Be prepared for an accident

[Rusty Nails]

Or on a bar stool which is probably more likely - !

Only dozy bar stewards fall off bar stools.

 

[mjr]

But as I observed on my post, my cranial collision was with the road not a car.

Still after being "knocked off", when forces and kinetic energy involved will far exceed helmet standards requirements.

 

[mjr]

It was indeed. Have you a link for the retraction? I tried looking it up, but only got propaganda.

Sorry, it seems I was probably thinking of the wrong helmet-pusher. It was Dorsch who refused to fully support her 1987 team's 90% claim in parliamentary committee, calling it "hypothetical".

Thompson et al merely revised their prediction downwards to 69% in 1996's "Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing head injuries: a case-control study" (JAMA 1996 Dec 25;276(24):1968-73), but even that's another never-repeated result with an unrepresentative control group. Then you notice the claims that "There was no effect modification by age or motor vehicle involvement" and " No significant differences were found for the protective effect of hard-shell, thin-shell, or no-shell helmets". Surely that shouldn't be? No effects of helmet strength, rider age or amount of kinetic energy in the initial impact? I suggest that's not just surprising but completely absurd. If you accept the physics of how helmets protect, then you can't say the helmet design and the impact energy are irrelevant. Doing so seems like basically appealing that those hats are magic.

Both papers are mentioned on https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1027.html which is where I realised I might have confused Dorsch and Thompson.

Much later, the US government has said the 85% figure isn't reliable and should not be used: https://ggwash.org/view/31377/feds-will-stop-hyping-effectiveness-of-bike-helmets

 

[MontyVeda]

But as I observed on my post, my cranial collision was with the road not a car.

'knocked off' suggests you were hit by something... as opposed to 'fell off', which suggests you weren't.

 

[simongt]

'knocked off' suggests you were hit by something... as opposed to 'fell off', which suggests you weren't.

Yup, some twat in a car who rear ended me because he 'didn't see me'.
Nae possible chance of taking avoiding action.

 

[Vantage]

Another point I wonder about. How exactly does the wearing of a helmet stop a person driving a car carelessly/dangerously?
Is said helmet going to zap them with a laser if he/she falls below driving safely standards? Is it going to fine them and issue points on their licence? Is said helmet going to provide a witness statement to the prosecution?
Is the helmet going to magically expand and surround it's wearer in a styrofoam ball of protecting fluffiness in the event of a collision?

 

[simongt]

Is the helmet going to magically expand and surround it's wearer in a styrofoam ball of protecting fluffiness in the event of a collision?

This is a 'helmet issue' that has been bouncing around for years.
Personally, I'd rather have a couple of centimetres of styrofoam between my head and blacktop than a cap or similar if it came to it and obviously did for me.

 

[I like Skol]

Another point I wonder about. How exactly does the wearing of a helmet stop a person driving a car carelessly/dangerously?
Is said helmet going to zap them with a laser if he/she falls below driving safely standards? Is it going to fine them and issue points on their licence? Is said helmet going to provide a witness statement to the prosecution?
Is the helmet going to magically expand and surround it's wearer in a styrofoam ball of protecting fluffiness in the event of a collision?

This highlights the problem with most helmet debates (and I use the term 'debate' in the loosest possible sense).
The OP has made some ridiculous comments and then disappeared into the ether. Respondents are resorting to ever more ludicrous replies, making all parties appear childish and silly. This is a serious discussion and it does us no favours to ridicule the topic in this manner. How can we hope to put forward a reasoned argument against the case for enforced/mandatory helmet use if all the proponents are perceived as immature, unreasonable halfwits?

 

[Profpointy]

This highlights the problem with most helmet debates (and I use the term 'debate' in the loosest possible sense).
The OP has made some ridiculous comments and then disappeared into the ether. Respondents are resorting to ever more ludicrous replies, making all parties appear childish and silly. This is a serious discussion and it does us no favours to ridicule the topic in this manner. How can we hope to put forward a reasoned argument against the case for enforced/mandatory helmet use if all the proponents are perceived as immature, unreasonable halfwits?

I think it might because those of us who have become skeptical are rather bored by repetition of bogus or outright mendacious claims and / or hyperbole like "eating through a straw", or "let me hit you head with and without a helmet" and can no longer be arsed making reasoned arguments against blatant lies

 

[HMS_Dave]

I too tend to find the OP a bit old codswallop but then im reminded of Dave Davenport's shocking inquest result and the reality is perhaps worth at least thinking about:

Posted from the thread here

https://www.hampshirechronicle.co.u...-man-died-unavoidable-accident-inquest-hears/

Whether it would have made a difference if Dave had survived to give his side of the story, im not sure...

Either way, i continue without helmets as to whatever crazy legality issues aside, it really wouldn't make a difference to my outcome if i was struck by a motorist on their phone with or without a piece of ice cream tub plastic with a polystyrene insert...

 

[Ajax Bay]

"a report prepared by Hampshire police investigating the collision [. . ] had concluded that “The collisions [sic] could not reasonably have been avoided.”"
Hampshire Police should be truly ashamed of that report and one has to wonder about the Coroner's judgement (intellectual not the 'verdict').

 

[rivers]

When it comes to helmets, you do you.
Personally, I wear a helmet because I've worn a helmet since I was a kid. It feels weird not to because I've always done it. I also know, it will only protect my head in certain scenarios/accidents.
You should know a helmet will not protect your head should you drop a theatrical lighting fixture from a height of 6m.