# The Helmet Debate



## ComedyPilot (6 Dec 2011)

To stop hijacking other threads, please debate helmet use here - or not, if you are a free-spirited and capable rider responsible for your own actions.


----------



## gaz (6 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1635772, member: 9609"]Have just noticed the helmet sub forum has disappeared![/quote]
I think it disappeared for a reason. Hopefully another black hole emerges and sucks this thread in to it. As these things get pretty tedious.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Dec 2011)

+1

zzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (6 Dec 2011)

Let sleeping dogs lie.


----------



## Bicycle (6 Dec 2011)

You know there's plenty of evidence to support the theory that crashing without a cycle helmet into a sleeping dog that you've let lie can result in up to 47% more injuries and/or similar within two weeks if not completely satisfied.

So-called helmet-thread zealots and anti-helmet anarcho-syndicalists can crow all they like from their ivory tower in the clouds (or similar) but a fact is, in all probability, a fact.


----------



## CopperCyclist (7 Dec 2011)

Jimmy The Whiskers said:


> Let sleeping dogs lie.



This dog never went to sleep. It just formed a new evolutionary tactic of feigning sleep, so that it could rip your arm off as you tiptoe past it unsuspectingly.


----------



## ianrauk (7 Dec 2011)

Helmets look rubbish though don't they.
These are much better and offer more protection from being splattered by a motor car.


----------



## Dan_h (7 Dec 2011)

gaz said:


> I think it disappeared for a reason. Hopefully another black hole emerges and sucks this thread in to it. As these things get pretty tedious.


 
What do you mean? Helmet threads are the reason cycling forums were invented! Now everyone can argue all day without any hope of changing anyone's mind all the while getting more and more angry that their facts are more factual than anyone else's facts but no one will listen!


----------



## G-Zero (7 Dec 2011)

We each have our own reasons behind our choices. 

I prefer to use one, but what anyone else does is no one's business but their own.... IMHO of course.


----------



## Dan_h (7 Dec 2011)

I saw things were about to kick off so I got out of there...


----------



## gaz (7 Dec 2011)

ianrauk said:


> Helmets look rubbish though don't they.
> These are much better and offer more protection from being splattered by a motor car.


is that what they call, a cockhead?


----------



## Bicycle (7 Dec 2011)

Dan_h said:


> What do you mean? Helmet threads are the reason cycling forums were invented! Now everyone can argue all day without any hope of changing anyone's mind all the while getting more and more angry that their facts are more factual than anyone else's facts but no one will listen!


 

My facts *are* more factual than anyone else's.

I can back that up with fact.

All you have is hollow rhetoric and pseudo-fact psycho-twoddle.

That's a fact. And it's a factier fact than any of your so-called facts.

With knobs on.


----------



## jdtate101 (7 Dec 2011)

yawn...


----------



## Matthew_T (7 Dec 2011)

That kid it going to have a massive scare for the rest of his life now. Just for not waering a helmet.


----------



## ComedyPilot (7 Dec 2011)

Can people 'not' arguing about helmets please go elsewhere.


----------



## Davidc (7 Dec 2011)

Helmet threads are environmentally unfriendly.


----------



## Alun (7 Dec 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> That kid it going to have a massive scare for the rest of his life now. Just for not waering a helmet.


Crikey, just for not wearing a helmet! Imagine what he would look like if he'd fallen off his bike.


----------



## gaz (7 Dec 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> That kid it going to have a massive scare for the rest of his life now. Just for not waering a helmet.





It's not that big, i've got two bigger scars from when I came off my bike, neither of them on my head


----------



## Bicycle (7 Dec 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> That kid it going to have a massive scare for the rest of his life now. Just for not waering a helmet.




What will give him the massive scare?

Will his pals keep creeping up behind him and yelling?


----------



## Matthew_T (7 Dec 2011)

gaz said:


> It's not that big, i've got two bigger scars from when I came off my bike, neither of them on my head




Sorry, I didnt know there was an updated version.


----------



## BlackPanther (7 Dec 2011)

The 1st video I didn't really notice the kid as I was distracted by the fit blonde.

Is the 2nd video a warning to be very careful when using a nail gun? Surely the metal in her lip will leave a scar also?


----------



## Davidc (7 Dec 2011)

BlackPanther said:


> The 1st video I didn't really notice the kid as I was distracted by the fit blonde.
> 
> Is the 2nd video a warning to be very careful when using a nail gun? Surely the metal in her lip will leave a scar also?


 
Yes, posting anecdotes on U Tube can lead to serious holes in the soft tissues of the lower jaw, necessitating the use of metal pins to fill them so that your food doesn't pour out while you're chewing it.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Dec 2011)

Dan_h said:


> I saw things were about to kick off so I got out of there...


 

If you wore a helmet... you could have stayed!


----------



## 400bhp (7 Dec 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> That kid it going to have a *massive scare* for the rest of his life now. Just for not waering a helmet.




I got scared when I was a kid watching Dr Who. Used to hide behind the settee. I got over it. You generally do.


----------



## 400bhp (7 Dec 2011)

Helmets are AWESOME

That is a FACT


----------



## ComedyPilot (7 Dec 2011)

Wear one then.

Riding with the wind blowing through your hair is awesome - also a FACT


----------



## MissTillyFlop (7 Dec 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> That kid it going to have a massive scare for the rest of his life now. Just for not waering a helmet.




Matthew, you have to stop attacking kids with hammers, just because they're not wearing a helmet. The poor sod wasn't even on a bike.


----------



## Mugshot (8 Dec 2011)

Davidc said:


> Yes, posting anecdotes on U Tube can lead to serious holes in the soft tissues of the lower jaw, necessitating the use of metal pins to fill them so that your food doesn't pour out while you're chewing it.


Judging by the amount of weight the young lady seems to have gained very little food appears to have found it's way out of her mouth, the metal pins have done the job


----------



## Davidc (8 Dec 2011)

Mugshot said:


> Judging by the amount of weight the young lady seems to have gained very little food appears to have found it's way out of her mouth, the metal pins have done the job


She needs to get out on a bike!


----------



## 400bhp (9 Dec 2011)

It really is a mass debate this one.


----------



## classic33 (10 Dec 2011)

G-Zero said:


> We each have our own reasons behind our choices.
> 
> I prefer to use one, but what anyone else does is no one's business but their own.... IMHO of course.





G-Zero said:


> We each have our own reasons behind our choices.
> 
> I prefer to use one, but what anyone else does is no one's business but their own.... IMHO of course.


 
For those that have decided to use them. Can you explain why it seems that in order to keep it safe whilst not riding your bike, why do you lock it it with the same lock you are using for the bike.

Some people are even making certain that their locks will fit through by cutting out parts of the helmet! Its not done with any other piece of equipment used for cycling, or is it?


----------



## G-Zero (11 Dec 2011)

classic33 said:


> For those that have decided to use them. Can you explain why it seems that in order to keep it safe whilst not riding your bike, why do you lock it it with the same lock you are using for the bike.
> 
> Some people are even making certain that their locks will fit through by cutting out parts of the helmet! Its not done with any other piece of equipment used for cycling, or is it?


 
Erm... Simple answer to both your questions is "No".

I never leave my bike unattended in a public place _and _ I never leave my helmet locked to my bike _and_ I've never seen it done. My bike comes in to the office when I'm at work and my helmet gets slung over the bars, with my gloves and specs inside it. Nothing gets removed from the bike and even my expensive light stays in place.

Personally, I wouldn't be happy cutting bits out of my helmet as that could have an impact on its integrity.

If I was to apply a bit of logic to answering your query, I would guess that if someone didn't want to carry their helmet around and wanted to leave it with their bike, that securing through it with their main lock would be a more viable option than carrying a second lock, or am I missing the point of your question ?

It seems to me that if someone is happy enough to leave a helmet locked up with their bike, and the lock was cut and the bike stolen, the owner wouldn't be too bothered about the helmet going too.


----------



## baldycyclist (11 Dec 2011)

crazy kitchen lighting!


----------



## classic33 (11 Dec 2011)

G-Zero said:


> Erm... Simple answer to both your questions is "No".
> 
> I never leave my bike unattended in a public place _and _I never leave my helmet locked to my bike _and_ I've never seen it done. My bike comes in to the office when I'm at work and my helmet gets slung over the bars, with my gloves and specs inside it. Nothing gets removed from the bike and even my expensive light stays in place.
> 
> ...


 
It is the main(only) lock that is used to secure both which is why part of the helmet requires removal, to allow the lock to travel through it.
But having decided the helmet was required in the first place, why damage it before you use it. I've not seen it done with anything else on a bike.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Dec 2011)

A small cheap cable lock will be enough

Or you used to be able to get a small t shaped metal bracket that fitted through a vent and the padlock passed through the leg


----------



## Dan_h (11 Dec 2011)

Well, at least if you leave a helmet with your bike and someone steals it you won't have to worry about them breaking their head if they crash...

if helmets work that is, you know, depending on whether you believe that or not... then again, perhaps if you don't lock up a helmet with your bike and someone steals it are you responsible for any head injury they may get like if someone breaks into your home and hurts themselves?

ETA for spelling.


----------



## Bicycle (11 Dec 2011)

This could be such a fun thread, with all the usual zealots preaching to all the usual mischievous trolls who keep poking them with sticks....

And instead we have a query about people cutting holes in helmets to lock them to bicycles.... which is something it seems no-one else is aware of.

Can we do no better than this?

Can't we post things like this:

My friend has a cousin who used to cut holes in helmets and he (the cousin) said that every time he did it he heard twenty baby seals dying. He then cycled with the helmet on his arm instead of his head, and increased the likelihood of death in a threshing machine by up to and including 17.2 %.


----------



## Norm (11 Dec 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Can't we post things like this:


Apparently, yes, we can.


----------



## Red Light (11 Dec 2011)

Bicycle said:


> My friend has a cousin who used to cut holes in helmets and he (the cousin) said that every time he did it he heard twenty baby seals dying. He then cycled with the helmet on his arm instead of his head, and increased the likelihood of death in a threshing machine by up to and including 17.2 %.


 
References?


----------



## classic33 (12 Dec 2011)

400bhp said:


> It really is a mass debate this one.


 

Why bring religion into it?


----------



## Bicycle (12 Dec 2011)

classic33 said:


> Why bring religion into it?


 
Can you prove that? Where is your proof?

Why not bring religion into it? Why not eat more Cassoulet?

Why didn't you answer the question? 

This is so typical of the narrow-minded holders of whichever view it is you hold.

And this is true by up to more than half the accidents on cul-de-sacs last Tuesday.

Which is a fact. Helmets? Pah!


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Dec 2011)

Baby seals should certainly wear helmets!


----------



## Michael Halliday (12 Dec 2011)

That scarey scar on his chin would have happened with or without a lid. but then i wear a lid and always have had since I sat in a bent and twisted heap next to the car i had just bounced off looking at a cracked lid and thinking "I'm pleased that's not my head".


----------



## snorri (12 Dec 2011)

classic33 said:


> Why bring religion into it?


Are you telling me helmetism is _not_ a religion?


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Dec 2011)

I have quite


snorri said:


> Are you telling me helmetism is _not_ a religion?


 
I have quite Catholic tastes in head gear, and am not at all Evangelical in promoting their use. Mainly because a lot of the evidence is Shiite, as the way it is researched is not Methodist and therefore flawed.

However when the weather is Suuni I believe they can be too hot.

Do what you want and Pray that you do not make a decision that upsets relatives who can make your life Hell.


----------



## Red Light (13 Dec 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> I have quite
> 
> 
> I have quite Catholic tastes in head gear, and am not at all Evangelical in promoting their use. Mainly because a lot of the evidence is Shiite, as the way it is researched is not Methodist and therefore flawed.
> ...



Amen to that.


----------



## 400bhp (13 Dec 2011)

classic33 said:


> Why bring religion into it?


 
The Lord moves in mysterious ways.

I don't think He is a forum member though?


----------



## Dan_h (13 Dec 2011)

400bhp said:


> The Lord moves in misterious ways.
> 
> I don't think He is a forum member though?


 
It does seem unlikely that he is a member of the forum, although I suppose there is an outside chance that his representative here on earth could read it. I believe his name is Eddy Merckx...


----------



## marafi (13 Dec 2011)

Oh my... Well similar incident though not that bad. In the park was going downhill didnt wear a helmet. Fell off my bike hit the side of my head was scraped and scratch. According to my mum i just got up and picked my bike and walked until my dad had to life me up. Lol Charming little brave child i was. lol Wear a helmet you dont die. Dont wear a helmet it is a silly idea!


----------



## Shaun (13 Dec 2011)

[QUOTE 1635772, member: 9609"]Have just noticed the helmet sub forum has disappeared![/quote]

Ha ... so have I - well spotted. Permissions were set incorrectly. Fixed now:

http://www.cyclechat.net/forums/helmet-debates.19/

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## marafi (13 Dec 2011)

1642089 said:


> Sig line anyone?


My tiredness from reivisng too much. I am meant to say not to wear helmet while cycling is a silly idea. So wear a helmet.


----------



## mickle (13 Dec 2011)

marafi said:


> So wear a helmet.


 
No.


----------



## Dan_h (13 Dec 2011)

marafi said:


> My tiredness from reivisng too much. I am meant to say not to wear helmet while cycling is a silly idea. So wear a helmet.


 
Oh no he didn't!!!!


----------



## ianrauk (13 Dec 2011)

marafi said:


> My tiredness from reivisng too much. I am meant to say *not to wear helmet while cycling is a silly idea*. So wear a helmet.


 
No it's not


----------



## threebikesmcginty (13 Dec 2011)

mickle said:


> No.


 
Yeah...to the no that is, not yeah as in yes, yes?


----------



## marafi (13 Dec 2011)

Its your safety do what you like. Give me your reasons if you actually have any, why its a good idea to not wear a helmet while cycling.


----------



## mickle (13 Dec 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Yeah...to the no that is, not yeah as in yes, yes?


Yes. I think...


----------



## mickle (13 Dec 2011)

marafi said:


> Its your safety do what you like. Give me your reasons if you actually have any, why its a good idea to not wear a helmet while cycling.


Oh lordy.


----------



## marafi (13 Dec 2011)

1642296 said:


> The tiredness is affecting your thinking across the board then?


 
At the moment yes it is.


----------



## Theseus (13 Dec 2011)

mickle said:


> Oh lordy.


 
Indeed. Time to move this to the helmet forum.


----------



## Shaun (13 Dec 2011)

marafi said:


> Its your safety do what you like. Give me your reasons if you actually have any, why its a good idea to not wear a helmet while cycling.


 
It dries your hair quicker when you've had a shower in the morning?


----------



## Dan_h (13 Dec 2011)

marafi said:


> Its your safety do what you like. Give me your reasons if you actually have any, why its a good idea to not wear a helmet while cycling.


 
Okay, it is lunch time and my lunch has been eaten so to fill the void between my next meeting I shall bite... I may regret this at some point though....

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. I do not wear a helmet when cycling, but never have I woken up and thought "oh I have a good idea, let's not wear a helmet from now on". 

I have read a lot about helmets and their pros and cons. There have been many studies published and yet I remain unconvinced that in the event of an accident a helmet is going to save my life. If you think like I do then the matter of whether to wear a helmet or not comes down to a personal choice. I choose not to wear a helmet. Others, for whatever reason, choose to wear a helmet. I have never criticised anyone for wearing one, although I have been berated for not wearing one.

Often the people who feel that I should wear a helmet are those who are not cyclists or have recently started cycling. These people have a feeling that cycling is a dangerous activity to begin with, an view that based on years of cycling experience I do not share.


----------



## marafi (13 Dec 2011)

1642338 said:


> Is the gentlemen's agreement on unsolicited and unsubstantiated helmet endorsement still extant?


 
Yes it is valid though, everyone has their own opinions. If there is no opinion then why should there even be a debate in the first place. It would seem my own opinions has certainly made you annoyed from your own opinions. Fine perhaps there is no excuse for my thinking even across the board while typing this. Even further on the statement, i would not agree to those who cycle without a helmet.


----------



## marafi (13 Dec 2011)

Dan_h said:


> Okay, it is lunch time and my lunch has been eaten so to fill the void between my next meeting I shall bite... I may regret this at some point though....
> 
> I think you are looking at this the wrong way. I do not wear a helmet when cycling, but never have I woken up and thought "oh I have a good idea, let's not wear a helmet from now on".
> 
> ...


Perfect comment. I certainly agree with you on that base on your point. Fine perhaps my wording of saying it is 'silly' is not right. Perhaps, within opinions of others i prefer to wear a helmet and others wish not to.


----------



## marafi (13 Dec 2011)

Admin said:


> It dries your hair quicker when you've had a shower in the morning?


Even with a helmet it does the same.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (13 Dec 2011)

Admin said:


> It dries your hair quicker when you've had a shower in the morning?


 
Yeah that's right exclude those that haven't got hair, whoever _they_ are


----------



## marafi (13 Dec 2011)

1642377 said:


> My only request is that you take the time to read earlier debate on the subject rather than restarting the same things from scratch. It could save a load of pixels from dying in vain.


Just read the title of the thread. Perhaps i will do that later on reading the first post. Also lastly on that note from before. Would you agree that you learn from experience from accidents to incidents.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (13 Dec 2011)

marafi said:


> My tiredness from reivisng too much. I am meant to say not to wear helmet while cycling is a silly idea. So wear a helmet.


 
How can I phrase this so that it's less inflamatory than your text?

Hmm I can't. so I think I will just go with:-

"Mind your own business!"


----------



## Poacher (13 Dec 2011)

I've certainly learnt from experience. I've actually bothered to look at the evidence, and I don't wear a helmet.





Cycling since July 1960


----------



## marafi (13 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> How can I phrase this so that it's less inflamatory than your text?
> 
> Hmm I can't. so I think I will just go with:-
> 
> "Mind your own business!"


Its a debate why should i mind?


----------



## Dan B (13 Dec 2011)

1642338 said:


> Is the gentlemen's agreement on unsolicited and unsubstantiated helmet endorsement still extant?


Only applies to gentlemen, though, which lets me out


----------



## snorri (13 Dec 2011)

marafi said:


> Its your safety do what you like. Give me your reasons if you actually have any, why its a good idea to not wear a helmet while cycling.


Whilst your posting may not be off topic, it is certainly not within the spirit of the thread.
'Tis the season of Peace and Love.


----------



## tyred (13 Dec 2011)

marafi said:


> Its your safety do what you like. Give me your reasons if you actually have any, why its a good idea to not wear a helmet while cycling.


 
Because it would look silly on top of my hat


----------



## ianrauk (13 Dec 2011)

It would look sillier on top of my hat


----------



## ianrauk (13 Dec 2011)




----------



## benb (13 Dec 2011)

marafi said:


> Its your safety do what you like. Give me your reasons if you actually have any, why its a good idea to not wear a helmet while cycling.



Yeah. The thing is, what with the evidence showing no significant protective effect of helmets, people who don't want to wear them don't have to justify it. Given that you're at roughly the same risk of head injury as a pedestrian, I could just as easily ask you to justify why you don't wear a helmet when you walk to the shops.


----------



## Archie_tect (13 Dec 2011)

I apologise in advance as I've haven't had time to read all the threads but, is there an underlying concern that wearing a helmet is about to be become mandatory? If it isn't, why are people so polarised about our freedom to choose?


----------



## benb (13 Dec 2011)

Archie_tect said:


> I apologise in advance as I've haven't had time to read all the threads but, is there an underlying concern that wearing a helmet is about to be become mandatory? If it isn't, why are people so polarised about our freedom to choose?



Our freedom to choose is already being eroded. I've done a few sportives this year, and every single one has had mandatory helmets. 

Your freedom to choose, if you choose to wear a helmet, is not under threat. 
If you choose not to wear one, then that freedom is constantly under threat.


----------



## Archie_tect (13 Dec 2011)

In that case joggers and marathon runners should have to wear protective headgear to compete.

If there is a logic, then it should be consistant.


----------



## Dan_h (13 Dec 2011)

Being as cycling is proven to have so many health benefits it ought to be compulsory!


----------



## Bicycle (13 Dec 2011)

snorri said:


> Whilst your posting may not be off topic, it is certainly not within the spirit of the thread.
> 'Tis the season of Peace and Love.


 

No. This is a Helmet Thread.
Spirit and Decency have nothing to do with it.

Christmas, Schmishmas!

This is the thread where whoever is typing at any given moment is right and everyone else in the world is wrong.

It can be no other way. I have a friend who knows a bloke who wrote a paper on traffic collisions. It was 16% less accurate than other papers may or may not have been.

That's a fact.


----------



## Arfcollins (13 Dec 2011)

snorri said:


> Are you telling me helmetism is _not_ a religion?


The problem with this regular debate is that it is a religious discussion. Both sides have beliefs based on little real data. By that I mean that the number of head injuries per thousand cycled miles is vanishingly small and so is irrelevant to our day to day cycling experiences. We instead base our choices on our own personal experiences, so I suspect that very few who don't wear helmets have had a severe blow to the head when coming to grief off their bike. Conversely those who have had hard contact between head and ground probably think that wearing a helmet has its benefits.

And like any religious debate, people are rarely convinced that the other person is right.

And that's a fact! (Please excuse me stealing your ™ catchphrase Bicycle).


----------



## Davidc (13 Dec 2011)

I'm waiting for a meeting to start and I'm bored, but I have made the wi-fi work with my laptop!



classic33 said:


> For those that have decided to use them. Can you explain why it seems that in order to keep it safe whilst not riding your bike, why do you lock it it with the same lock you are using for the bike.
> 
> Some people are even making certain that their locks will fit through by cutting out parts of the helmet! Its not done with any other piece of equipment used for cycling, or is it?


 
I've been trying to get mine nicked, so I won't have one and noone can complain when I don't wear it. I usually have it on when I use the town bike, so...

I keep leaving it hanging unlocked from the stands my bike's locked to, or just dangling from the handlebars. It's always there when I get back to the bike. I've tried hanging it from empty stands next to the one I'm using. Same result.

I thought "I'll leave it here and see if it's gone by tomorrow". A woman rode up beside me at the traffic lights down the road and handed it to me complete with an admonishment for not wearing it.

Its only use is keeping my head warm when it's very cold and a wooly hat does that better.

If I have an accident I really don't want to be killed by having my head twisted off by a helmet, so please will someone take it!

(Better be after Christmas though or I'll be gifted a new one).

As Arfcollins says, it's all down to personal experience. I happen to have had an accident years ago (before helmets appeared) in which a helmet would have been bad news. I believe, but of course have no proof, that whether a helmet is good bad or neutral depends on the specific accident, and that the weighting for each option is unknown (lack of research).

In summer when it's hot helmets are actively dangerous - risk of passing out from overheating. Apart from that they're generally just uncomfortable and I prefer the feel of the wind in my hair. When it's very cold they keep my wooly hat on.

The probability of an accident while on a bike is so small that as far as I'm concerned it's not worth considering.

The last person's arrived (used a car to get here I think, so she's late) so that's all I'm saying about helmets...


----------



## classic33 (13 Dec 2011)

mickle said:


> Oh lordy.


 
Religion being brought into it again!!


----------



## ComedyPilot (13 Dec 2011)

Why is it grown adults try to tell me to wear a helmet, yet haven't swung a leg over a bike since they were 11?


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Dec 2011)

(


marafi said:


> Dont wear a helmet it is a silly idea!





marafi said:


> My tiredness from reivisng too much. I am meant to say not to wear helmet while cycling is a silly idea. So wear a helmet.


 

Changing that from the original is definitely too much revision!


----------



## Dayvo (13 Dec 2011)

Even cricketers and rugby players wear helmets. And that Chelski goalkeeper!


----------



## ComedyPilot (13 Dec 2011)

Only when at the crease or wicket keeping, the out fielders don't bother. Perhaps we should start a campaign to make ALL cricketers wear helmets - AND golfers too! I wonder how many people are killed on golf courses every year?

Rugby players should wear helmets, because they have 22 other (muscular) blokes trying to do them irreversible harm, so it would be crazy not to.

And the mainstream media, (and people with no sense) still expect me to wear a sweaty polystyrene helmet whilst I potter about at 10-15 mph on quiet back roads?


----------



## ComedyPilot (13 Dec 2011)

And golf green keepers should wear helmets....they're just asking for bother by not wearing one......


----------



## Davidc (13 Dec 2011)

ComedyPilot said:


> Why is it grown adults try to tell me to wear a helmet, yet haven't swung a leg over a bike since they were 11?


 
And they don't even wear one while walking!


----------



## classic33 (13 Dec 2011)

ComedyPilot said:


> Only when at the crease or wicket keeping, the out fielders don't bother. Perhaps we should start a campaign to make ALL cricketers wear helmets - *AND golfers too!* I wonder how many people are killed on golf courses every year?
> 
> Rugby players should wear helmets, because they have 22 other (muscular) blokes trying to do them irreversible harm, so it would be crazy not to.
> 
> And the mainstream media, (and people with no sense) still expect me to wear a sweaty polystyrene helmet whilst I potter about at 10-15 mph on quiet back roads?


 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006051411150


by Spud
Fewer than are wiped out by those orb things employed in rythmic gymnastics..*golf: maybe 16 a week* Scotland 11 of which occur in Glasgow, maybe a ball maybe a club who knows, noones talking..

You could be onto something there!


----------



## TheDoctor (13 Dec 2011)

Since the most likely thing to cause me injury on a bike is some dickhead driving into my ar$e at 70 mph, I fail to see how a helmet would help me.
Banning seatbelts and airbags would make me feel safer...


----------



## rowan 46 (13 Dec 2011)

this is my helmet not so much designed for safety as revenge.
The idea being after the driver has knocked me down I sail through the windscreen and pierce them them through the chest.


----------



## ianrauk (13 Dec 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> this is my helmet not so much designed for safety as revenge.
> The idea being after the driver has knocked me down I sail through the windscreen and pierce them them through the chest.
> View attachment 5526


 

Rowan, top top idea....I like it...


----------



## Dan_h (13 Dec 2011)

Bicycle said:


> No. This is a Helmet Thread.
> Spirit and Decency have nothing to do with it.
> 
> Christmas, Schmishmas!
> ...


 
Good, I like facts, and that is a fact!


----------



## Red Light (13 Dec 2011)

ComedyPilot said:


> AND golfers too! I wonder how many people are killed on golf courses every year?


 
http://emj.bmj.com/content/19/6/576.full


----------



## Bicycle (13 Dec 2011)

rowan 46 said:


> this is my helmet not so much designed for safety as revenge.
> The idea being after the driver has knocked me down I sail through the windscreen and pierce them them through the chest.
> View attachment 5526


 

When I was a motorcycle courier one of my colleagues went to court on a matter of what I believe was criminal damage. There may have been other charges.

He'd been cut up by a car on diplo plates and the driver had given him the bird. Wearing his leathers and helmet, he took a flying headbutt at the rear window of the car and cracked it, although he failed to gain entry (which had been his intention).

He was a hero to many of us for some months after that. i do not know the outcome of the case.

Not quite the scenario you describe, but not too far off.


----------



## ufkacbln (15 Dec 2011)

mickle said:


> Oh lordy.


 



classic33 said:


> Religion being brought into it again!!


 

I'm afraid you are mistaken, this the inaugural appearance of the Eurovision song contest in a helmet thread!


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (16 Dec 2011)

marafi said:


> Its a debate why should i mind?


Debates do not consist of instructions! "So wear a helmet." is an instruction.


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Dec 2011)

.... or a question:

"So, wear a helmet?"


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Dec 2011)

I must admit that I have had a couple of close escapes in the recent weather where the back wheel has slipped.

But being on a recumbent trike it is not a problem.

Which brings us to the Elf and Safety principles for using PPE

As engineering controls to improve safety should be considered and implemented before considering PPE all you two wheeled upwrong riders should be compulsorily made to ride recumbent trikes!


----------



## Bicycle (17 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Debates do not consist of instructions! "So wear a helmet." is an instruction.


 
It might not be an instruction; it might be in 'Friendslish', spoken by New York loft dwellers stuck in the last decade.

As in: "You should so wear a helmet".

Just a thought.


----------



## Bicycle (17 Dec 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> *... all you two wheeled upwrong riders should be compulsorily made to ride recumbent trikes![/*quote]
> 
> I hate to admit how alluring I find that idea but I do, particularly after a crappy, slidey, nervous MTB ride to collect a child from an evening thing last night. (He loved riding with no grip - it's an age thing).
> 
> ...


----------



## marafi (17 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Debates do not consist of instructions! "So wear a helmet." is an instruction.


 


Cunobelin said:


> .... or a question:
> 
> "So, wear a helmet?"


 
Or your own opinion. It is like trying to make you reliaze your own safety while on the bike.


----------



## marafi (17 Dec 2011)

Bicycle said:


> It might not be an instruction; it might be in 'Friendslish', spoken by New York loft dwellers stuck in the last decade.
> 
> As in: "You should so wear a helmet".
> 
> Just a thought.


Very well good thought.


----------



## marafi (17 Dec 2011)

Done the reading yes and fine for a debate you should not have instructions just opinions.


----------



## Red Light (17 Dec 2011)

marafi said:


> you should not have instructions just opinions.


 
Is that an instruction or an opinion?


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Dec 2011)

Bicycle said:


> On a recumbant trike, is there somewhere to store the helmet I'd obviously be wearing?


 
On your head?

Failing that simply place on the seat, hang off the neck rest, balance on the cruciform.....


----------



## Bicycle (17 Dec 2011)

I've been out (helmetless) a few times since it got really slippery.

Already the geared roadie (700c x 23) and the fixie (700c x 20) are hanging on a hook. Sadly, it is the hardtail MTB now (on big, fat Maxxis Ignitors).

I do not feel the want of a helmet in this weather. I just wish I had tyres that would either grip at all times or give me a two-minute warning if they were going to let go.

It's all a little too Moto Cross for me out there. 

I am wearing a helmet as I type this, as some of our seasonal decorations are unwisely placed.


----------



## DresdenDoom (17 Dec 2011)

Is it safe for a newbie to enter the Helmet Debate, or do I need a helmet?


----------



## Red Light (17 Dec 2011)

My mate wore a helmet during a helmet debate and it saved his life.


----------



## DresdenDoom (17 Dec 2011)

Red Light said:


> My mate wore a helmet during a helmet debate and it saved his life.


 
Ahhh, but they're no protection against flames.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (17 Dec 2011)

marafi said:


> Or your own opinion. It is like trying to make you reliaze your own safety while on the bike.


To which again the answer is "mind your own business" I don't give a monkey's toss if you wear a helmet or not, that is your choice and I won't tell you to do so or not do to do so. I extend you the courtesy of believing that you are an adult and can make up your own mind, please extend me ( and others ) the same courtesy?


----------



## Red Light (17 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> Ahhh, but they're no protection against flames.


 
Yes they are. If they can deflect a speeding juggernaut, a few flames are nothing


----------



## Davidc (17 Dec 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> .... or a question:
> 
> "So, wear a helmet?"


 
And "No, not bloo** likely, I don't want my head twisted off in an accident" is an answer!


----------



## DresdenDoom (17 Dec 2011)

Red Light said:


> Yes they are. If they can deflect a speeding juggernaut, a few flames are nothing


 
Umm... forum - debate - flames - I'll get me coat


----------



## Red Light (17 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> Umm... forum - debate - flames - I'll get me coat


 
Looking at your avatar I'm just wondering if you might be in the wrong sort of bike forum


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> Ahhh, but they're no protection against flames.


 
Some have flames!


----------



## Number14 (17 Dec 2011)

You don't need a helmet anymore, just plug yourself into a set of headphones and you won't die.

Well, it must be tru because a doctor said so ....

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4004356/Hit-run-girls-life-saved-by-her-cans.html


----------



## DresdenDoom (17 Dec 2011)

Red Light said:


> Looking at your avatar I'm just wondering if you might be in the wrong sort of bike forum


 
As an aged veteran motorcycle, it is, of course off the road. My trusty Ammaco Dresden (hahahahaha) is however very much on it and I find I can still treat traffic with contempt and disdain even at 10mph. I particularly enjoy bus lanes


----------



## Freddyflintstone (17 Dec 2011)

Nobody talks about the tech side of these useless helmets
They are a collapsable piece of polystyrene that absorbs the kinetic energy of a person
falling from the bike to the ground. What use is that for a car or vehicle impact at speed.
Also the contact area of the polystyrene has to be a very good close fit all the way round. 90% are NOT fitted correctly so you might as well not have them


----------



## Arfcollins (17 Dec 2011)

Freddyflintstone said:


> Nobody talks about the tech side of these useless helmets
> <skip>
> Also the contact area of the polystyrene has to be a very good close fit all the way round. 90% are NOT fitted correctly so you might as well not have them


Data?


----------



## lukesdad (17 Dec 2011)

The fastest riders on the planet wear them, could be a training advantage  ....... anyways back to this  as you were.


----------



## Red Light (17 Dec 2011)

Freddyflintstone said:


> They are a collapsable piece of polystyrene that absorbs the kinetic energy of a person'*s detached head*
> falling from the bike to the ground.


 
FTFY


----------



## Red Light (17 Dec 2011)

Arfcollins said:


> Data?


 
Good call Arfcollins - he is of course wrong.  Its 96% not 90%.


----------



## DresdenDoom (17 Dec 2011)

Strikes me that if it makes people more comfortable and confident on the road, then they should wear them. The placebo effect is 100% real!


----------



## Red Light (17 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> Strikes me that if it makes people more comfortable and confident on the road, then they should wear them. The placebo effect is 100% real!


 
As is risk compensation, a direct consequence of the placebo effect making people think they are protected when they aren't.


----------



## DresdenDoom (17 Dec 2011)

I can't see anyone who believes that a helmet is actually necessary doing a full 180 into 'just do it' mode. But a little less nervousness is a Good Thing. I wouldn't dream of wearing one, but then nerves are hardly my problem.


----------



## Red Light (17 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> I can't see anyone who believes that a helmet is actually necessary doing a full 180 into 'just do it' mode. But a little less nervousness is a Good Thing. I wouldn't dream of wearing one, but then nerves are hardly my problem.


 
Risk compensation is much more subtle than going into "just do it" mode. As many studies have shown, making people feel safer leads to them taking more risks to at least nullify the safety benefit. The problem with helmets comes if there is no safety benefit to nullify but the users feel safer and take more risks nonetheless.


----------



## doog (17 Dec 2011)

If I fell head first onto the deck at 5mph would I be safer with a helmet on or without?

Most accidents are low speed and happen at junctions and roundabouts (of that this is no doubt)

I need some clearance here....I wear a helmet because it keeps my head warm, keeps my skull cap on, when I am cycling abroad most other people wear them and they cant all be mugs...can they?

I hate bees / flies getting in my helmet through the gaps so if anyone can tell me its safer to not wear one than to wear one I will listen.

What is safe about not wearing a lid.... ?.Ive done the Pyrenees and on the ascents had my lid on the bars and it felt good, I felt naked..free....it would be great if someone could persuade me that lid wearing is a complete waste of time

what about a woolly hat?


----------



## doog (17 Dec 2011)

d/p

this forum is struggling isnt it ?


----------



## Red Light (17 Dec 2011)

doog said:


> If I fell head first onto the deck at 5mph would I be safer with a helmet on or without?
> 
> Most accidents are low speed and happen at junctions and roundabouts (of that this is no doubt)
> 
> ...


 
Best evidence is they make no difference one way or the other. So do what you feel is right for you in the light of that. Its a decision only you can make Despite that, unfortunately you'll find lots of people trying to tell you you must wear one but no-one will tell you you mustn't wear one.


----------



## snorri (17 Dec 2011)

doog said:


> when I am cycling abroad most other people wear them and they cant all be mugs...can they?


That's contrary to my experience, which countries have you been cycling in?


----------



## Red Light (17 Dec 2011)

snorri said:


> That's contrary to my experience, which countries have you been cycling in?


 
I think it depends. For utility cycling in Europe, helmets are pretty rare except where required by law. In the Pyrenees that Doog mentioned its mainly wanabee racing cyclist dressed up in all the gear to emulate their heros. Which includes wearing helmets as are mandated for their heros by the UCI. So in some ways you could say yes, they are all mugs. But not I think in the way that Doog was thinking.


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Dec 2011)

Arfcollins said:


> Data?


 
I have different figures.

The ones I have are from a US medical centre that looked at helmet wearing.
60% of children had helmets that were more than half an inch out in fit. They then suggested that when head injuries were experienced that ove half the victims in this age group had an inch difference between the correct fitting and the one actually worn.


Their main concern was that 14% of helmets actually came off during the crash!

The conclusion was that helmets should be fitted by trained staff a redesign of helmets for children to make them ft better.


----------



## Arfcollins (17 Dec 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> I have different figures.
> 
> The ones I have are from a US medical centre that looked at helmet wearing.
> 60% of children had helmets that were more than half an inch out in fit. They then suggested that when head injuries were experienced that ove half the victims in this age group had an inch difference between the correct fitting and the one actually worn.
> ...


While it would be tragic if a child suffered an avoidable head injury because of an ill fitting helmet I would guess (and this would be classified as a religious belief as I have no data) that most commuters who have bought a helmet have selected the one that best fits their head.

And while you have supplied data about helmets coming off being their main concern, 14% of helmets coming off means that 86% stayed on. This means that there is a very good chance that the potential injuries of 86% of children were avoided by wearing a helmet and the potential injuries of 14% of children who would have been injured by wearing a helmet were also avoided, so no-one was hurt.

And that's a fact.


----------



## Nantmor (17 Dec 2011)

Arfcollins said:


> While it would be tragic if a child suffered an avoidable head injury because of an ill fitting helmet I would guess (and this would be classified as a religious belief as I have no data) that most commuters who have bought a helmet have selected the one that best fits their head.
> 
> And while you have supplied data about helmets coming off being their main concern, 14% of helmets coming off means that 86% stayed on. This means that there is a very good chance that the potential injuries of 86% of children were avoided by wearing a helmet and the potential injuries of 14% of children who would have been injured by wearing a helmet were also avoided, so no-one was hurt.
> 
> And that's a fact.


No, it is not a fact. Potential injuries can only avoided by supposition. By definition potential means might happen. "Religious belief" is quite right. Noone can say anything about injuries which did not happen.
None of the studies of states where helmet compulsion has resulted in sudden big increases in helmet wearing show any discernable reduction in cyclist casualty rates.
Helmets are sold in Wilkos these days. When I sold them I had to tell nearly every buyer that they should be worn level, not perched jauntily on the back of the head. (I gave up selling the damn things) Fitting a helmet is quite skilled. I don't believe that most vendors even try to fit them properly.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (18 Dec 2011)

Arfcollins said:


> While it would be tragic if a child suffered an avoidable head injury because of an ill fitting helmet I would guess (and this would be classified as a religious belief as I have no data) that most commuters who have bought a helmet have selected the one that best fits their head.
> 
> And while you have supplied data about helmets coming off being their main concern, 14% of helmets coming off means that 86% stayed on. This means that there is a very good chance that the potential injuries of 86% of children were avoided by wearing a helmet and the potential injuries of 14% of children who would have been injured by wearing a helmet were also avoided, so no-one was hurt.
> 
> And that's a fact.


 
.
Errrr, no that's not a "fact" it's a string of suppositions. To quote someone from another place , it was close to "policy based evidence making"


----------



## DresdenDoom (18 Dec 2011)

I do like that quote LYB, where was it from?


----------



## Arfcollins (18 Dec 2011)

Nantmor said:


> No, it is not a fact. Potential injuries can only avoided by supposition. By definition potential means might happen. "Religious belief" is quite right. Noone can say anything about injuries which did not happen.
> None of the studies of states where helmet compulsion has resulted in sudden big increases in helmet wearing show any discernable reduction in cyclist casualty rates.
> Helmets are sold in Wilkos these days. When I sold them I had to tell nearly every buyer that they should be worn level, not perched jauntily on the back of the head. (I gave up selling the damn things) Fitting a helmet is quite skilled. I don't believe that most vendors even try to fit them properly.


I suspect you are quite right (no data again unfortunately) that it is quite easy to wear a helmet incorrectly. I'm sure we've all even seen someone wear one back to front!

The point I was making with my ridiculous argument in my previous post is that there is conflicting evidence of whether helmets are a good thing or a bad thing. I think they are a good thing because I have fallen off my bike twice (no other vehicle involved, high speed or otherwise) and both times my head hit the ground - hard. Both times the helmets were damaged, and I have a preference for damaged helmets over damaged skulls.

There are probably those here who can provide me with statistics that 'prove' that next time I have an accident my helmet will cause my head to be ripped off or my brain to be liquidised. They won't change my mind, because I have a religious belief that helmets are good despite their having a religious belief that they are bad.

This debate has been fun but was only worthwhile if any of the readers has either started or stopped wearing a helmet because of what they have read here. Any takers?


----------



## DresdenDoom (18 Dec 2011)

Health and Safety is the new religion. The proponents are the prophets, the agnostics are heretics who must be converted. I say NO to Hi-Viz


----------



## Arfcollins (18 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> Health and Safety is the new religion. The proponents are the prophets, the agnostics are heretics who must be converted. I say NO to Hi-Viz


Sorry, but that is off-topic unless you're talking about hi-viz helmets.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (18 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> I do like that quote LYB, where was it from?


 
Uk.Rec.Cycling


----------



## DresdenDoom (18 Dec 2011)

Was just expanding the horizon. Actually just pulling in a hate that I hate sooooo much more than helmets. Apologies, I'll start a newly contentious topic.


----------



## DresdenDoom (18 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> Uk.Rec.Cycling


 
Usenet? Is that still alive?? Blimey!!!


----------



## doog (18 Dec 2011)

snorri said:


> That's contrary to my experience, which countries have you been cycling in?


 

toured Spain and France bottom to top

Everyone on a bike had a helmet on... apart from one bloke down near Limoux


----------



## Arfcollins (18 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> Was just expanding the horizon. Actually just pulling in a hate that I hate sooooo much more than helmets. Apologies, I'll start a newly contentious topic.


Hurry up, I'm going to bed soon and I don't want to miss anything.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (18 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> Usenet? Is that still alive?? Blimey!!!


 Barely! :-(


----------



## Arfcollins (18 Dec 2011)

doog said:


> toured Spain and France bottom to top
> 
> Everyone on a bike had a helmet on... apart from one bloke down near Limoux


Jeez, those Limoux cyclists!


----------



## DresdenDoom (18 Dec 2011)

Arfcollins said:


> Hurry up, I'm going to bed soon and I don't want to miss anything.


 
Suffer damn you - suspense is all


----------



## doog (18 Dec 2011)

Arfcollins said:


> Jeez, those Limoux cyclists!


 
he had a full head of hair and looked good on his Bianchi

I looked like a sack of shoot


----------



## DresdenDoom (18 Dec 2011)

doog said:


> ... I looked like a sack of shoot


Is that a fact or an opinion?


----------



## snorri (18 Dec 2011)

doog said:


> toured Spain and France bottom to top
> Everyone on a bike had a helmet on... apart from one bloke down near Limoux


I'm quite amazed to hear that, usage in France must have increased dramatically in the few years since I toured there.
However, your observations in these two countries are not representative by a long chalk, of the rest of Europe.


----------



## Red Light (18 Dec 2011)

Arfcollins said:


> I suspect you are quite right (no data again unfortunately) that it is quite easy to wear a helmet incorrectly. I'm sure we've all even seen someone wear one back to front!
> 
> The point I was making with my ridiculous argument in my previous post is that there is conflicting evidence of whether helmets are a good thing or a bad thing. I think they are a good thing because I have fallen off my bike twice (no other vehicle involved, high speed or otherwise) and both times my head hit the ground - hard. Both times the helmets were damaged, and I have a preference for damaged helmets over damaged skulls.
> 
> ...


 
Arfcollins, I'll respond to both your posts in one although I've only quoted one above.

In children there is no evidence that helmets make any difference. Hewson looked at the UK accident and hospital data for children and found that although girls were twice as likely to have been wearing a helmet as boys, they had the same head injury rate. i.e. all those extra helmets made no difference at all. You could of course explain it by the girls taking far more risks when cycling but that would be contrary to general perceptions. Also Tim Gill did a review for the National Children's Bureau of cycling for children and concluded in the helmets section of his report:

_"those of us who cycle should be under no illusion that helmets offer reliable protection in crash situations where our lives may be in danger. Neither should we believe that widespread adoption of helmet wearing would see many fewer cyclists killed or permanently disabled. The evidence so far suggests otherwise."_​ 
As for your falling offs, you can show statistically, working from the numbers that do get a head injury and the helmet wearing rates, that the most likely thing by a long way to have happened if you had not been wearing a helmet is this: nothing. Either that or you are a very bad risk taking cyclist who is an extreme outlier on the probability curve for having serious accidents.


----------



## Red Light (18 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> I do like that quote LYB, where was it from?


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_based_evidence_making


----------



## Red Light (18 Dec 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> I have different figures.
> 
> The ones I have are from a US medical centre that looked at helmet wearing.


 
Not the Harbor View Medical Center in Seattle reknown for making up bogus numbers about helmet wearing? I wouldn't trust their data with a bargepole.


----------



## Red Light (18 Dec 2011)

doog said:


> toured Spain and France bottom to top
> 
> Everyone on a bike had a helmet on... apart from one bloke down near Limoux


 
Before you worry about whether to wear a helmet or not I would worry first about keeping your eyes open when cycling and/or your observational powers. There is no way you toured all that distance in Spain and France and only encountered one unhelmeted cyclist.


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> Health and Safety is the new religion. The proponents are the prophets, the agnostics are heretics who must be converted. I say NO to Hi-Viz


 
The *last thing* road safety experts and motorists want is anything to do with Health and Safety concepts.

*All* the H&S systems have a heirarchy of measures which reduce the danger through design, engineering or process *before* introducing PPE

Take Chichester for instance there is an issue with homeless people being injured whilst crossing a busy dual carriageway to gain access to a Hostel.

Never mind looking at a crossing point, alternatives, reducing the speed limit, "training" the homeless to cross at a safer and better crossing point.

No...... they are all being issued with HiViz!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Dec 2011)

Red Light said:


> Not the Harbor View Medical Center in Seattle reknown for making up bogus numbers about helmet wearing? I wouldn't trust their data with a bargepole.


 

... but it is by Rivara and Thompson!!!!!!

How could these stalwart's work possibly be suspect?

The reason I like this one is that although it is cynical, you cannot discount their reasoning in a case like this, yet accept them as valid when talking about other aspects of helmet efficiency!


----------



## ComedyPilot (18 Dec 2011)

snorri said:


> I'm quite amazed to hear that, usage in France must have increased dramatically in the few years since I toured there.
> *However, your observations in these two countries are not representative by a long chalk, of the rest of Europe.*


 
I totally agree - I have toured extensively round Holland and Germany; helmet use was minimal to say the least in Germany and practically zero in Holland.

Oh, and a lot more people (of all ages) cycle over there.

Our idle (american-influenced) countrymen hide behind the excuse of 'they have always ridden' (Holland) or it's too hilly here (not as hilly as Germany) to avoid physical exercise. And the ones that do ride are bombarded by nanny-state media-driven images of people dressed up like building site labourers to go for 100m rides to the park.

You won't find the helmet (or hi-viz) pushed on the people by any of the govts of Holland or Germany, or by their media, or by peer pressure from an idle, uneducated and brainwashed public.


----------



## marafi (18 Dec 2011)

Little yellow Brompton said:


> To which again the answer is "mind your own business" I don't give a monkey's toss if you wear a helmet or not, that is your choice and I won't tell you to do so or not do to do so. I extend you the courtesy of believing that you are an adult and can make up your own mind, please extend me ( and others ) the same courtesy?


Why should i mind my own business. Honstely, i think you are misunderstanding the terms of a debate or better yet the role of a debate. Your own courtesy of course it is up to you. Im glad to be wearing a helmet and those who dont it is up to them. Hopefully the typing of this, sounds alot better now.


Anyway, has anyone seen a helmet with strawberries on it? Now that would be a helmet worth having!


----------



## ComedyPilot (18 Dec 2011)

http://hembrow.blogspot.com/search/label/helmets

Don't take my word for it.


----------



## Red Light (18 Dec 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> ... but it is by Rivara and Thompson!!!!!!
> 
> How could these stalwart's work possibly be suspect?
> 
> The reason I like this one is that although it is cynical, you cannot discount their reasoning in a case like this, yet accept them as valid when talking about other aspects of helmet efficiency!


 
I don't accept anything they say whatever the benefits might be. Their work is just too suspect to trust.


----------



## Nantmor (18 Dec 2011)

Arfcollins said:


> This debate has been fun but was only worthwhile if any of the readers has either started or stopped wearing a helmet because of what they have read here. Any takers?


 
I know of people whose view on helmets has been changed by discussion, and then looking at the evidence. I have great respect for them. One guy I argued with on uk.rec.cycling is now a stalwart of cyclehelmets.org.


----------



## marafi (18 Dec 2011)

1648027 said:


> That is a bit different from your first venture into this debate, which included the instruction to wear a helmet.


Yes, it is very different not just abit. Though, if hopefully you read my posts from before i have said that it is up to you. I am just having my own opinion though its funny it has caused such a uproar.

Being the public, the fear would be scared by anyone.


----------



## Nantmor (18 Dec 2011)

marafi said:


> Being the public, the fear would be scared by anyone.


 
I'm sorry, I don't understand this.


----------



## Theseus (18 Dec 2011)

Nantmor said:


> marafi said:
> 
> 
> > Being the public, the fear would be scared by anyone.
> ...


 
I think it is student speak, but like you I have no idea what it means. It has been a while since my degree


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Dec 2011)

Red Light said:


> I don't accept anything they say whatever the benefits might be. Their work is just too suspect to trust.


 
Exactly, but..... as it is used by so many to justify helmet use, it is fun when people try to justify one and dispute the validity of the other when they are the same authors!


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Dec 2011)

marafi said:


> Anyway, has anyone seen a helmet with strawberries on it? Now that would be a helmet worth having!


 
Which brings us to helmet designs and ventilation. You need enough solid helmet to retain the soil, but sufficient vents for the strawberries to grow.


----------



## doog (18 Dec 2011)

Red Light said:


> Before you worry about whether to wear a helmet or not I would worry first about keeping your eyes open when cycling and/or your observational powers. There is no way you toured all that distance in Spain and France and only encountered one unhelmeted cyclist.


 
where have you toured mate ? I was also amazed at the amount of high viz on show. I will put my route up at some point, mainly rural. Really came away with the impression of how responsible the French are both in their cycling gear and driving habits towards cyclists.

Certainly didnt come away with the impression that they were anti helmet, the complete opposite to be honest


----------



## Red Light (18 Dec 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/11/healthandwellbeing.transport


----------



## ComedyPilot (18 Dec 2011)

Red Light said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/11/healthandwellbeing.transport


 
I found it a bit biased pro-helmet?

Shouldn't journo's be neutered neutral?


----------



## Red Light (18 Dec 2011)

ComedyPilot said:


> I found it a bit biased pro-helmet?
> 
> Shouldn't journo's be neutered neutral?


 
It was but it was mainly to counter Doog's view that he only saw one Frenchman without a helmet in his entire tour there (and explain by he saw a lot of hi-viz)


----------



## ComedyPilot (18 Dec 2011)

Red Light said:


> It was but it was mainly to counter Doog's view that he only saw one Frenchman without a helmet in his entire tour there (and explain by he saw a lot of hi-viz)


I appreciate that, but as a stand-alone piece of vomit journalism, it seemed one-sided from the off. The author instantly was questioning people's decision not to wear, but never really pushed forward the non-wearing side.

Also, no-one seems to be questioning why the most vulnerable of road users need to dress up like Bob the Builder, yet the people who actually do all the harm are never brought to book and shamed about their actions?

In a 'health & safety' environment PPE is usually the last thing implemented, yet strangely it is the first thing implemented with cycling?

Take a fork lift incident on a building site; operator training, vehicle type and suitability, site layout, load weight, size and position, and forklift movement would all be looked at before someone decides that a yellow jacket and a plastic hat might help reduce injury.


----------



## ComedyPilot (18 Dec 2011)

http://issuu.com/carltonreid/docs/murder-most-foul

A very interesting read.


----------



## marafi (18 Dec 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> Which brings us to helmet designs and ventilation. You need enough solid helmet to retain the soil, but sufficient vents for the strawberries to grow.


That would be efficent and amazing if you can grow strawberries on a helmet it would be like breakfast on the go. Though i mean as in design like the fire one.

And for my comment above well if you dont understand it, then at least it shows it is not an instruction. And since your degree you say, should not give you an excuse for you to understand a statement that is pointed to the public as not as a instruction, but a thought in mind.


----------



## doog (18 Dec 2011)

edit

off to bed


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Dec 2011)

Two things about helmet design and compensation.

The EN1078 specification that helmets pass in the UK is so useless that is is not accepted in the US. YOu are not allowed to take part in Triathlons, or races if you have an EN1078 helmet. Which brings us to the thought. Should someone who buys a Halfirds / Lidl £9.99 job have their compensation cut because they chose to wear a helmet that offers less protection than one that passed a higher standard than Snell, CPSC etc?


Then we come to "modern design.

Helmets with more vents decrease the protection they offer. Firstly there is less material to absorb impact in the first place, and secondly the remaining material has to be a higher density and harder to maintain shape and not break. Finally there are carbon or other suports. Again this offers less absorption of the energy of an impact.

Modern design helmets offer far less protection than sya 15 years ago. The standard for helmets used to be Snell B95, but there are no helmets on the market that can now meet this!


Weird concept, as we get more and more pressure to wear one, the little protection they offer is decreasing!


----------



## Dan_h (19 Dec 2011)

1648927 said:


> Motorcycles generate a lot of wind cooling without the rider's head getting hot. They can do a lot more in the protection department.


 
Also motorcyclists don't have to worry about standing up and grinding up a long hill on a hot summers day!


----------



## Red Light (19 Dec 2011)

1648927 said:


> Motorcycles generate a lot of wind cooling without the rider's head getting hot. They can do a lot more in the protection department.



But do you really feel the need to wear a big heavy hot motorcycle helmet when the risk of a head injury is once every 4 million miles? Boris bikers have now completed over 8 million unhelmeted journeys without a single head injury. Do you really want to wear a motorcycle helmet for such a very rare eventuality?


----------



## Red Light (20 Dec 2011)

1649789 said:


> Sorry, I've clearly not made myself so. I was only seeking to point out that motorcyclists sit in a cooling breeze not expending any great effort so their helmets can concentrate on protection. Cycle helmets, in contrast, are compromised from the start by the need for the wearer to avoid overheating.


 
I realised but your post was as convenient as any to hang a post on questioning what the rationale is for suffering any inconvenience wearing a helmet for such a miniscule chance of anything happening where it might help. How many lifetimes would it take any of us to cycle 4 million miles or make 8 million journeys at our current rate of cycling?


----------



## Bicycle (20 Dec 2011)

I think very few people take the idea of compulsory helmet-wearing seriously. A fringe backbench west-country MP is currently a bit noisy about it, but that's hardly the same thing as _'it's going to happen'_. Some anti-compulsion campaigners get uppity about pilot schemes overseas, but people like to have something to get uppity about. It's a human right. 

It reminds me of the kerfuffle about the triple jab a few years ago. All the doctors I knew or knew of had the triple jab for their own children. It was only Internet morons and kerfuffle-makers who decided it was a great big conspiracy. Lo and behold, the doctors were right. Kerfuffle over nothing is a human right and I will defend to the death the right of anti-helmet-compulsion campaigners to howl at the moon from now until Domesday. They are howling about nothing, but it stops them worrying about too much else and it does no harm. They may even be right and legislation may be coming in in 2015. And the Moon might be made of cheese. 

I often wear a helmet, but usually I don't. If it became compulsory I wouldn't weep. But I think it would be a poor piece of legislation however worded - and I just don't think it would get through.

Many non-cyclists I know are concerned that I ride on fast roads helmetless and with occasionally helmetless children. Most cyclists I know don't have a view on whether I ought to protect my children's noggins. 

Oddly, doctors, police officers and ambulance crew I know tend to be in favour of helmets, but I've never heard one speak in favour of compulsion. I am against compulsion, but in the same way that I am against the notion of government by earthworms. It's not something I need to spend much time worrying about. 

Our vicar tuts and gives me a comedy hard stare when he sees my children riding without helmets, but as he is also opposed to yoga being practised in Church property, we may want to make our own minds up about which planet he inhabits. 

Well if that doesn't make me a troll and a moron, what does?


----------



## Nantmor (20 Dec 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I think very few people take the idea of compulsory helmet-wearing seriously. A fringe backbench west-country MP is currently a bit noisy about it, but that's hardly the same thing as _'it's going to happen'_. Some anti-compulsion campaigners get uppity about pilot schemes overseas, but people like to have something to get uppity about. It's a human right.
> 
> It reminds me of the kerfuffle about the triple jab a few years ago. All the doctors I knew or knew of had the triple jab for their own children. It was only Internet morons and kerfuffle-makers who decided it was a great big conspiracy. Lo and behold, the doctors were right. Kerfuffle over nothing is a human right and I will defend to the death the right of anti-helmet-compulsion campaigners to howl at the moon from now until Domesday. They are howling about nothing, but it stops them worrying about too much else and it does no harm. They may even be right and legislation may be coming in in 2015. And the Moon might be made of cheese.
> 
> ...


 
Of course it doesn't make you a troll or a moron. It makes you naive and complacent. The compulsion laws overseas are not "pilot schemes", they are country or state wide fully fledged laws. Other laws which make "safety equipment" compulsory began in those same states and were then introduced here. We have a vocal compulsion lobby and far too little public knowledge of the practical failure of the compulsion laws in other countries. Government some years ago said that at that time the proportion of cyclists wearing polystyrene was too low to implement a law, but that they would keep the situation under review and would like to bring in a law when the number of wearers was higher (I paraphrase from memory).
There is no need to insult those who disagree with you on the likelihood of compulsion. That is just silly. Compulsion laws have been enacted in other countries, what on earth makes it impossible to happen here?


----------



## StuartG (20 Dec 2011)

Bicycle said:


> Oddly, doctors, police officers and ambulance crew I know tend to be in favour of helmets, but I've never heard one speak in favour of compulsion.


 
Certainly for doctors. Here is a quote from the BMJ:

_More than two thirds (68%) of BMJ readers responding to a poll published today (27 July 2011) voted against mandatory cycle helmets for adults.
The poll asked: "Should it be compulsory for adult cyclists to wear helmets?" A total of 1,427 votes were cast on bmj.com over the last 7 days. Of these, 978 said No, while 462 said Yes.
The full results are now available at http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/interactive/polls_


----------



## benb (20 Dec 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I think very few people take the idea of compulsory helmet-wearing seriously.


 
You may be right in that, as it stands, there is little prospect of national helmet compulsion getting through parliament. But if we don't meet these arguments head on, who knows what the position will be in 5 years?

We're already seeing complusion via the back door, with almost every sportive, and several training courses for children mandating the wearing of helmets.


----------



## mmoore5553 (20 Dec 2011)

I believe helmets are a must now a days. Older times people where not riding / biking on cement or payment. They used trails and they had a little give to them. It is just like anything else i would rather be safe then hurt.


----------



## Theseus (20 Dec 2011)

mmoore5553 said:


> I believe helmets are a must now a days. Older times people where not riding / biking on cement or payment. They used trails and they had a little give to them. It is just like anything else i would rather be safe then hurt.


Poppycock.

I have been riding for many years. The vast majority on roads with only very few rides on trails, less than once per year.

ETA: Thinking about it I have come off the bike more on trails than I have on the road.


----------



## Dan_h (20 Dec 2011)

mmoore5553 said:


> I believe helmets are a must now a days. Older times people where not riding / biking on cement or payment. They used trails and they had a little give to them. It is just like anything else i would rather be safe then hurt.


 
Sorry, I have to disagree. People have been riding on roads for an awfully long time without helmets!


----------



## StuartG (20 Dec 2011)

mmoore5553 said:


> I believe helmets are a must


I believe I am a rock god. Next?


----------



## Cyclopathic (20 Dec 2011)

Matthew_T said:


> That kid it going to have a massive scare for the rest of his life now. Just for not waering a helmet.




This video highlights very well just how important it is to work from a properly devised script when tryinig to get across a serious point rather than just pointing the camera at oneself and winging it. It might even be an idea to rehearse a little so that the message comes across as well as possible. It has only strengthened my opinion that a helmet is unnecessary for the type of riding I do. I do not ride around in gardens that are full of holes.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Dec 2011)

1648927 said:


> Motorcycles generate a lot of wind.


 
So do helmet debates!


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Dec 2011)

Compulsion *is* an issue because it is being sneaked in.

It is not the back bench MP looking for a national policy, but all the little nibbles that represent the introduction by the back door.

For instance we have children excluded from the proven value of training if they don't wear an (unproven) helmet, you can't go on a sponsored ride, a race, or other events without one.

We have the classic "Education" by misguided medical professionals who expound how luck you wear to survive a knee injury because you were not wearing a elmet

We have insurance companies condoning appalling injuries being inflicted by dangerous driving because not wearing a helmet somehow makes their client somehow innocent of the consequences of their actions

There is a case on another Forum where a Scout group is telling a Scout they cannnot come to meetings on a bike unless he wears a helmet.

There are lots of other cases... but these are where the problem lies.


----------



## Bicycle (20 Dec 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> Compulsion *is* an issue because it is being sneaked in.
> 
> It is not the back bench MP looking for a national policy, but all the little nibbles that represent the introduction by the back door.
> 
> ...


 
*I quite understand there are lots of other cases... but if these are the four that come most readily to mind, we are not sliding headlong into a rocky crevasse. We may not even be in the foothills.... It is the human right of us all to get excited about whatever it is that floats our boat, but this whole anti-helmet thing reminds me a little of the chap who used to carry a sandwich board on Oxford Street telling me the end was nigh. *

*I reserve the right in this matter to be wrong, naive, hoodwinked or lacking in curiosity. *


----------



## DresdenDoom (21 Dec 2011)

This debate is about helmets in the same way the fox-hunting debate was about foxes. A group of 'right-thinking' people wants to impose their will on another group who have differing views. Using the crutch of 'commonsense' they will harangue the unbelievers until a consensus of 'best practice' is made mainstream. Garnering the new majority, laws will be passed, and control imposed. Thus writ, they will move on, oblivious of the feelings of those they have legislated against. The noose grows ever tighter.


----------



## StuartG (21 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> This debate is about helmets in the same way the fox-hunting debate was about foxes.


Anologies are usually unsound. This one particulary. That is you didn't understand that you didn't understand the arguement of those you disagree with.

Heck I take it back - its a great analogy


----------



## Fish on a bike (22 Dec 2011)

DresdenDoom said:


> This debate is about helmets in the same way the fox-hunting debate was about foxes. A group of 'right-thinking' people wants to impose their will on another group who have differing views. Using the crutch of 'commonsense' they will harangue the unbelievers until a consensus of 'best practice' is made mainstream. Garnering the new majority, laws will be passed, and control imposed. Thus writ, they will move on, oblivious of the feelings of those they have legislated against. The noose grows ever tighter.


 
I don't think you can compare it to killing animals for fun! Like most people I think it should be left up the individual whether they wear a helmet or not, we don't need big brother dictating to us, there's enough pressure on us to do this and that. Commuting I wear a helmet, in the countryside on trails I don't. The day I can't exercise my freewill on matters as minor as this is the day I leave the UK.


----------



## 2wheelsgeth (22 Dec 2011)

Whew. 11 pages of this is enough to make me want to cycle the wrong way down the Euston road at night without lights, helmet or hi-viz. In the outside lane. During a power cut. In heavy rain.

For the record, I wear a helmet and hi-viz, but couldn't really care what anyone else wants to do. It's not like the debate when seatbelts in cars were made compulsory, after all - that really did save a lot of lives.


----------



## ComedyPilot (22 Dec 2011)

I think we should ban private cars from being driven in built up areas - imagine how many lives that would save a year?


----------



## Nantmor (22 Dec 2011)

2wheelsgeth said:


> It's not like the debate when seatbelts in cars were made compulsory, after all - that really did save a lot of lives.


 
No it didn't. Have a look at this exchange of emails with the chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Traffic Safety, who, in my opinion fails completely to justify his claims of lives saved.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/09/23/open-letter-to-executive-director-of-pacts/


The chair, Rob Gifford, has admitted that the seat belt law cost lives of pedestrians and cyclists.

"In your _Significance_ article you are clear that you believe the law has saved the lives of people in cars at the expense of vulnerable road users: “The picture shows a clear reduction in death and injury to car occupants, appreciably offset by extra deaths among pedestrians and cyclists.”".
This is a startling admission from an important figure in the government road safety establishment that seat belts transferred the risk from the relatively invulnerable to the vulnerable. This is unacceptable not just to cyclists and pedestrians, but surely to anyone with a moral sense.

The website linked to above has more material on the subject of seat belts and of cycle helmets.

Talking of the debate when seat belts were made compulsory, enough of a fuss was made by the antis to make the Dept. of Transport commission a report into the results of seat belt laws in other countries. The report was completed in time for the parliamentary debate. It was suppressed and only became known when leaked to the New Scientist some years later. It said there was no detectable improvement in casualty rates in any country which had made belts compulsory. It is on the website linked to.
The helmet debate is very like the seat belt debate, and the claimed success of the seat belt law is often used to justify helmet compulsion. In neither case is there evidence from other countries that their laws decreased casualties.


----------



## Dan_h (22 Dec 2011)

2wheelsgeth said:


> Whew. 11 pages of this is enough to make me want to cycle the wrong way down the Euston road at night without lights, helmet or hi-viz. In the outside lane. During a power cut. In heavy rain.


 
And oddly enough you would probably be fine... at least if all the cyclists I see doing similar things around here are anything to go by!!!


----------



## Davidc (22 Dec 2011)

Not relevant to thin polystyrene cycle helmets but was there any evidence of benefits from motorcycle crash helmets being made compulsory?

The sensation of the wind in your hair at 70mph was fabulous. I've often wondered how much benefit a motorbike helmet is in a crash at that (or higher) speed!


----------



## tyred (22 Dec 2011)

I have now decided to start wearing a helmet like this:







As can be seen, I have also equipped my bike with a means of dealing with dozy pedestrians and close overtake drivers


----------



## 2wheelsgeth (22 Dec 2011)

Nantmor said:


> Talking of the debate when seat belts were made compulsory, enough of a fuss was made by the antis to make the Dept. of Transport commission a report into the results of seat belt laws in other countries. The report was completed in time for the parliamentary debate. It was suppressed and only became known when leaked to the New Scientist some years later. It said there was no detectable improvement in casualty rates in any country which had made belts compulsory. It is on the website linked to.
> The helmet debate is very like the seat belt debate, and the claimed success of the seat belt law is often used to justify helmet compulsion. In neither case is there evidence from other countries that their laws decreased casualties.



I always struggle with this claim - it seems to me that the evidence can be used to support either case. All I really trust in these cases is experience - 15 years ago I lost two friends in a car accident. Neither of them were wearing seatbelts, and both were thrown from the car. I'm not going to be foolish enough to claim that wearing a seatbelt would definitely have saved their lives, but I've never travelled without one since.


----------



## 2wheelsgeth (22 Dec 2011)

Dan_h said:


> And oddly enough you would probably be fine... at least if all the cyclists I see doing similar things around here are anything to go by!!!


----------



## Nantmor (22 Dec 2011)

2wheelsgeth said:


> I always struggle with this claim - it seems to me that the evidence can be used to support either case. All I really trust in these cases is experience - 15 years ago I lost two friends in a car accident. Neither of them were wearing seatbelts, and both were thrown from the car. I'm not going to be foolish enough to claim that wearing a seatbelt would definitely have saved their lives, but I've never travelled without one since.


Have you had a look at the graphs on http://www.john-adams.co.uk/? Have you read Rob Gifford's futile struggles to make his case, and Adams's demolition of his arguments? You wisely refrain from claiming that belts would have saved your friends' lives. Many people still die on the roads in cars, so it is plain that seat belts won't save everyone who crashes.
Thinking that the evidence can be used to support either side does not free you to use anecdotes to decide. If you want to find out which claims are true you should really look at the evidence.


----------



## HonestMan1910 (22 Dec 2011)

never felt the need to post on this debate until just after 2015hrs last night, when my helmet saved my life during my incident with a car, without i am 100% sure that the grey matter inside my skull would have been spread all over the road as a result of my head tking the 1st impact from 15mph to 0mph assisted by a car


----------



## ComedyPilot (23 Dec 2011)

HonestMan1910 said:


> never felt the need to post on this debate until just after 2015hrs last night, when my helmet saved my life during my incident with a car, without i am 100% sure that the grey matter inside my skull would have been spread all over the road as a result of my head tking the 1st impact from 15mph to 0mph assisted by a car


Glad to hear you are 'ok', however, I would like you to look at the incident and explain how it happened. Then we can see if there was anything that could have been done to avoid the crash.

I fully understand your gratitude that you were wearing a helmet, and it possibly saved you from serious injury, but I am concerned as to how you came to be in collision with the vehicle in the first place?


----------



## Red Light (23 Dec 2011)

tyred said:


> I have now decided to start wearing a helmet like this:
> View attachment 5683
> 
> 
> ...


 
<Mae West> Is that a gun on your crossbar or are you just pleased to see us? </Mae West>


----------



## Red Light (23 Dec 2011)

HonestMan1910 said:


> never felt the need to post on this debate until just after 2015hrs last night, when my helmet saved my life during my incident with a car, without i am 100% sure that the grey matter inside my skull would have been spread all over the road as a result of my head tking the 1st impact from 15mph to 0mph assisted by a car


 
I doubt very much it saved your life. From the statistics of helmet wearing and fatal accidents in the UK and the fact that very very few people have their "grey matter spread all over the road", even if helmets were 100% effective there is no more than one such case in the UK a year if that out of a billion or more bicycle journeys. And if the accident had been serious enough that you were at risk of a fatal head injury you would almost certainly have suffered several other fatal non-head injuries as well.


----------



## HonestMan1910 (23 Dec 2011)

ComedyPilot said:


> Glad to hear you are 'ok', however, I would like you to look at the incident and explain how it happened. Then we can see if there was anything that could have been done to avoid the crash.
> 
> I fully understand your gratitude that you were wearing a helmet, and it possibly saved you from serious injury, but I am concerned as to how you came to be in collision with the vehicle in the first place?


 
My accident was as a result of a driver coming out of a sideroad and attempting a right hand turn onto a main road where i was already going straight on i.e. hitting me on my lefthand side.
The driver admitted resposibility straight away, once i had come round, and said that she never sawa either of my bright white front lights and was only aware of me as i shouted out a warning to her as she continued to emerge onto the road.
Definitely 100% driver error and only way to have avoided the accident would have been for me not to have been there at all.

In my opinion and also that of the paramedics, police and witnesses without a helmet my injuries could have been fatal as my head was the first thing to hit the road.


----------



## HonestMan1910 (23 Dec 2011)

Red Light said:


> *I doubt very much it saved your life.* From the statistics of helmet wearing and fatal accidents in the UK and the fact that very very few people have their "grey matter spread all over the road", even if helmets were 100% effective there is no more than one such case in the UK a year if that out of a billion or more bicycle journeys. *And if the accident had been serious enough that you were at risk of a fatal head injury you would almost certainly have suffered several other fatal non-head injuries as well*.


 
Rubbish is all i will say to this preposeterous statement.

There are many incidences of people suffering just the one fatal injury and no other injuries at all.

My head would have been the first point of impact with the road had I not been wearing the helmet.

I appreciate the overall arguement but in my case i can say that the helmet saved me from an extremely dangerous accident that could have been life altering, but with luck i was able to stand up and stagger away from it.


----------



## HonestMan1910 (23 Dec 2011)

1653454 said:


> They do usually say this.


 
Maybe they do, but i can confirm that hitting the road at 20mph with your head uncase would have had a more serious outcome than that of wearing one, to any doubters try it and then see


----------



## Dan_h (23 Dec 2011)

HonestMan1910 said:


> Maybe they do, but i can confirm that hitting the road at 20mph with your head uncase would have had a more serious outcome than that of wearing one, to any doubters try it and then see


 
This is the problem with the whole helmet debate thing. There are a lot of stories and anecdotes about how someone's life was saved by a helmet, but this is not evidence. The helmet can be broken into pieces and still not have saved anyone's life, unfortunately people always look at a bust helmet and go, wow that would have been my head!

Thing is they are wrong.Their first mistake is underestimating the strength of the human skull. Your head would have to take an almighty smash in order to actually break apart and "spread your grey matter all over the road" far more of an impact that a helmet would protect you from (even motorcycle helmets are not built to keep your brain inside your skull).

What helmets ARE designed to do is slow the rapid acceleration of your brain inside your skull by slowing the deceleration of your head when it impacts something. It does this by the foam part crushing. Due to the way a cycle helmet is designed this will only happen at a very specific speed (this depends on the density of the foam) and angle of impact (depends on the shape of the helmet).

Problem is that that unless you impact an object at this precise speed and angle the helmet likely did very little, and even if you did most helmets work best at around 12 miles per hour which gives you a force that your head can cope with generally anyway. If your helmet was broken into pieces then it did nothing really to help you as the foam overcompressed and transferred the impact to your skull anyway.

Unfortunately all of this is somehow counter intuitive and even the emergency services get it wrong and often say "That helmet saved your life". I even saw an episode of Highland Rescue where it was claimed that a mountain biker who had broken his collarbone had his life saved by a helmet... oddly there was no indication that he had hit his head at all.

When a helmet is designed that it can be PROVEN will reduce my chances of a head injury in an accident I will consider buying one. Until then I will remain one of the helmet sceptics.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (23 Dec 2011)

HonestMan1910 said:


> In my opinion and also that of the paramedics, police and witnesses without a helmet my injuries could have been fatal as my head was the first thing to hit the road.


 

Rubbish is all i will say to this preposeterous statement.


----------



## Fish on a bike (23 Dec 2011)

Ok, so we're all agreed helmet wearing should be down to the individual...


----------



## 400bhp (23 Dec 2011)

Dan_h said:


> This is the problem with the whole helmet debate thing. There are a lot of stories and anecdotes about how someone's life was saved by a helmet, but this is not evidence. The helmet can be broken into pieces and still not have saved anyone's life, unfortunately people always look at a bust helmet and go, wow that would have been my head!....
> 
> is that that unless you impact an object at this precise speed and angle the helmet likely did very little, and even if you did most helmets work best at around 12 miles per hour which gives you a force that your head can cope with generally anyway. If your helmet was broken into pieces then it did nothing really to help you *as the foam overcompressed and transferred the impact to your skull anyway.*


 
It's a while since I did physics, but should that be *some of* the impact?

These "debates" are great on internet forums. They are political and are not factual. None of us have the time or the specialist knowledge to analyse.

I agree with your initial paragraph Dan, and it would be nice to see some proper scientific analysis, but that is only going to happen if the "anecdotal" evidence suggests that the likelihood of a helmet saving lives is substantial (as such studies need to be funded by a stakeholder who has an interest in the outcome (e.g the Government). The fact that any real science hasn't been done may suggest in itself that helmets don't have the substantial effect on saving human lives. Then again, the frequency of road deaths involving cyclists is relatively low and therefore not material (in the bigger picture)?


----------



## Dan_h (23 Dec 2011)

Fish on a bike said:


> Ok, so we're all agreed helmet wearing should be down to the individual...


 
How on earth do you propose to keep the argument going with statements like that


----------



## mickle (23 Dec 2011)

I have had more than one incident after which, had I been wearing a helmet, the health-care professionals who treated me would have said 'Your helmet saved your life'.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (23 Dec 2011)

2wheelsgeth said:


> Whew. 11 pages of this is enough to make me want to cycle the wrong way down the Euston road at night without lights, helmet or hi-viz. In the outside lane. During a power cut. In heavy rain.
> 
> For the record, I wear a helmet and hi-viz, but couldn't really care what anyone else wants to do. It's not like the debate when seatbelts in cars were made compulsory, after all - that really did save a lot of lives.


 Did it? Are you sure?


----------



## 400bhp (23 Dec 2011)

Didn't road deaths half in the couple of years after compulsion? It was a bit before my time so might be making this up?

I have some vague recollection that road deaths went down in the states too (by a material margin) after compulsion?

I would expect it to have anyway.


----------



## Dan B (23 Dec 2011)

HonestMan1910 said:


> Maybe they do, but i can confirm that hitting the road at 20mph with your head uncase would have had a more serious outcome than that of wearing one, to any doubters try it and then see


I have tried it. Still here.


----------



## Dan_h (23 Dec 2011)

400bhp said:


> It's a while since I did physics, but should that be *some of* the impact?


 
It does not make as much difference as you might think, the point is to decelerate the head in a controlled manner to the point where the squidgy stuff inside does not suffer a traumatic event. The fact that the foam over compressed means that your head still came to an abrupt stop and your brain still bounced around. 

For all of this I am in agreement that it should be down to an individual to make the choice of helmet or no helmet, as long as they feel happy with their choice then that is all that matters.


----------



## Fish on a bike (23 Dec 2011)

Letting the individual decide won't be a problem until someone starts campaigning for compulsory insurance for cyclists then insurance companies will insist on helmet wearing. Luckily enforcing such a scheme would be a impossible by the police :-)


----------



## Dan_h (23 Dec 2011)

Fish on a bike said:


> Letting the individual decide won't be a problem until someone starts campaigning for compulsory insurance for cyclists then insurance companies will insist on helmet wearing. Luckily enforcing such a scheme would be a impossible by the police :-)


 
I don't think the problem is cyclists being made to have insurance, more likely driver's insurance companies trying to use the fact that a cyclist was not wearing a helmet to reduce / avoid a payout in the event of a collision.


----------



## StuartG (23 Dec 2011)

HonestMan1910 said:


> In my opinion and also that of the paramedics, police and witnesses without a helmet my injuries could have been fatal as my head was the first thing to hit the road.


And all, almost certainly, gloriously unqualified to come to that opinion. Worse still - not realising it! Which is why the helmet debate is in such a pickle.

Last year I took a tumble with a fellow club member. He got up, took his helmet off and exclaimed - thank god it saved me from serious injury- for it had a crack. I did point out that I had fallen in exactly the same way, was not wearing a helmet and had a very minor graze to my cheek - and didn't need to replace a helmet.

It may be that he fell more awkwardly than me or whatever. It is certainly no justification for me to claim a helmet might not have mitigated his fall. But it does show the danger of having a collision, seeing a helmet damaged and jumping to conclusions about grey matter across the road.

First helmets will, in favourable circumstances, mitigate an injury. In a very severe cases that may be the difference between life and death, but not from very serious injury. If you walk away uninjured it is likely that, at worst, you would have otherwise suffered a very minor head injury and so on up the scale.

So it is clear these people were talking rubbish. But is it still worthwhile wearing a helmet for the injury mitigation it can offer? For that you need to look far beyond anecdote to the statistics covering a wide range of incidents. Trouble is - nobody has yet produced a clear set to prove it one way or the other. And people (on both sides) who claim to have statistical evidence are not good statisticians, or worse still, have cherry picked some figures that are compatible with their agenda.

So wear a helmet or not. Your choice. But claims it did any good, or bad, in a particular incident without a careful forensic investigation is not worth a fig. And its a waste of space repeating them here.


----------



## Mad at urage (23 Dec 2011)

mickle said:


> I have had more than one incident after which, had I been wearing a helmet, the health-care professionals who treated me would have said 'Your helmet saved your life'.


Ditto


----------



## Mad at urage (23 Dec 2011)

Me @ 30mph (according to the lorry following me) a mini doing at least 30 mph (according to the police analysis of the skid marks) turning right through me (in front of the lorry). Head gets first impact on mini (wrecking my Bolles). If I had been wearing a helmet it might have caught on the windscreen wipers (which gouged the Bolles) and broken my neck.

Proof positive that helmets are lethal


----------



## ComedyPilot (23 Dec 2011)

For me, helmet use has always been about choice, risk assessment and informed decision making.

If I were ever to cycle in a large group of sweaty men, all hell-bent on getting over the line first (and all the argy-bargy that entails), a helmet would be worn.

If I spawned an urge to throw myself down an alpine run with total disregard for my safety just to cover a set distance before somone else, a helmet would be worn.

If I got an urge to throw myself repeatedly off a man-made ramp and do 'sick' tricks on a child's bike (whilst displaying my Y fronts for all and sundry), a helmet would be worn.

If I were hell bent on riding to work head-down, as fast as my lungs and legs would let me, and have a reduced abitlity (or awareness) to react to constantly changing traffic situations around me, a helmet would be worn.

If I were to ride at a reasonable pace (sustainable all day), take care on roads and watch out for others, cover my brakes on downhills and reduce speed in the wet, be able to take in the environment around me (birds singing, workmen whistling) then the LAST thing I want to do is encase my head in a lump of polystyrene (recently recycled from plasma TV packaging).


When I ride I always give myself an 'out' - so when a situation arises I have somewhere to go. I use a mirror, so am aware of traffic coming behind from a good way off. I use good quality lights to make myself visible, and I ride defensively - just because I have priority, and have lights does not mean that car pulling out on the left has seen me. Make eye contact, and if in doubt deploy anchors and steer away. Being in a hospital bed and being in the right doesn't seem like reasonable logic to me.

The few near-miss incidents I have had on the road would not have been helped by me wearing a helmet. A car hitting me head-on at 60 is hardly likely to result in me dusting myself down (from all the polystyrene chippings?) and singing the praises of the now tattered helmet.

I am a rural recreational/touring/commuting cyclist, and will not be moulded into a nanny-state helmet-wearing clone.

Sorry.


----------



## Red Light (23 Dec 2011)

HonestMan1910 said:


> Rubbish is all i will say to this preposeterous statement.
> 
> There are many incidences of people suffering just the one fatal injury and no other injuries at all.
> 
> ...



An anecdote is not data and unless you are prepared to repeat the accident identically but without the helmet then every thing you say is speculation.

As for preposterous rubbish, which bit do you dispute and apart from your meaningless anecdote, what is your evidence? The studies that have looked into causes of death have found that multiple fatal injuries are the overwhelming cause of cyclist deaths and head injuries alone are very much in the minority. So where is your evidence to the contrary?

Or are you just making up your preposterous rubbish?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## lukesdad (23 Dec 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Me @ 30mph (according to the lorry following me) a mini doing at least 30 mph (according to the police analysis of the skid marks) turning right through me (in front of the lorry). Head gets first impact on mini (wrecking my Bolles). If I had been wearing a helmet it might have caught on the windscreen wipers (which gouged the Bolles) and broken my neck.
> 
> Proof positive that helmets are lethal


..and how do you prove something that didn t happen exactly ?


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Dec 2011)

Am I right in my analysis of the anecdotal posts?

1. If one were to slip and fall then a head injury would be prevented if a helmet was worn?

2. As there is a possibility of the helmet reducing the injury then not wearing one is foolish?


----------



## lukesdad (23 Dec 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> Am I right in my analysis of the anecdotal posts?
> 
> 1. If one were to slip and fall then a head injury would be prevented if a helmet was worn?
> 
> 2. As there is a possibility of the helmet reducing the injury then not wearing one is foolish?


That depends on the likelyhood of falling, but im ready to run with it go on....


----------



## Nantmor (23 Dec 2011)

I once fell off and my head hit the road. Luckily I was wearing a cotton cap, so only a small bruise resulted. Consequently I urge all cyclists to wear a cotton cap.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Dec 2011)

lukesdad said:


> That depends on the likelyhood of falling, but im ready to run with it go on....


 
How do you decide when the risk is great enough to wear a helmet?


----------



## lukesdad (23 Dec 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> How do you decide when the risk is great enough to wear a helmet?


Well that is the question isn t it ?


----------



## ComedyPilot (23 Dec 2011)

That is the crux of the issue for me.

We have a media, a nanny-state govt and a sheep-like public who believe the sh*t they're fed telling us to be clones and wear Bob the Builder regalia when riding a bike - and personal choice, responsibility and risk assessment are taken out of our hands.


----------



## lukesdad (23 Dec 2011)

It is the crux. On the road unless racing low risk, XC riding higher risk, Downhilling you d be mad not to.


----------



## ComedyPilot (23 Dec 2011)

Pretty much my take on it too.

On road/commuting/touring low risk.

Racing on road higher risk, as in some XC, and balls out DH and BMX stunting you'd have to be madder than Mad Jack McMad not to take some PPE measures - but again I am pro-choice for them to do as they please.


----------



## Nantmor (23 Dec 2011)

lukesdad said:


> It is the crux. On the road unless racing low risk, XC riding higher risk, Downhilling you d be mad not to.


For sure it is the crux. I believe that the point is that any "safety" benefit can be consumed as a performance benefit. At any given level of risk a downhiller might tolerate, a foam hat allows a faster speed. After all, if its safety he is after he could go slower. With a helmet the margin of risk can be kept constant, but speed increased. Just as a climber dons a helmet to traverse a couloir with stone fall, the hat is used to extend performance, not increase safety.
One can also choose to take more care, ride slower etc. in order to widen the risk margin. These sorts of decisions are the individual's prerogative, unless by increasing performance he endangers others more. I suggest seat belts are an example of the last.
When helmets are forced on cyclists, who hardly endanger others at all, we should ask, who benefits? Who consumes the safety benefit? If helmets are an alternative to actually reducing real danger, if they are imposed by motorists, in order to make themselves feel better about their careless driving then compulsion is immoral.
Here is an anecdote to make myself clearer. I have read that the Davey Lamp, which was introduced into mines as a great aid to the safety of miners, actually increased explosions. A seam full of firedamp, (methane) could not be worked with naked flames. When miners could be coerced into those seams with a Davey Lamp, the odd explosion still happened. If a pick hit a stone then the lamp did not matter. The safety benefit had been consumed as a performance benefit by the people with power.
Any safety benefit the cycle helmet has is consumed by people with power.


----------



## lukesdad (23 Dec 2011)

Im not sure motorists give a gypsies whether a cyclist wears a helmet or not. The davey lamp anology has no relevance in this instance really does it, we ve moved on. The question here is risk, and the risk is falling and type of fall. I think are we all agreed its a personal choice, and your statement about people in power is just scaremongering. Cyclists are far more intelligent than you give them credit for. If the arguement is against compulsion....then spit it out man! Then we can have a debate, though it would be a very one sided one I agree. I cant agree though, that casting doubt on the safety of any protective item, is the way to go about it.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Dec 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Well that is the question isn t it ?


 
Exactly the reasoning that makes the individual anecdote so irrelevant.

It can only possibly apply to that individual carrying out that particular maneouvre at that specific time and under those specific conditions.

It cannot be applied with any wider interpretation


----------



## Nantmor (23 Dec 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Im not sure motorists give a gypsies whether a cyclist wears a helmet or not. The davey lamp anology has no relevance in this instance really does it, we ve moved on. The question here is risk, and the risk is falling and type of fall. I think are we all agreed its a personal choice, and your statement about people in power is just scaremongering. Cyclists are far more intelligent than you give them credit for. If the arguement is against compulsion....then spit it out man! Then we can have a debate, though it would be a very one sided one I agree. I cant agree though, that casting doubt on the safety of any protective item, is the way to go about it.


I thought it was obvious that I was making an argument against compulsion. If that is spitting it out, consider it spat.
Your comments make it clear you have not understood me. I don't quite know how to make my point more obvious.
I'm afraid lots of motorists, from Angie Lee, Eric Martlew and their supporters to presumably at least a section of the W.I. do want us to make us wear helmets.
Health and Safety has in mining has moved on, for what its worth. The hierarchy of solutions to a danger in the H&S armoury is well known. Removing the source of danger is at the top, protective equipment is the last resort.
Power is very relevant. Which is more likely, a properly enforced 20 mph limit in built up areas, or a helmet compulsion law? Your opinion may differ, but I know which I think is most likely. Bear in mind the successful campaign motorists waged to weaken the speed camera law. It was so succesful that drivers can still break the law on speeding as a matter of course.
I cannot see where I implied cyclists are unintelligent. If you are racing you go as fast as you can, taking into account the risks involved. If the balance of risk changes then it is rational to change your behaviour. If the course is wet, you slow down. If dry you can go faster. Similar for everyday risks. Unfortunately many potential cyclists decide the only way they can handle the risks of cycling is by not doing it. Where does that risk come from? Do you think helmet wearing mitigates that risk to any extent? Bear in mind the evidence from helmet compulsion countries cannot show any protective effect. Those countries are ones where few people cycle. Potential Aussie cyclists ( in that country blessed with a great climate and with one of the world's most sporting populations) have decided that even with helmets the only way to balance the risk/rewards of cycling is by not cycling. They cycle a lot less than us.


----------



## Nantmor (23 Dec 2011)

Lukesdad, I've been thinking about your allegation that my statement about people in power is just scaremongering. This seems so preposterous to me that I think you must have misunderstood.
If you look at the road environment and think about for whose benefit it is organised, I do not see how you can doubt where the power lies. It is arranged for the convenience of motorists with little or no regard for the effect on vulnerable road users.
Look at a complex junction which is designed to keep cars moving, at the price for pedestrians of having half a dozen light controlled crossings each of which impose a wait before going green for them.
Read the discussions on cycling forums of the lethal nature of certain London junctions for cyclists, which are lethal because the only design criterion is keeping the traffic flowing.
That is what I mean by who has the power.


----------



## Arfcollins (24 Dec 2011)

Now 14 pages of disagreement. I'm not sure I've learnt anything useful. For every anecdote in favour there is one against.

I always wear a helmet. My personal anecdotes demonstrate to me that they they have saved me from more serious injuries in two falls. But I've been considering the discussion about any possible legal obligation to wear helmets. And do you know what? If the government decreed that I must wear a helmet I'd tell them to fark off, and chuck the helmet in the bin.

This is not very scientific, like all of the arguments in this debate. But many of the posters here are concerned about their freedom to chose, and in the absence of any good data this is all they have.

Even if I throw the helmet away you will not be able to separate me from my padded shorts.


----------



## tongskie01 (24 Dec 2011)

i fell off my bike last month. went over the handlebars. hurt my knees and elbows. maybe elbow pads and knee protectors should be compulsory.


----------



## ComedyPilot (24 Dec 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> i fell off my bike last month. went over the handlebars. hurt my knees and elbows. maybe elbow pads and knee protectors should be compulsory.


Then start a knee pads and elbow protectors thread......................unless I am sorely mistaken, this is a helmet thread.


----------



## ComedyPilot (24 Dec 2011)

14 pages of debate that would have hijacked other threads, cannot be a bad thing?


----------



## lukesdad (24 Dec 2011)

Nantmor said:


> I thought it was obvious that I was making an argument against compulsion. If that is spitting it out, consider it spat.
> Your comments make it clear you have not understood me. I don't quite know how to make my point more obvious.
> I'm afraid lots of motorists, from Angie Lee, Eric Martlew and their supporters to presumably at least a section of the W.I. do want us to make us wear helmets.
> Health and Safety has in mining has moved on, for what its worth. The hierarchy of solutions to a danger in the H&S armoury is well known. Removing the source of danger is at the top, protective equipment is the last resort.
> ...


....and this has a bearing on when to wear a helmet or not, in what way ? Either you choose to ride your bike in the climate as it stands or you dont. We live in a democracy still I assume and unfortunately for you motorists are in the majority when it comes to the public highway. So untill cyclists become the majority things ain t going to change.


----------



## tongskie01 (24 Dec 2011)

ComedyPilot said:


> Then start a knee pads and elbow protectors thread......................unless I am sorely mistaken, this is a helmet thread.


 
and i did not wear a helmet. it could have saved me from my injuries.


----------



## lukesdad (24 Dec 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> Exactly the reasoning that makes the individual anecdote so irrelevant.
> 
> It can only possibly apply to that individual carrying out that particular maneouvre at that specific time and under those specific conditions.
> 
> It cannot be applied with any wider interpretation


Agreed. What is relevant though is the likelyhood of falling while taking part in different cycling disciplines.


----------



## ComedyPilot (24 Dec 2011)

lukesdad said:


> *Im not sure motorists give a gypsies whether a cyclist wears a helmet or not.* The davey lamp anology has no relevance in this instance really does it, we ve moved on. The question here is risk, and the risk is falling and type of fall. I think are we all agreed its a personal choice, and your statement about people in power is just scaremongering. Cyclists are far more intelligent than you give them credit for. If the arguement is against compulsion....then spit it out man! Then we can have a debate, though it would be a very one sided one I agree. I cant agree though, that casting doubt on the safety of any protective item, is the way to go about it.


 
At one time or another, most people at my work have commented about my lack of cycle helmet, yet none have them have swung a leg over a bike since they grew pubic hair.


----------



## lukesdad (24 Dec 2011)

Arfcollins said:


> Now 14 pages of disagreement. I'm not sure I've learnt anything useful. For every anecdote in favour there is one against.
> 
> I always wear a helmet. My personal anecdotes demonstrate to me that they they have saved me from more serious injuries in two falls. But I've been considering the discussion about any possible legal obligation to wear helmets. And do you know what? If the government decreed that I must wear a helmet I'd tell them to **** off, and chuck the helmet in the bin.
> 
> ...


An unusual reaction from a helmet wearer. Id assume that compulsion would make little difference to helmet wearers as it would not change their behaviour, not in your case obviously. The danger here as Ive said before is, the tactic of discrediting helmets to fight compulsion, but it seems to be the only weapon in the armoury for some. Bare this in mind, when reading some of the arguments and evidence.


----------



## tongskie01 (24 Dec 2011)

educating motorist about the serious effects of hitting vulnerable road users by motor vehicles would be the way forward. all out campaign should be done to change public perception of how dangerous it is to drive a motor vehicle including health issues.. hence no need for cycle helmets.


----------



## lukesdad (24 Dec 2011)

ComedyPilot said:


> At one time or another, most people at my work have commented about my lack of cycle helmet, yet none have them have swung a leg over a bike since they grew pubic hair.





ComedyPilot said:


> At one time or another, most people at my work have commented about my lack of cycle helmet, yet none have them have swung a leg over a bike since they grew pubic hair.


Well maybe they do care about you dear boy  at least they not commenting on your lack of pubic hair while cycling


----------



## lukesdad (24 Dec 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> educating motorist about the serious effects of hitting vulnerable road users by motor vehicles would be the way forward. all out campaign should be done to change public perception of how dangerous it is to drive a motor vehicle including health issues.. hence no need for cycle helmets.


Cant say as Ive seen many motorists on the forest tracks around here, but if they start to appear ill let you know !


----------



## tongskie01 (24 Dec 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Cant say as Ive seen many motorists on the forest tracks around here, but if they start to appear ill let you know !


 
politicians might add helmet compulsion to deers and squirrels as well....


----------



## ComedyPilot (24 Dec 2011)

Here's a wierd thing.

Type 'Dutch cyclist' in google and search images - look at all the lovely people cycling without helmets, and look at the people racing (and thereby increasing their risk of falling) all wearing helmets.

Now type in 'British cyclist' and tell me what you see - most images are of professional racing cyclists - nowhere near as many 'ordinary' cyclists.

Our media will only promote cycling if backed by sporting success, ordinary recreational cycling, commuting and touring (where the participants cycle further, more regularly, and more spontaneously) is given little if no credance.

The media is brainwashing the public into thinking cycling is only for sporty people, and if you do want to undertake this risky activity - be it on your own head - make sure you wear a helmet and a (branded logo) hi viz vest.


----------



## lukesdad (24 Dec 2011)

Thats down to a majority of participants though isn t it ?


----------



## ComedyPilot (24 Dec 2011)

A lot more people cycle 'normally' in this country than race, yet the couple of dozen top racing stars get most (if not all) of the media attention.

So it's majority rule in the Netherlands, and minority rule here.


And I hate that - it has to change.


----------



## 400bhp (24 Dec 2011)

ComedyPilot said:


> Here's a wierd thing.
> 
> Type 'Dutch cyclist' in google and search images - look at all the lovely people cycling without helmets, and look at the people racing (and thereby increasing their risk of falling) all wearing helmets.
> 
> ...


 
That's a little bit paranoid. I don't think the media are that clever, nor have some sinister agenda to stop people riding bikes for recreation/commute.

Lots of things contribute to trends and (uggh don't want to use the word) "fashion".


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Dec 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Agreed. What is relevant though is the likelyhood of falling while taking part in different cycling disciplines.


 
...or any other high activity where there is a significant or increased hazard?

For instance helmets for ice skating


----------



## tongskie01 (24 Dec 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> ...or any other high activity where there is a significant or increased hazard?
> 
> For instance helmets for ice skating



compulsory helmets for ice skaters?


----------



## Nantmor (24 Dec 2011)

lukesdad said:


> ....and this has a bearing on when to wear a helmet or not, in what way ? Either you choose to ride your bike in the climate as it stands or you dont. We live in a democracy still I assume and unfortunately for you motorists are in the majority when it comes to the public highway. So untill cyclists become the majority things ain t going to change.


In mentioning "power" I was talking about how the ideology of that part of the helmet debate works. The preferred analysis of helmet compulsion lobbyists ignores where the danger comes from, and frames the debate purely in terms of how the vulnerable can protect themselves,and ignores the evidence that helmet wearing does not work to solve the problem.
You talk about the practicality of dealing with the balance of power (which you now acknowledge). Your defeatist argument applies equally to most of the ways in which we might seek to improve our lot on the road. Do you want to slow traffic in urban areas. Too bad, the democratic majority won't wear it. TFL policy of keeping traffic flowing kills cyclists. Too bad, the motoring majority hates being stopped. I hope that we can make progress by the use of reason, and an appeal to morality. It is wrong to endanger the vulnerable, so that the less vulnerable can have the freedom to drive a fast and carelessly as they want.
Helmets are relevant because they are a red herring. They don't work, and divert the energies of some well meaning people from measuresv which might have a better chance of making us safer. I credit the helmet compulsion lobby with being these sort of people. But I think they are barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## Nantmor (24 Dec 2011)

lukesdad said:


> ....and this has a bearing on when to wear a helmet or not, in what way ? Either you choose to ride your bike in the climate as it stands or you dont. We live in a democracy still I assume and unfortunately for you motorists are in the majority when it comes to the public highway. So untill cyclists become the majority things ain t going to change.


You underestimate the potential power of cyclists. There are more people able to ride a bike than drive a car in this country. Pedestrians and the parents of small children share many of our problems with the dominance of motor traffic. In fact we are all pedestrians for part of the time. We should not to give up, and not cease trying to improve the traffic environment we have to use, we should lobbying against traffic danger. To do this effectively we need to know what works, and what doesn't. My argument is that helmets don't work. The evidence of this is available to all. Should we use the Netherlands etc. as a model, where there are many cyclists with a low casualty rate and helmets rare, or should we follow Australia etc. where cyclists are few, casualty rates high, and helmets compulsory?


----------



## Red Light (24 Dec 2011)

lukesdad said:


> It is the crux. On the road unless racing low risk, XC riding higher risk, Downhilling you d be mad not to.



An excellent illustration of risk compensation in action.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Red Light (24 Dec 2011)

tongskie01 said:


> and i did not wear a helmet. it could have saved me from my injuries.



Too right. Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, infamous purveyors of the helmets prevent 85% of head injuries research also showed helmets prevent 75% of leg injuries while Crook and Sheikh showed that every helmet worn protects 2 people from head injury.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Red Light (24 Dec 2011)

Arfcollins said:


> Even if I throw the helmet away you will not be able to separate me from my padded shorts.



I bet Pippa could. :wink

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ComedyPilot (24 Dec 2011)

400bhp said:


> That's a little bit paranoid. I don't think the media are that clever, nor have some sinister agenda to stop people riding bikes for recreation/commute.
> 
> Lots of things contribute to trends and (uggh don't want to use the word) "fashion".


Nothing to do with paranoia - pure fact - just do as I did and type Dutch cyclist and then British cyclist in Google and tell us what you see.

The media portray Dutch cyclists as they are - recreational everyday cyclists. The image of British cycling is almost entirely focused on Team GB - recreational cyclists don't really get a look in. Notwithstanding Team GB's brilliant sporting achievements, that sort of media whitewashing will only tempt a few people to ride bikes, and does nothing to help promote 'real' everyday cycling.


----------



## CopperCyclist (24 Dec 2011)

Am I the only person who wears a helmet, yet actually voices the right for people to choose not to do so?

I often find myself explaining the various views on rotational injuries, over 15mph crashs etc when someone I'm out with notices a helmet less rider and passes comment that hey should wear one.

I always choose to wear on myself though. Am I the sole member of this club?


----------



## 400bhp (24 Dec 2011)

ComedyPilot said:


> Nothing to do with paranoia - pure fact - just do as I did and type Dutch cyclist and then British cyclist in Google and tell us what you see.
> 
> The media portray Dutch cyclists as they are - recreational everyday cyclists. The image of British cycling is almost entirely focused on Team GB - recreational cyclists don't really get a look in. Notwithstanding Team GB's brilliant sporting achievements, that sort of media whitewashing will only tempt a few people to ride bikes, and does nothing to help promote 'real' everyday cycling.


 
I responded to your:



> *The media is brainwashing the public into thinking cycling is only for sporty people, and if you do want to undertake this risky activity - be it on your own head - make sure you wear a helmet and a (branded logo) hi viz vest*.


 
Statements like that can't be factual, unless you believe in some superior being.


----------



## 400bhp (24 Dec 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Am I the only person who wears a helmet, yet actually voices the right for people to choose not to do so?


 
No, of course not.


----------



## ComedyPilot (24 Dec 2011)

I wear one if the situation requires it: ie if I am DH MTB'ing

Other than that my cycling does not (IMO) require me to have one.

I don't demand that people wearing helmets take them off, but find it very strange that I am constantly adivised to wear one mainly by people who don't even ride a bike.

They have this formed idea that I will be 'safe' if I wear one. Thanks, but no thanks.

Where did they get the idea from if they don't ride a bike?

The media - and it's almost pathological portrayal of cyclists as Bob the Builder extras.


----------



## Red Light (24 Dec 2011)

CopperCyclist said:


> Am I the only person who wears a helmet, yet actually voices the right for people to choose not to do so?



You mean you wouldn't arrest helmet wearers for impersonating a police officer?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## 400bhp (24 Dec 2011)

Perhaps you have a point about the meeja.

But that doesn't mean they have an agenda. Ignorance more like.

And we can only speculate if this idea [formed by non cyclists] was generated by and perpetuated by the meeja.

Why do you wear a helmet for downhill mountain biking and not elsewhere, out of interest? Should you not wear a motorcycle type helmet for such events?


----------



## ComedyPilot (24 Dec 2011)

Ah dialogue.....now we're getting somewhere.

The meeja - why do they portray Dutch cyclists as predominantly regular people in normal clothes, yet British cyclists images are mainly sporting?

I wear a helmet when DH MTB'ing on account of all the trees and big rocks that might smack me about the head when I am pushing the limit on a gnarly black run.

I don't have such a problem on a summers evening run to the pub, down quiet country lanes.


----------



## doog (24 Dec 2011)

ComedyPilot said:


> I wear one if the situation requires it: ie if I am DH MTB'ing
> 
> I don't demand that people wearing helmets take them off, but find it very strange that I am constantly adivised to wear one mainly by people who don't even ride a bike.


 
I find it strange that people are constantly advising you to wear a helmet. Everyone who knows me knows I am a cyclist, commuter and tourer and not one person has ever advised me to wear a helmet. Not even me mum!


----------



## ianrauk (24 Dec 2011)

doog said:


> I find it strange that people are constantly advising you to wear a helmet. Everyone who knows me knows I am a cyclist, commuter and tourer and not one person has ever advised me to wear a helmet. Not even me mum!


 

It happens......


----------



## snorri (24 Dec 2011)

ComedyPilot said:


> The meeja - why do they portray Dutch cyclists as predominantly regular people in normal clothes, yet British cyclists images are mainly sporting?


 
I believe the images portrayed are generally an accurate assessment of the current situation in both countries. The majority of media images are of summer cycling which is when the sporting types are more numerous.
Instead of blaming the media for misrepresenting, you could be asking British cyclists why they feel it essential to get togged up in "all the gear" before getting on a bike. It's just not worth using a bike for short trips to the shops, pub, friends etc. if you have to spend time changing clothes before and after the journey, so they use alternative modes of transport. It's only in winter that normally dressed unhelmetted cyclists outnumber those with sporty clothing and helmets, in my locality.


----------



## Sobrique (24 Dec 2011)

Well_,_ I have to say my 'default' assumption, was 'of course helmets are a good idea'. I started wearing one when much younger, as the insistence of my parents, and have never found them to be particularly a problem. 
So I've been quite intrigued... well, if I'm honest, that there was any debate at all. But it's prompted me to start digging, and I've definitely found a shortage of research giving a reasonably good answer, one way or another. 
That's something I find quite surprising actually - I'm used to seeing studies published successive years, effectively contradicting each other, because they've talking about different scenarios. But not really the degree to which the 'cycle helmet question' doesn't seem to have had really much at all in the way of credible research.

I'll accept that for most people, it's an open question - having cracked a cycle helmet on the front windscreen of a minibus, I'm inclined towards wearing them . 
But I'd really appreciate it if someone could direct me towards ... well, any links that give results of studies into the subject?

Even if the eventual answer is 'sometimes yes, sometimes no'


----------



## Nantmor (24 Dec 2011)

For the anti side try http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
For the pro maybe http://www.bhit.org/


----------



## Red Light (25 Dec 2011)

Sobrique said:


> Well_,_
> But I'd really appreciate it if someone could direct me towards ... well, any links that give results of studies into the subject?



I would recommend Tim Gill's review for the National Children's Bureau to set the context and the two papers by Paul Hewson on the UK data sets as the best quality studies out there in a sea of very poor quality studies on both sides.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457505000588
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15389580590931590

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Dec 2011)

Nantmor said:


> For the anti side try http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
> For the pro maybe http://www.bhit.org/


 
BHIT are the biggest bunch of inept, unprofessional and lying charlatans in the entire helmet debate. Most of the original high profile supporters very quickly jumped ship and distanced themselves as the claims became more bizarre and further from any form of reality

Typically they claim that helmets will save more lives each year than there are actual head injuries,

They figures for child deaths due to cycle head injuries are in fact greater then the number of had injuries in all cycling groups... etc


Even more brilliant is the extravagant, lying and unattributed claim that cycle helmets will save 50 children's lives per year.As the average number of deaths is 12 that means that cycle helmet compulsion would somehow create another 38 serious head injury accidents per year!


In the meanwhile I give you Angela Lee, Founder of BHIT showing her knowledge of how to wear a helmet that is too small, badly fitting, and apparently does not have straps, never mind actually fastening the thing in place..... a fine example of their values and I rest my case.









PS and as it is Christmas I have been charitable and toned down my views on this dangerous charlatan and her organisation!


----------



## ComedyPilot (25 Dec 2011)

I like the way cycling is linked with graphics to firemen (danger from blazing buildings etc, soldiers (bullets) Cricketers (some maniac throwing a hard ball at 100mph), Police officers (maniacs with claw hammers (happened to me))

Here's a point - Firemen don't wear the helmet all the time while being firemen, only when in danger. Cricketers don't wear it all the time, only when in danger. Police officers don't wear it all the time, only on foot patrol (for show/dress code/danger)

To state cyclists should wear a helmet at all times and link to people in dangerous professions is stupid in the extreme. I would prefer the responsibility for the vulnerability of children be put at the feet of the people most likely to kill or injure them: motorists.


----------



## Nantmor (25 Dec 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> BHIT are the biggest bunch of inept, unprofessional and lying charlatans in the entire helmet debate. Most of the original high profile supporters very quickly jumped ship and distanced themselves as the claims became more bizarre and further from any form of reality


 
Quite. I preferred to leave any inquirer to form their own judgements, rather than be accused of steering. Perhaps the worst lies did need pointing out.


----------



## Red Light (25 Dec 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> BHIT are the biggest bunch of inept, unprofessional and lying charlatans in the entire helmet debate.



The are not known colloquially as BsHIT or BeHIT for no reason.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Nantmor (25 Dec 2011)

Wasn't someone asking about motorcycle helmets, somewhere upthread? All I can find is the chapter from "Risk and Freedom" by John Adams which is available as a free download here, http://www.john-adams.co.uk/books/

A prime exhibit is a graph of motorcycle deaths in USA over the years during which helmet compulsion laws were enacted and then repealed in some states. This government produced graph, from the cover of a report urging motorcycle helmet use, seems conclusive. It shows deaths falling as helmets were mandated and rising again as some states repealed the law.
Adams disaggregates the figures, and this shows that deaths rose more in the non repeal states. The prior fall in deaths is clearly a continuation of a trend established before compulsion.


----------



## ComedyPilot (25 Dec 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> BHIT are the biggest bunch of inept, unprofessional and lying charlatans in the entire helmet debate. Most of the original high profile supporters very quickly jumped ship and distanced themselves as the claims became more bizarre and further from any form of reality
> 
> Typically they claim that helmets will save more lives each year than there are actual head injuries,
> 
> ...


 
Wipes tea off keyboard - that is hilarious - perhaps she ought to spend a little more time in the saddle, and less time preaching about helmet use (considering she obviously doesn't know the first thing about wearing one?)


----------



## Alun (25 Dec 2011)

From the BHIT site _"Move your foot in a clockwise motion and try and draw a number 6 with your right hand - bet you can't!"_
Bet I can !


----------



## Riding in Circles (26 Dec 2011)

I always insisted my kids wear helmets while cycling except in really hot weather when sweat in the eyes negates any benefits, I wear one when it is cold, as it keeps my head warmer, if it is really cold then I wear a wear a thermal cap, I don't believe the total tosh spoken by both sides of the debate, when I do wear one I tend to wear a good one because I have a good head. I have only ever hit my head once falling off a motorcycle, never coming off a bicycle or trike so I have to presume that the chance of hitting your head is minimal, however many moons ago my best friend died from head injuries coming off a bicycle, but the damage was to the cheek and eye socket so a helmet is unlikely to have helped. In the case of the motorcycle accident the helmet saved my life but a helmet like that would be completely impractical for cycling as it would boil your head with the physical exertion of pedaling while wearing it. I also know from that that the styrofoam inner does eventually return to the original shape over time so the old claim about it not doing so is tosh. When I wear a cycle helmet I do not feel indestructible and do not instantly take more chances so I will discount that claim by the plebs as well. The biggest issue is that the militants on both sides of the debate talk utter poo. I never wore one as a kid, I don't think they were even available as far as I recall and lo and behold I am still here as are all the people who seem to claim that every kid will die by not wearing one.


----------



## Arfcollins (26 Dec 2011)

Arfcollins said: ↑
But I've been considering the discussion about any possible legal obligation to wear helmets. And do you know what? If the government decreed that I must wear a helmet I'd tell them to **** off, and chuck the helmet in the bin.

This is not very scientific, like all of the arguments in this debate. But many of the posters here are concerned about their freedom to chose, and in the absence of any good data this is all they have.​


lukesdad said:


> An unusual reaction from a helmet wearer. Id assume that compulsion would make little difference to helmet wearers as it would not change their behaviour, not in your case obviously. The danger here as Ive said before is, the tactic of discrediting helmets to fight compulsion, but it seems to be the only weapon in the armoury for some. Bare this in mind, when reading some of the arguments and evidence.


I repeat, this would be about freedom to choose. I won't have some jumped up politician telling me to wear plastic on my head, even if this is cutting my nose off to spite my face. The risk factor is low, the annoyance factor of compulsion is very high. I don't like being annoyed.


----------



## Alun (26 Dec 2011)

Catrike UK said:


> I never wore one as a kid, I don't think they were even available as far as I recall and lo and behold I am still here as are all the people who seem to claim that every kid will die by not wearing one.


 Not every kid, just 50 per year, apparently !!!


----------



## lukesdad (27 Dec 2011)

Nantmor said:


> You underestimate the potential power of cyclists. There are more people able to ride a bike than drive a car in this country. Pedestrians and the parents of small children share many of our problems with the dominance of motor traffic. In fact we are all pedestrians for part of the time. We should not to give up, and not cease trying to improve the traffic environment we have to use, we should lobbying against traffic danger. To do this effectively we need to know what works, and what doesn't. My argument is that helmets don't work. The evidence of this is available to all. Should we use the Netherlands etc. as a model, where there are many cyclists with a low casualty rate and helmets rare, or should we follow Australia etc. where cyclists are few, casualty rates high, and helmets compulsory?


Blimey, you re obsessed with power aren t you ? As for the potential power of cyclists, thats how it will stay, "potential" Answer the next 2 questions correctly and the reason will become apparent to you why.

On a Forum of many thousands why do you think Only a handful have contributed to helmet debates, or even look throught the campaigning section ?

What are the reasons the vast majority of cyclists ride their bikes ? ( Ill give you a little clue commuting isn t one of them )


----------



## Nantmor (27 Dec 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Blimey, you re obsessed with power aren t you ? As for the potential power of cyclists, thats how it will stay, "potential" Answer the next 2 questions correctly and the reason will become apparent to you why.
> 
> On a Forum of many thousands why do you think Only a handful have contributed to helmet debates, or even look throught the campaigning section ?
> 
> What are the reasons the vast majority of cyclists ride their bikes ? ( Ill give you a little clue commuting isn t one of them )


 
"You can lead a man to slaughter, but you're never going to make him think." Displaced from the Roy Harper thread.


----------



## StuartG (27 Dec 2011)

I was following (in my car) a cyclist today. A young lady on a nice bike. She was wearing a helmet. Or at least I think so for it was covered in a high-viz rain/wind protection cover. I assume she takes this safety helmet thing seriously.

Trouble was I had to follow her for quite a distance. She was inviting me to pass by riding inches from parked cars - almost having to ride around the wing mirrors - on a shopping street. Yes I could have overtaken her by leaving inches on the other side too. I won't mention her positioning at a pinch point. I could cry. I'm sure other folks experience this daily.

The point is - the cycle safety culture in this country seems to start and end with helmets + hi-viz. Wear both and you are riding safely, wear not and you are a hazard to yourself, insurance companies and BHIT. Whatever the merits of helmets + hi-viz: they are inconsequential in comparison with good road positioning, awareness, good brakes ... and much else.

The safety agenda has been subsumed by what is, in reality, a side show. That is, in itself, dangerous.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (27 Dec 2011)

StuartG said:


> The safety agenda has been subsumed by what is, in reality, a side show. That is, in itself, dangerous.


Wot 'E said!


----------



## Riding in Circles (27 Dec 2011)

StuartG said:


> The point is - the cycle safety culture in this country seems to start and end with helmets + hi-viz. Wear both and you are riding safely, wear not and you are a hazard to yourself, insurance companies and BHIT. Whatever the merits of helmets + hi-viz: they are inconsequential in comparison with good road positioning, awareness, good brakes ... and much else.


 
Now you are just using facts to try to muddy the waters....


----------



## lukesdad (28 Dec 2011)

Nantmor said:


> "You can lead a man to slaughter, but you're never going to make him think." Displaced from the Roy Harper thread.


Its not me you ve got to convince ! Ive survived the war so far, but you are doing a good job of convincing people that cycling is dangerous which, it isn t. This is rather counter productive to your "potential power" plan , wouldn t you say ? Oh, and save your insults for the shy retiring types, that ll keep even more off the road and out of these debates.


----------



## ComedyPilot (28 Dec 2011)

I almost choked on my xmas dinner. I saw a washing detergent advert a few days ago, and it had 2 blokes with bikes (shaped objects) riding through puddles, then having their dirty shirts washed. The first thing they did was put helmets on.

I seem to remember similar adverts in the past where young lads playing rugby go through a similar scenario - did they have to wear a helmet?

No.

So, someone very likely to be physically knocked to the ground numerous times every time when participating in a pastime doesn't have to wear a helmet.

Someone hardly likely to EVER be knocked to te ground in the LIFETIME of their pastime - message clear - wear a helmet.


----------



## Simba (28 Dec 2011)

As I have said a few times, there is no debate as far as I am concerned. Wear a helmet if you want or don't wear a helmet if you want. Simples, I wear one but that's just my preference.


----------



## Archie_tect (28 Dec 2011)

This isn't a debate [yes it is]... no it's not [yes it is], it *isn't*! ['tis]....


----------



## Nantmor (29 Dec 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Its not me you ve got to convince ! Ive survived the war so far, but you are doing a good job of convincing people that cycling is dangerous which, it isn t. This is rather counter productive to your "potential power" plan , wouldn t you say ? Oh, and save your insults for the shy retiring types, that ll keep even more off the road and out of these debates.


I think you are wilfully over-interpreting my throwaway quote. I thought it glancingly appropriate. If Roy Harper had written "You can lead a man to an seemingly hostile road environment which intimidates some cyclists and potential cyclists so that they are frightened to use the public highway" I would have been very happy to use his line. Even better if he had included something about the way traffic leads some to hope an ineffective foam hat will make road cycling safe enough for them. I don't suppose he could have got it to scan either. Sorry if you felt insulted, I thought that a slightly barbed joke would not be too upsetting.


----------



## Dan_h (29 Dec 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> .


 
Good grief, if that is what you end up like after crashing without a helmet then I am off to the shops to get me one!


----------



## lukesdad (30 Dec 2011)

Nantmor said:


> I think you are wilfully over-interpreting my throwaway quote. I thought it glancingly appropriate. If Roy Harper had written "You can lead a man to an seemingly hostile road environment which intimidates some cyclists and potential cyclists so that they are frightened to use the public highway" I would have been very happy to use his line. Even better if he had included something about the way traffic leads some to hope an ineffective foam hat will make road cycling safe enough for them. I don't suppose he could have got it to scan either. Sorry if you felt insulted, I thought that a slightly barbed joke would not be too upsetting.


Im not insulted , note the smiley. There you go again hostile, intimidates frightened. Its not dangerous roads that keep people off bikes, its because they re to god damned lazy. Do you think the first question they ask themselves is am I going to get killed or seriously injured or, I cant be arsed or might get wet ? Why are country parks and other cycling leisure facilities around the country not used by the masses either. After all leisure cycling is safe or am I wrong there too ? I think you need to take a reality check.


----------



## Nantmor (30 Dec 2011)

On my planet many cyclists and potential cyclists are intimidated by traffic.


----------



## lukesdad (30 Dec 2011)

Nantmor said:


> On my planet many cyclists and potential cyclists are intimidated by traffic.


 I think you mean potential commuters there don t you


----------



## Nantmor (30 Dec 2011)

lukesdad said:


> I think you mean potential commuters there don t you


No.


----------

