the helmet's fault, it's there to help my skull in situations where it might help my skull, I think the adverse risks are relatively minimal


----------



## magnatom (18 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> I hear that in Scotland, woks are becoming popular as an alternative to cycle helmets.



If I remember correctly. every time you say wok, I have an extra fiver off a POV.1, is that right. I must be down to about £470 now, keep going...


----------



## domtyler (18 Jul 2008)

Tynan said:


> for any accident that knocks you off your bike there's going to be a meeting with the tarmac that may involve cracking your head into the road, I've done that in crash helmets and cycle helmets and been damn happy I was wearing them at the time, that's me, being crushed by a bus isn't the helmet's fault, it's there to help my skull in situations where it might help my skull, I think the adverse risks are relatively minimal



In that case I assume that you wear one while walking along roads too?


----------



## yello (18 Jul 2008)

wok


----------



## Bugner (18 Jul 2008)

Surely using the pedestrian argument is farcical based on number of accidents compared to number of pedestrians!?

Having read the info in the link, some of the information gives food for thought, but it does seem that there is a bias towards not wearing.

But what I still can't understand is the emotions that arise from the debate and statements that wearing helmets puts people off riding bikes.

To those non helmet riders, would you stop riding if helmets were made compulsory??


----------



## Bokonon (18 Jul 2008)

Bugner said:


> To those non helmet riders, would you stop riding if helmets were made compulsory??



No, but I am already a cyclist. Compulsion would, I think, decrease the number of people converting to cycling:

a) It would deter those that don't want to look like a mushroom headed cyclist.

 At the bottom end of the scale a person can become a cyclist with the purchase of a £50 bike - adding £20 to this cost for a helmet is a significant percent increase in initial outlay which some people may not want to justify.


----------



## Riding in Circles (18 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> If I remember correctly. every time you say wok, I have an extra fiver off a POV.1, is that right. I must be down to about £470 now, keep going...



I think you have fallen off once too often.


----------



## snorri (18 Jul 2008)

Bugner said:


> But what I still can't understand is the emotions that arise from the debate and statements that wearing helmets puts people off riding bikes.



I think emotions run high because there are great misconceptions regarding the effectiveness of helmets. 
You just have to read the newspaper reports of a child being hurt in a cycle accident where so often the report focusses on whether or not the child was wearing a helmet. Seldom are we told if the bicycle was in a good state of repair, brakes, steering etc., of road or path conditions at the time, was the child 'messing about', performing stunts, or cycling strictly in accordance with the law. Actions could often be taken to prevent similar accidents in future, but the press appear not to be interested in accident prevention, but for reasons best known to themselves feel that cyclists should be encased in armour. Up and coming cyclists who have not read any of the helmet research papers will be influenced by this misinformation in the press and feel it is 'common sense' to wear a helmet. If these people had been fed the truth regarding cycle casualty statistics they would realise the possibility of crashing is low and the possibility of crashing on your head at a slow enough speed for the helmet to protect you is extremely remote.
In life we are constantly assessing risk and deciding to live with it , avoid it, or protect ourselves against it, but I think most utility cyclists will take much greater risks in life than cycling without a helmet.
Apart from the expense, the sheer inconvenience and discomfort of having to wear special clothing for cycling and storage of clothing at destination is obviously a disincentive to cycle usage.


----------



## magnatom (18 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> I think you have fallen off once too often.



...but you didn't mention wok....


----------



## dondare (18 Jul 2008)

Bugner said:


> Surely using the pedestrian argument is farcical based on number of accidents compared to number of pedestrians!?
> 
> Having read the info in the link, some of the information gives food for thought, but it does seem that there is a bias towards not wearing.
> 
> ...




There are more pedestrians and more pedestrian casualties so absolute numbers are no use in themselves. However, it is possible to work out how many accidents the average pedestrian has per mile and how many accidents the average cyclist has per mile and compare the two figures; and against all expectation cycling turns out to be safer. If you want to research this for yourself, feel free. If you want to think why pedestrians (how can they get run over on the footpath? I don't understand!) are more at risk than cyclists (in the road with traffic so bound to get killed) then just do that: think about it. 
The reason why some people get cross about it is that we don't want compulsion, we don't want cycling to be regarded as a such dangerous activity that it requires protective clothing, we don't want cyclists who don't wear helmets as being seen by everyone as supremely selfish sociopaths who swamp the NHS with their self inflicted brain damage and we don't want motorists who can't be bothered to look where they're going to have a get-out clause if they kill someone. 

Excuse me, I'm not in a good mood right now.


----------



## Wolf04 (18 Jul 2008)

Nicely said Dondare & Snorri.


----------



## andyfromotley (18 Jul 2008)

i dont care what others do, as with rlj do what you think is best. Sometimes i do sometimes i dont, but i think its all very interesting, untill i apply the common sense test. Common sense tells me that it must be safer. I think those arguing against are doing so for a variety of reasons. But common sense tell me its safer.

andy


----------



## jonesy (18 Jul 2008)

Bugner said:


> Surely using the pedestrian argument is farcical based on number of accidents compared to number of pedestrians!?
> 
> Having read the info in the link, some of the information gives food for thought, but it does seem that there is a bias towards not wearing.
> 
> ...



As others have pointed out, the emotion arises because there is a very active lobby group in favour of compulsion, and most of us are in favour of free choice in the matter. I usually do wear one for my daily commute, but not when popping down to the local shop on quiet streets, or when heading off for a gentle ride on the local off-road cycle routes. Having to wear a helmet by law under all circumstances makes cycling that bit more inconvenient, and will put off the casual cyclist or potential cyclist. 

If you haven't already done so I suggest you visit somewhere like Oxford or Cambridge where cycling is a normal mode of transport for getting round town. People ride their bikes between lectures, to work, to go out to the pub with their friends; they ride in normal clothes and aren't having a shower and change at the end of their fairly short trips. Having to wear a helmet will mess your hair up; something that doesn't particularly bother me but will deter a lot of people from those sort of journeys, especially women. Carrying a helmet round with you for a night out isn't going to be very convenient. These things all matter if you want cycling to be a normal mode of transport for normal people, rather than something restricted to enthusiasts or those making longer trips and expecting to have a wash and change of clothes etc at the end of it. In Australia cycle use went down when helmets were made compulsory; I fear the impact would be even worse in places like Oxford where helmets really aren't compatible with the sort of everyday cycling you see there.


----------



## Bugner (18 Jul 2008)

Thanks for all the reasoned responses. as a newbie the 'common sense' helmets must be safer is my 1st thought, but there are some valid points against.

I have been commuting to London, 12 miles each way for a couple of months with helmet and had a couple of close shaves, might try a few trips without to see if drivers attitudes and actions differ!?!


----------



## jonesy (18 Jul 2008)

Bugner said:


> ...
> 
> I have been commuting to London, 12 miles each way for a couple of months with helmet and had a couple of close shaves, might try a few trips without to see if drivers attitudes and actions differ!?!



I'm not convinced that you will be able to assess that scientifically... if you prefer wearing a helmet then don't feel you need to defend that choice, or that you need to ride without to conform to perceived peer pressure. The point most of us are arguing is that helmets shouldn't be compulsory, not that they shouldn't be worn at all.


----------



## User169 (18 Jul 2008)

Twenty Inch said:


> Most people focus on the post-accident effects of a helmet. One of the most interesting studies of recent years is the 2006 Bath study that shows that motorists pass closer when the cyclist is wearing a helmet. In other words, helmets can make collisions more likely.



Indeed. The study also showed that if you dress as a tranny motorists give you plenty of room! 

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html


----------



## Young Un (18 Jul 2008)

i wear a helmet

i would prefer not to but:
im a kid and my parents make me wear one as they knew someone who was seriously brain damaged by falling off his bike helmetless.
also i have to wear a helmet at the local cycling club, both on the rides and for the bike handling training, so i just put it on and cant wait to take it off. 
mine makes me look like a complete d*ick but i still wear it. however i have riden a couple of times helmetless in anger and i love the wind in your hair and the sweat free forehead you get at the end of the ride


----------



## Bugner (18 Jul 2008)

you are right I wouldn't be able to scientifically measure it, but would be interested on proximity of cars and overtaking manouveres compared to what I am used to. I am not bothered about wearing a helmet, but am interested in the difference it makes to attitudes and perception from those around me.

My initial post was trying to understand why the topic was so emotive to people and now through the responses I am beginning to understand the reasons why. Maybe in a few years I will be picketing and burning helmets

I must admit I enjoy being part of the cycling community, good to chat to other cyclists when commuting or going for a cycle at the weekend


----------



## Harrier (18 Jul 2008)

I agree that it must be left to personal choice. We all have our own reasons. I lost a very good mate in a serious accident when a car side swiped him. He hit his head on the kerb and the life support machine was switched off two days later. I think it is very debatable whether a helmet would have made a difference but it is reason enough for me to wear mine.


----------



## snapper_37 (18 Jul 2008)

Harrier said:


> I agree that it must be left to personal choice. We all have our own reasons. I lost a very good mate in a serious accident when a car side swiped him. He hit his head on the kerb and the life support machine was switched off two days later. I think it is very debatable whether a helmet would have made a difference but it is reason enough for me to wear mine.



And that is exactly what happened with me. The *crack* noise of the helmet/my head hitting the kerb (1st) and road (2nd) was something I will never forget. I was so glad to have worn a helmet. I have read all these discussions, but it worked for me (IMO).


----------



## sticky sherbert (18 Jul 2008)

I've Just read the whole thread and am glad I did, having returned to cycling for the first time in many years I had started to feel like a bit of an outsider, of all the other cycle commuters I pass and greet each day I am the only one sans helmet. I have no issue with people who wear one but I do despise those who judge me for not, my safety is my own issue, In all aspects of Life! With an ever increasing reliance in 'safety equipment' people are loosing touch with instinct and common sense.
More importantly, it's the only chance I get to tan my bald head!!!!


----------



## shimano (18 Jul 2008)

I first got on a bike some 40 odd years ago and have crashed or fallen off umpteen times and have never hurt my head. Elbows, arms, knees, legs and hips bashed and scraped, skinned my palms and broken ribs but no-one's ever suggested knee/elbow pads or leathers like a motorcyclist. OK I realise that a blow to the head can be extremely serious but until there's a better affordable alternative to the current lump of polystyrene which drives me crazy after 10 minutes I'll take my chances - although I do insist the kids wear theirs...

do as I say not as I do...

However I must say that IMHO that Bath study is twaddle as it seems to me motorists give me as wide a berth with or without a helmet - maybe they reckon I'd do more damage to the car than it would do to me - diet's got a long way to go...


----------



## jonesy (18 Jul 2008)

You might want to go to the source of the Bath research for a more detailed account:
http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/


----------



## hackbike 6 (18 Jul 2008)

Wow I found that interesting...


"Drivers passed closer the cyclist the further out in the road they were and ditto if they were wearing a helmet". (in not so many words)

Cant say im surprised with the further out you are but the helmet thing caught me a bit but I suppose doesn't surprise me in a way.

I will study this document.

Do wear a helmet perhaps I should test out a hat.


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Jul 2008)

Back to the original post....

Don't get confused with "anti-helmet" posts......................No-on here is anti-helmet, simply raising doubts and offering reasons why many helmet claims should be treated with caution is not "anti-helmet" but giving the evidence that allows *informed* choice.


There is a need to counter the often inflated and extravagant claims made for helmets and this is an important step in this process


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> I hear that in Scotland, woks are becoming popular as an alternative to cycle helmets.



We're OK anyway - Trikes weren't included in Motorcycle legislation, I assume they will be exempt in the same way if there is and cycle legislation!


----------



## Twenty Inch (18 Jul 2008)

The pro-helmet lobby is also well-supported by helmet manufacturers, of course. We have to marketise everything, and turn everything into a profit-taking opportunity


----------



## Riding in Circles (18 Jul 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> We're OK anyway - Trikes weren't included in Motorcycle legislation, I assume they will be exempt in the same way if there is and cycle legislation!



The actual legislation has already been written and trikes are indeed exempt.


----------



## Kestevan (19 Jul 2008)

Irrespective of the actual safety benefits of helmet wearing I find a good quality helmet prevents severe auditory distress....


I.e. It stops the missus wittering.


----------



## Keith Oates (19 Jul 2008)

There are for and against arguments for most things and whether or not to wear a helmet is one of them. However I feel that wearing a helmet will generally reduce injuries to the head area and that the potential to twisting the neck etc. not so high!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## dondare (19 Jul 2008)

sticky sherbert said:


> I've Just read the whole thread and am glad I did, having returned to cycling for the first time in many years I had started to feel like a bit of an outsider, of all the other cycle commuters I pass and greet each day I am the only one sans helmet. I have no issue with people who wear one but I do despise those who judge me for not, my safety is my own issue, In all aspects of Life! With an ever increasing reliance in 'safety equipment' people are loosing touch with instinct and common sense.
> More importantly, it's the only chance I get to tan my bald head!!!!



A helmet might save your life. Melanomas kill ten times as many people in the UK as cycle accidents.


----------



## Sapper (19 Jul 2008)

Disgruntled Goat said:


> I have yet to hear someone who has had an accident say that they would have been worse off if they had worn a helmet.
> 
> But then again it's pretty difficult to make out what they say since there congnative abilities have been impaired.



Still reading this thread but once I was pushed of my bike.... long story

However my head, or rather hit the floor with a tremendous bang, I was dazed but was able to cycle to a near by hospital.

The beyond serviceable helmet was discarded in a litter bin!

Before then I wore my helmet depending on weather etc

Since then every time

Adrian


----------



## Domestique (19 Jul 2008)

Sometimes I do, sometimes I dont 
I have asked a few Doctors what their opinion is regarding helmets, the general reply is nearly everything on/in the human body can be repaired to some satisfaction, the exception being the head. 
One thing I hate about helmet wearing in the summer, seeing then hearing a great big wasp or bee make contact and not knowing if it has bounced off or is about to sting your head


----------



## Perry (19 Jul 2008)

A poll would be could but I don't want to step on anyones toes.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Jul 2008)

dondare said:


> A helmet might save your life. Melanomas kill ten times as many people in the UK as cycle accidents.



The helmet only partially protects (as in most circumstances) 

What you can cultivate is the delightful pattern of the vents on your helmet reproduced on your head by patches of bright red sunburn.... certainly a fashion statement!

If you want Melanoma protection - get a Tilley!


----------



## Riding in Circles (19 Jul 2008)

dondare said:


> A helmet might save your life. Melanomas kill ten times as many people in the UK as cycle accidents.



They should ban melanomas.


----------



## dondare (19 Jul 2008)

Hats could save more lives than helmets. So hats should be compulsory for cyclists.


----------



## Riding in Circles (19 Jul 2008)

dondare said:


> Hats could save more lives than helmets. So hats should be compulsory for cyclists.



How about hair?


----------



## dondare (19 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> How about hair?



Dr Walker's research showed that motorists gave him the most room when he wore a long, blonde wig. So clearly the best protection that a cyclists can have is long blonde hair.


----------



## dondare (19 Jul 2008)

But why not a wig?


----------



## Riding in Circles (19 Jul 2008)

dondare said:


> But why not a wig?



Are they available in Kevlar?


----------



## Jaded (19 Jul 2008)

It should be compulsory to have Helmet Racks at the top and bottom of every staircase in the land.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Jul 2008)

Compulsory Hair would discriminate against males!


----------



## Riding in Circles (19 Jul 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Compulsory Hair would discriminate against males!



Maybe you but not me.


----------



## fossyant (19 Jul 2008)

This has rattled on hasn't it.....as expected 'eh... I'm not going to give any answers, only just why I wear one - my opinion, and a unique reason to do so........

I wear a helmet (skid lid as I call it)... a Phnumo - a good Giro helmet, well vented and stuff - light, etc....blah blah.........

I've had a fair few crashes, knock off's RTA's etc, and not one has involved my bonce, lucky yes, some broken bones etc.. The 'ole head doesn't bounce well, it's usually arm/collar bone that take it... so no case for a hat...

In these days of liability, had you been wiped off the tarmac without a hat, the legal folks that be.... will 'contribute' some liability to you for no lid.... - I'd rather my family after me benefit from my splatterings...

I wear a helmet as it helps keep my bonce cool - I sweat loads and without one, I'd use a band - aka saddo 80's person. As it goes, I use a thin skull cap that's made of wicking material, add in a well vented helmet.... and I can climb any mountain, commute etc, without sweat going into my eyes... cap soaks it up, helmet cools/evaps the sweat...me + happy !!!!

Easy...... that's it for me, 22 years of proper bike riding.......


----------



## yenrod (19 Jul 2008)

> Helemt or not?? 

I dont wear a ' Helemt'


----------



## LLB (19 Jul 2008)

Bokonon said:


> *No, but I am already a cyclist. Compulsion would, I think, decrease the number of people converting to cycling:
> *
> a) It would deter those that don't want to look like a mushroom headed cyclist.
> 
> At the bottom end of the scale a person can become a cyclist with the purchase of a £50 bike - adding £20 to this cost for a helmet is a significant percent increase in initial outlay which some people may not want to justify.



This argument doesn't hold water. It may have made a difference to motorcyclists for a few months when the law changed in 73, but time moves on, and all accept it now as part and parcel. The only people who do have an issue with them are cashiers as they seem to think you are wearing one solely to rob them


----------



## jonesy (19 Jul 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> This argument doesn't hold water. It may have made a difference to motorcyclists for a few months when the law changed in 73, but time moves on, and all accept it now as part and parcel. The only people who do have an issue with them are cashiers as they seem to think you are wearing one solely to rob them



Yes, because bicycles are just motorbikes without the engine aren't they, so everything that applies to motorbikes applies equally to cycling....


----------



## sticky sherbert (19 Jul 2008)

A helmet might save your life. Melanomas kill ten times as many people in the UK as cycle accidents.[/quote]


So if I wear a helmet and stop cycling I will be realy safe, although I will then get fat and have heart disease! oh sh*t! shoot me now


----------



## tdr1nka (19 Jul 2008)

I'm totally against compulsory helmet wearing and I wear my lid only when I'm on roads I don't know, it's p*ss*ng with rain or I'm out with Miss tdr1nka.


----------



## yello (19 Jul 2008)

There's something comforting about helmet debates. They're familiar conversations, a chance to repeat yourself. You know, like when you're in the pub with friends, you'll hear the same stories again and again, but you always smile and laugh as if it were the first time time because, well, they're your mates and that's what you do. Because, in all likelyhood, you do the same.

So; I rarely wear one but I'm completely cool with people that want to. I think I know the risks and I'm prepared to take them.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Jul 2008)

mjones said:


> Yes, because bicycles are just motorbikes without the engine aren't they, so everything that applies to motorbikes applies equally to cycling....



Of course with speeds of greater that 12-15 mph we should be wearing motor cycle helmets so that we are gaining appropriate protection for the speed we are cycling at?


----------



## LLB (19 Jul 2008)

Cunobelin said:


> Of course with speeds of greater that 12-15 mph we should be wearing motor cycle helmets so that we are gaining appropriate protection for the speed we are cycling at?



There are plenty of boasts on here of riders averaging 20mph and touching 30mph on the flat. I dropped a bike on the entry to a roundabout at 25mph a few years ago (on diesel) and the lid was buggered as a result after taking a direct impact. The visor mount was totally broken off on the one side and you could see the fibres inder the gel coat of the lid where it was ground away.

I'm not telling anyone they must wear one, but a bit of common sense will tell you that if your head impacts the ground it is going to make a mess.

I wish that the likes of mjones would not rubbish the assertions of others in this debate in such a condescending way because it really does make them come across as arrogant twits.

Perhaps some of the more scientificly minded on here could work out the impact forces behing a 15mph collision taken entirely on the temple by a 12 stone rider as this is where I landed when I came off ?


----------



## Wolf04 (19 Jul 2008)

Anecdotal evidence such as LLB's above are fine in themselves but unfortunately safety is often counter intuitive and "common sense" fails. However saying that I don't think many people are arguing that helmets are completely useless but that we should be aware of their limitations and not be taken in by their vastly overstated effectiveness.


----------



## Jaded (19 Jul 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> Perhaps some of the more scientificly minded on here could work out the impact forces behing a 15mph collision taken entirely on the temple by a 12 stone rider as this is where I landed when I came off ?



Hopefully an even more "scientificly" minded person could explain the difference between a motorcycle and a cycle to the poster above. 

Oh, and also if they could give the percentage of cycle rides that end up with the rider in the semi-illiterate state of "behing a 15mph collision taken entirely on the temple by a 12 stone rider as this is where I landed when I came off" that would help too.

I'm sure that mjones would rather come across as an arrogant twit than an ignorant and blinkered one.


----------



## Chuffy (20 Jul 2008)

Bokonon said:


> No, but I am already a cyclist. Compulsion would, I think, decrease the number of people converting to cycling:





linfordlunchbox said:


> This argument doesn't hold water.


Yes it does. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1021 for more info.

There are only two camps. Pro-choice and anti-choice. I belong very firmly in the pro camp (I don't even own one) and get very, very angry when the anti-choice lobby portray any argument with them as being 'anti-helmet'. See the letter from this idiot in todays Grauniad for a prime example...

You want to wear one? Fine, I don't mind or care. 
You want to force me to wear one? You're in for one hell of a fight...


----------



## Wolf04 (20 Jul 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Yes it does. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1021 for more info.
> 
> There are only two camps. Pro-choice and anti-choice. I belong very firmly in the pro camp (I don't even own one) and get very, very angry when the anti-choice lobby portray any argument with them as being 'anti-helmet'. See the letter from this idiot in todays Grauniad for a prime example...
> 
> ...



Quote from the letter:
"Every year we help thousands of people who have had their lives shattered as a result of being knocked off their bikes."

Yikes if its that dangerous to cycle perhaps we should all give up cycling!

Or we could just give up reading the Guardian!


----------



## LLB (20 Jul 2008)

Jaded said:


> Hopefully an even more "scientificly" minded person could explain the difference between a motorcycle and a cycle to the poster above.
> 
> Oh, and also if they could give the percentage of cycle rides that end up with the rider in the semi-illiterate state of "behing a 15mph collision taken entirely on the temple by a 12 stone rider as this is where I landed when I came off" that would help too.
> 
> I'm sure that mjones would rather come across as an arrogant twit than an ignorant and blinkered one.




Still feeling aggrieved Jaded  ?


----------



## LLB (20 Jul 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Yes it does. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1021 for more info.
> 
> There are only two camps. Pro-choice and anti-choice. I belong very firmly in the pro camp (I don't even own one) and get very, very angry when the anti-choice lobby portray any argument with them as being 'anti-helmet'. See the letter from this idiot in todays Grauniad for a prime example...
> 
> ...



Not at all, but I dislike the disdain and arrogant assertions made against them which is done in a way to assert some sort of moral high ground against their useage.

For every one against, there is a for, and has there been any studies done in Australia to ascertain whether the numbers have recovered (I expect they will be on the up with the increase in fuel prices recently).

Risk is risk at the end of the day. If I were hit by a car, I'd still be a happier if I were wearing one in case my head impacted the vehicle itself what with modern cars having their engine castings just a few mm below the bonnet.



> Bicycle helmets do protect against head injuries
> 
> Under Strict Embargo for
> 00.01hrs BST
> ...


----------



## Chuffy (20 Jul 2008)

Wolf04 said:


> Quote from the letter:
> "Every year we help thousands of people who have had their lives shattered as a result of being knocked off their bikes."
> 
> Yikes if its that dangerous to cycle perhaps we should all give up cycling!
> ...


Hmmmmmm, official stats for 2002 give 108 killed and 1856 killed or seriously injured. Perhaps we should report the letter writer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, since he clearly has _all_ seriously injured cyclists on his books. Oh, do all of those 1856 people have head injuries btw? Hmmmm.....


----------



## Wolf04 (20 Jul 2008)

Chuffy said:


> Hmmmmmm, official stats for 2002 give 108 killed and 1856 killed or seriously injured. Perhaps we should report the letter writer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, since he clearly has _all_ seriously injured cyclists on his books. Oh, do all of those 1856 people have head injuries btw? Hmmmm.....



Shock
Your not suggesting he exaggerated his claims to support his own bias?
Shocking simply shocking .


----------



## Chuffy (20 Jul 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> Not at all, but I dislike the disdain and arrogant assertions made against them which is done in a way to assert some sort of moral high ground against their useage.


You want to wear one, fine. I don't mind or care.
That pretty much sums up the so-called 'anti-helmet' lobby. 
The only moral high ground is that occupied by the idiots who think that we should all be compelled to wear one before we even straddle a cross bar...

Oh and as to whether the numbers cycling in Australia have recovered:- No.


----------



## Chuffy (20 Jul 2008)

Wolf04 said:


> Shock
> Your not suggesting he exaggerated his claims to support his own bias?
> Shocking simply shocking .


Imagine...
I'm sure that he and his charity do fine work. However I do begrudge the way that this work is exaggerated to make a (spurious) point...


----------



## threefingerjoe (20 Jul 2008)

I think it's a good idea to keep in mind that the helmet is your LAST line of defense. 

For me, I prefer to wear the helmet, and have worn one for many years with no appreciable discomfort. 

My annecdote: Many years ago, I broadsided a dog...a BIG dog. I did an endover. I landed on my shoulder, then my head snapped to the side and struck the concrete street. It flattened the side of my helmet. I needed no further convincing that wearing a helmet was good for ME and MY FAMILY.

I'm not telling anyone what they should do. I'm only telling this story because the topic is being discussed. 

Side Note. Some years ago after the last National Hockey League player who died during a game after striking his head on the ice, all the other players who were still "grandfathered" (not required to wear a helmet under the relatively new helmet rule) voluntarily started wearing helmets. 

I'm only offering this. If someone wants to say that this is totally irrelevent because ice hockey players are moving faster than bikes, or that ice is harder than concrete, or whatever, so be it...I really don't want to argue. 

Let's just hope that NONE among us is ever in a serious accident...helmet or not.


----------



## bonj2 (20 Jul 2008)

The thing I find ludicrous is not the fact that there is such disagreement of whether to wear a helmet or not - I think pretty much everybody accepts it is a matter of personal choice - or even the range of views on whether or not it should be compulsory. What is ludicrous is the ridiculous arguments people come up with for not wearing one. "They're only tested up to 12mph so there's no point wearing one if you go faster than that." That's for there to be NO damage - there's still going to be LESS damage if you're going above that!
Plus the speed at which your head hits the ground isn't necessarily proportional to the speed at which you are (were) traveling along.
"Drivers give cyclists without helmets more room". Absolute bladderdash.

It's in a way just as ridiculous as the arguments drivers come up with for why they don't cycle to work.


----------



## yello (20 Jul 2008)

"Luke Griggs said:


> I offer this invite to the sceptics: come along to a Headway house and see for yourself the damage that a brain injury can cause. Maybe then you will be better qualified to make the decision of whether or not to wear a helmet next time you get on your bike.



I find that sort of emotive argument of little help. Nobody thinks brain injury a trivial thing. Nobody is dismissive. Mr Griggs seems to imply that ALL the Headway house residents are victims of cycling accidents. That does a disservice to those that suffer these tragic and life changing injuries.

He could equally compare the number of residents that have been in cycling accidents to those in any other form of accident (e.g. a car accident) and conclude cycling was much safer.... or that car drivers should wear helmets. But those would be ludicrous claims wouldn't they?


----------



## Aperitif (20 Jul 2008)

A few weeks ago in France, I misjudged a corner and made a choice of road rash or tree/grass etc. Took the grassy option and went over the top - not too fast by then, but I weigh 103kg - and landed fairly comfortably but hit my head. Bit of a grazed forehead and my helmet was broken in two places (Giro Atmos). And that was a 'soft' hit. I also downed my bike, due to some unexpected wheel sized holes outside Ashford hospital  and whacked my head against the kerb - all in about 1 second. Met helmet broken but my skin intact for the most part.
I'm no safer than anyone competent who doesn't wear a helmet, but I know that if something unexpected happens then I might be a bit better served with a helmet than without.


----------



## MarkF (20 Jul 2008)

I ride a motorbike and a Vespa, I used to fall off (crash) my motorbike a lot, more often as I got older. I never fell off (crashed) the scooter. Wearing full leathers, gloves and boots i.e. protective gear, made me ride, not as though I was invinceable, but a little less carefully than I should or would have if wearing my scooter gear, which could be a t-shirt and flip flops

I junked the protective gear years ago and have not crashed since, my riding style and has changed along with my levels of concentration/awareness so when I started cycling I made a personal decision not to wear a helmet.

Each to their own, I have read so many contradictory articles on helmet saftey, but* I** feel *safer without one that's why I don't wear one.


----------



## dondare (20 Jul 2008)

sticky sherbert said:


> Dondare said:
> 
> 
> > A helmet might save your life. Melanomas kill ten times as many people in the UK as cycle accidents.
> ...



Someone else can look this up if they want, but I believe that heart disease kills one thousand times more Britons than bike accidents. _Not_ cycling is really much more dangerous than cycling, helmet or no helmet.


----------



## spindrift (20 Jul 2008)

_"Every year we help thousands of people who have had their lives shattered as a result of being knocked off their bikes."_

That's very naughty actually, the implication is that those ambivalent about helmets don't care about head injuries, which is chuffing hogwash. Then Lucy lies to bolster her case, she deserves a spanking.


----------



## Wraithand (22 Jul 2008)

Just to let you know I had an accident on/off my bike about twenty years ago and hit my head pretty hard, I was told by the doctor who saw me that because of how I landed a helmet would probably have caused me to break my neck!!
She was no expert, other than being a doctor, but I did not where a helmet for years, I know feel they are essential. I have cycled a lot and its not necessarily you, you should worry about but either motor vehicles or STUPID cyclists which are the worst problem of all. Bad roads don't help. I nearly always wear one and recommend them unreservedly.


----------



## Riding in Circles (22 Jul 2008)

Wraithand said:


> Just to let you know I had an accident on/off my bike about twenty years ago and hit my head pretty hard, I was told by the doctor who saw me that because of how I landed a helmet would probably have caused me to break my neck!!
> She was no expert, other than being a doctor, but I did not where a helmet for years, I know feel they are essential. I have cycled a lot and its not necessarily you, you should worry about but either motor vehicles or STUPID cyclists which are the worst problem of all. Bad roads don't help. I nearly always wear one and recommend them unreservedly.



I recommend the use of a dictionary unreservedly.

(pedant mode off)


----------



## hackbike 6 (22 Jul 2008)

I cycled for 25 years without a helmet when I had hair and now that I haven't got much hair I prefer wearing a helmet.

I dont think people should be made to wear a helmet if they don't want to.


----------



## Sapper (22 Jul 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> I cycled for 25 years without a helmet when I had hair and now that I haven't got much hair I prefer wearing a helmet.
> 
> I dont think people should be made to wear a helmet if they don't want to.



Indeed a long commute I will generally wear a helmet.


If a quick test drive, then I cannot be bothered...

But the choice should be ours, this country is becoming tooo much of a nanny state.

Adrian

Edit: Oh my hair length is similar to Velcro, short and sticky


----------



## Riding in Circles (22 Jul 2008)

I have just ridden 43 miles without a helmet, but I do have hair.


----------



## hackbike 6 (22 Jul 2008)

I was out drinking one night about ten years ago and went to call on a mate.When I was looking up at his window I stumbled backwards and fell on the pavement and cracked my head open (well I was bleeding) off duty copper stopped me as he thought I had been in a fight.I resembled Terry Butcher in World Cup '86..I have never done that in 30+ years of cycling and long may it continue.That was a one of in 25 years of boozing though.


----------



## Wolf04 (22 Jul 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> I was out drinking one night about ten years ago and went to call on a mate.When I was looking up at his window I stumbled backwards and fell on the pavement and cracked my head open (well I was bleeding) off duty copper stopped me as he thought I had been in a fight.I resembled Terry Butcher in World Cup '86..I have never done that in 30+ years of cycling and long may it continue.That was a one of in 25 years of boozing though.



So no helmets when cycling if we have hair but wear helmet if we are out on the p**s.
Works for me
:-)


----------



## yello (22 Jul 2008)

hackbike 6 said:


> I cycled for 25 years without a helmet when I had hair and now that I haven't got much hair I prefer wearing a helmet.



What! Not wearing a helmet causes hair loss!! At last, a REAL reason to wear one. If only some had told me years ago


----------



## hackbike 6 (22 Jul 2008)

yello said:


> What! Not wearing a helmet causes hair loss!! At last, a REAL reason to wear one. If only some had told me years ago



Yeah I can go with that.


----------



## jonesy (22 Jul 2008)

linfordlunchbox said:


> ...
> 
> I wish that the likes of mjones would not rubbish the assertions of others in this debate in such a condescending way because it really does make them come across as arrogant twits.
> 
> ....



I really don't think you are in a position to make complaints like that LLB...

I note that you haven't dealt with the substance of the argument either, which is the relevance of the experience with motorbike helmets to cycling. Other than having two wheels in common, cycling differs fundamentally from motorcycling in speed, type and cause of accidents, journey purpose and length, type of infrastructure on which journeys are made, age and other characteristics of users, attitudes of users and attitudes of other road users towards them etc etc. 

In those places where cycle use is very high, the everyday short trips in normal clothing made round town by normal people are exactly the sort of trip that helmet laws are most likely to discourage. Helmet compulsion inevitably makes cycling less normal, less commonplace and keeps it the preserve of the enthusiast and longer distance cyclist; in other words keeps it as a minority mode of transport. Exactly, some might say, what the helmet compulsionists want to achieve...


----------



## sticky sherbert (22 Jul 2008)

yello said:


> What! Not wearing a helmet causes hair loss!! At last, a REAL reason to wear one. If only some had told me years ago



If I start wearing one will mine grow back?


----------



## Jaded (23 Jul 2008)

mjones, there's at least one more difference between bikes and motorbikes - the dynamics of crashes are totally different because in one the 'vehicle' is significantly heavier than in the other.


----------



## magnatom (23 Jul 2008)

I have plenty of hair, but I am going grey. Should I be wearing a helmet or not....


----------



## Riding in Circles (23 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> I have plenty of hair, but I am going grey. Should I be wearing a helmet or not....



What? Instead of a wok?


----------



## magnatom (23 Jul 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> What? Instead of a wok?



Excellent, I think that is £465 now!


----------



## Wolf04 (23 Jul 2008)

magnatom said:


> I have plenty of hair, but I am going grey. Should I be wearing a helmet or not....



Yes! I believe Just For Men are bringing a new range out.


----------



## Wolf04 (24 Jul 2008)

User1314 said:


> Well.
> 
> Came in today without a helmet. Did go down the shop yesterday for cycling caps but they were uber trendy. So stuck on an old french breton cappie thingie this am.
> 
> ...



Welcome to the dark side

(Though I do wear a helmet mostly)


----------



## Riding in Circles (24 Jul 2008)

I will be doing 40+miles today without a helmet, I'm a rebel, cool.


----------



## beanzontoast (24 Jul 2008)

I wear a helmet. I find it has helped to keep my brains inside my skull a couple of times.

<debate avoidance mode on> Until the day they legislate about it, I suggest cyclists discuss it with their loved ones if they are thinking of not wearing a helmet. <debate avoidance mode off>


----------



## yello (24 Jul 2008)

Ah, still going strong. Great stuff. I like to pop in from time-to-time just to check that the same things are being said. 'nother pint please barman. I need to hear that story about the photocopier again.


----------



## Riding in Circles (24 Jul 2008)

I have not fallen off in over ten years, I have been riding primarily on three wheels for the last 7 however. I did flip the trike once however but I stayed on even while upside down, I was racing with another trike rider and we were wearing helmets that day because we knew we would be racing. Otherwise a helmet is just something to cook the brain box in.


----------



## beanzontoast (24 Jul 2008)

yello said:


> Ah, still going strong. Great stuff. I like to pop in from time-to-time just to check that the same things are being said. 'nother pint please barman. I need to hear that story about the photocopier again.



See that little indented bit on the top with a paper clip symbol on it? That's where you keep your paper clips, that is.


----------



## Wolf04 (24 Jul 2008)

yello said:


> Ah, still going strong. Great stuff. I like to pop in from time-to-time just to check that the same things are being said. 'nother pint please barman. I need to hear that story about the photocopier again.


----------

