A week without a helmet.

[Jon George]

It's now one week plus two days.

My wife likes my 'bandana look'.(Apparently, she has been reluctant to ride her bike because she thought it was now a legal requirement and she doesn't have one.)

Given as how my OP prompted such a reaction, I regret it - it makes me feel as though I'm tainted with Troll activity. I will, however, make one final observation before this thread is closed and you can damn me as you please: as a MAMIL, I will continue cycling in what is essentially sophisticated micro-thin underwear in the knowledge that if I were to come off my bike at any sort of speed, I'll be leaving a substantial amount of skin and flesh on the tarmac. Unless I'm mistaken (and I'm sure someone will correct me to put me in my place if I am), but I haven't heard much discussion about elbow/knee protection and/or thick leather clothing for the pros.

I had thought we are meant to be doing this for pleasure and the freedom - which includes choice.

To reiterate: I have experimented with going without a helmet and I quite like the feeling. I am over twenty-one and I believe I know enough about how to evaluate risk.

BTW I have loved the replies with the silly hat pics - they've massively off-set the handbags.

 

[snorri]

I had thought we are meant to be doing this for pleasure and the freedom - which includes choice.

Me too.

 

[bikeman66]

Perhaps you would like to explain why more pro cyclists have died per year since the mandatory helmets were brought in than in the years before ?
http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/21/pro-cycling-and-helmets.html

I would suppose that advances in technology in bicycle manufacture and the added pressures on relatively highly paid athletes to perform, leading to increased average speeds in racing probably has something to do with this, though there are likely a number of factors.

Increased average speed would suggest that risks of accident or incident are heightened. I guess the average speed of Luis Ocana's 1973 Tour victory at 33.4km/h, compared to (OK, it may have been rocket fuelled) Lance Arstrong's win in 2003 at 40.9km/h would demonstrate this pretty well. Whether you are travelling in a car, on a motorcycle or a bicycle, increased speed is more likely to cause increased injury and risk of fatality, that is undeniable.

It may also be somewhat misleading to use pro cycling as your main arguement, even though the figures may in some ways, back up your claim to a point. The speeds achieved (especially in descents) by professional riders would, I imagine, incrementally reduce the effectiveness (and I say reduce, rather than negate) of cycling helmets. However, the vast majority of cycling helmets (at a guess, in excess of 90%) are sold to mere mortals whose speeds on the roads are somewhat slower. Given that collision at increased speed is likely to cause more catastrophic injury, it is fair to argue that a helmet would provide increased, by comparison, protection for the majority of road cyclists (kids on their way to school, commuters, leisure riders etc), the vast majority of which probably never hit more than around 30km/h.

During my working week on a building site items such as earmuffs, goggles, steel toe cap boots, vibration absorbing gloves etc regularly play a part in saving me from injury, whether minor or otherwise. I suppose the benefits of wearing a hard hat on site too (especially after some clown dropped a scaffold fitting on my head a couple of months ago) may well be disputed. For me, whether it is a potential risk at work or during a leisure activity, and that risk can be minimised simply by wearing appropriate safety wear, that is what I will do.

 

[bikeman66]

It's now one week plus two days.

My wife likes my 'bandana look'.(Apparently, she has been reluctant to ride her bike because she thought it was now a legal requirement and she doesn't have one.)

Given as how my OP prompted such a reaction, I regret it - it makes me feel as though I'm tainted with Troll activity. I will, however, make one final observation before this thread is closed and you can damn me as you please: as a MAMIL, I will continue cycling in what is essentially sophisticated micro-thin underwear in the knowledge that if I were to come off my bike at any sort of speed, I'll be leaving a substantial amount of skin and flesh on the tarmac. Unless I'm mistaken (and I'm sure someone will correct me to put me in my place if I am), but I haven't heard much discussion about elbow/knee protection and/or thick leather clothing for the pros.

I had thought we are meant to be doing this for pleasure and the freedom - which includes choice.

To reiterate: I have experimented with going without a helmet and I quite like the feeling. I am over twenty-one and I believe I know enough about how to evaluate risk.

BTW I have loved the replies with the silly hat pics - they've massively off-set the handbags.

Jon, OK your original post has provoked a debate with fairly polar points of view, but you should not regret posting it. That is, and should be, what forums like this are for. I appreciate that there have been what might be termed heated arguements, for and against, but I haven't read any offensive posts (quite rightly). If people can keep a fairly civil tongue, debates like this should be welcomed as they can often spawn ideas for systems and developments which are long term beneficial.

A friend of mine chooses only to wear a bandana when out riding. I can't say it doesn't concern me when we're out on the road, but ultimately it is his choice not to wear a helmet, just as it is mine to use one.

Happy riding Jon.

 

[Racing roadkill]

DISCLAIMER: this post is not intended to set off the for/against debate, it's just my observations based on the last seven days when I haven't been using a helmet when using my road bike.

Some history. I've always had a bike or BSO, but about four years I really got bitten. This also coincided with being clipped by a car down a country lane and I went for the full MAMIL - including helmet. I also began using it for trips to the pub and into town on my hybrid.

Then, last year, I acquired my father-in-law's retirement present of City Gent Halfords bike from the 80's that he had seldom used. It promptly became my pub bike and I could not bring myself to wear a helmet when using it - it didn't 'feel' right to do so.

So, six weeks ago I started dispensing with the helmet when riding my hybrid. And for the last seven days, I've been doing the same while out on my road bike.

I have read that there some evidence that drivers give helmetless riders a little more room and, even though this is a far from scientific study, I believe I have noticed a subtle difference. Yes, I still get some close passes, but not as often as they have been, and it also 'seems' as though I'm generally getting a little more breathing space than I have been used to from the rest. Okay, I've also become far more willing to adopt Primary and perhaps that confidence is somehow relayed to others drivers through body language, but I really feel as though I have regained something of the purity of cycling.

Oh, I have just acquired a bandanna - with a pirate motif. What mid-life crisis?

Good luck with that, when a piece of debris gets flicked into your skull, and you get sparked out, and hit the road head first unresponsive.

 

[ufkacbln]

Hahahaha! Head injuries not a problem??? This is getting farcical now. I guess you didn't see the video on Children in need last night, about a lad who (just once) forgot to put his bike helmet on, and unfortunately had a catastrophic accident involving a serious head injury. He was in hospital and rehabilitation for around 14 months and is still only just able to speak, cannot walk and needs constant attention. Now whether a helmet would have saved him completely is open to debate, but judging by the very moving words of his father, a head injury most certainly IS a problem.

Why is that relevant?

Surely it is a problem for the other children on the ward?

The majority of children on that ward will have been taking part in simple activities like playing and walking when they suffered these injuries, others will have been passengers in cars.

I would suggest that the same emotional turmoil exists in all these cases and to suggest that only one of them had a responsibility to "prevent" that injury and is therefore somehow any different is an insult to the other patients and their families.

You need to explain why this one child should have been singled out as not having worn a helmet

 

[ufkacbln]

Iit makes me feel as though I'm tainted with Troll activity.

When I was in Reykjavik earlier this year I found out that some Trolls wear helmets....

Other Trolls don't wear helmets

I wonder if Trolls have internet forums discussing this matter?

 

[ufkacbln]

Good luck with that, when a piece of debris gets flicked into your skull, and you get sparked out, and hit the road head first unresponsive.

I agree if that happened whilst walking along it would be painful. Your unequivocal support for pedestrian helmets is accepted.

 

[Racing roadkill]

I agree if that happened whilst walking along it would be painful. Your unequivocal support for pedestrian helmets is accepted.

Hmmmm. Yeah whatever.

 

[bpsmith]

Why is that relevant?

Surely it is a problem for the other children on the ward?

The majority of children on that ward will have been taking part in simple activities like playing and walking when they suffered these injuries, others will have been passengers in cars.

I would suggest that the same emotional turmoil exists in all these cases and to suggest that only one of them had a responsibility to "prevent" that injury and is therefore somehow any different is an insult to the other patients and their families.

You need to explain why this one child should have been singled out as not having worn a helmet

I assume that you didn't see the video referred to. The video was solely centred about the lad in question, and his family, and hinged around the fact that a helmet would have potentially saved him from such injuries. Their words, not the poster or mine.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with comparisons to other children with different injuries. You are making an argument out of something innocently posted to add to the debate.

The video was very touching and had the aim of increasing awareness and ultimately getting people to dig deep and donate to the charities that the whole event was designed for!

Please refrain from making a mockery, when the debate has more genuine angles to discuss from?

 

[Racing roadkill]

I believe I know enough about how to evaluate risk.

Clearly not.

 

[User6179]

Another helmet debate full of scientific data

 

[ufkacbln]

I assume that you didn't see the video referred to. The video was solely centred about the lad in question, and his family, and hinged around the fact that a helmet would have potentially saved him from such injuries. Their words, not the poster or mine.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with comparisons to other children with different injuries. You are making an argument out of something innocently posted to add to the debate.

The video was very touching and had the aim of increasing awareness and ultimately getting people to dig deep and donate to the charities that the whole event was designed for!

Please refrain from making a mockery, when the debate has more genuine angles to discuss from?

Yes I saw the video, and have worked with the NHS for many years I have seen the effects of head injuries first hand and the effect on families. I have performed scans that determine whether life support systems remain on or get switched off, so perhaps my experiences re a little more in depth than watching a fund raising video?

The question is key to the debate....if helmets work and it is important to have"prevented" this injury, then why are they not more widely used to prevent the more common head injuries?

 

[Brandane]

Clearly not.

The only person who can evaluate the risk to the OP is ....... the OP.. It would be nice if you and the other preachers would leave others to make up their own minds, based on our own vast experience and the facts available to us regarding the limitations of cycle helmets and the low risk factors involved in cycling.

 

[bpsmith]

Yes I saw the video, and have worked with the NHS for many years I have seen the effects of head injuries first hand and the effect on families. I have performed scans that determine whether life support systems remain on or get switched off, so perhaps my experiences re a little more in depth than watching a fund raising video?

The question is key to the debate....if helmets work and it is important to have"prevented" this injury, then why are they not more widely used to prevent the more common head injuries?

I couldn't agree more. I was just stating that the video in no way suggested that this lads injury was any more important that the others in the ward, which is what your post was leaning towards.

The helmet argument is fair enough.

Edit: Not trying to fuel the fire btw. I am off out for a cycle now. I most certainly don't want to hear that any CC'ers try to prove this debate out on the road today! Stay safe all, and enjoy, helmet or not.