Benefits of wearing a helmet

[mickle]

my view is still not proved wrong, your safer in a crash with a helmet on than no helmet using extreme examples doesnt prove it wrong

posting a link does not constitute a worthwhile post, rather a desperate one

Did you investigate the link at all?

 

[david k]

From here I'm sitting david k you've not proved very much. Show us some evidence that cycle helmets save lives or prevent injury. Beyond what you deem to be 'common sense' or 'obvious'.

I doubt that you can because I doubt that any such evidence exists - but happy to be proved wrong.

Well i dont know where you are sitting but you do appear to have blinkers on being so selective with your responses.

Please note that I havnt tried to prove to you that wearing a helmet is going to save your life, i've presented my view and some people including you by the look of it have took exception to it.

Now I believe that i am safer wearing a helmet than not. Now, for some reason you wont accept that, mmmmmmmmmmm why could that be???????

If your not looking to just argue then i presume you take the same approach to all things, you wait for evidence to prove that you should reduce speed when driving outside a school, or do you use 'common sense'?

 

[4F]

So on the link that I provided, that you may or may not have opened:-


Helmet wearers may compensate by cycling less safely
A study from Norway investigated risk compensation by cyclists in response to bicycle helmet wearing by observing changes in cycling behavior, reported experience of risk, and a possible objective measure of experienced risk.

Variations in heart rate were used as a measure of perceived risk and tested in a pilot exercise by getting participants to watch a thriller movie. Then heart rate variability was used along with cycling pace and self-reported risk in a field experiment involving 35 cyclist volunteers, some of whom normally wore helmets and others who did not. Each cyclist rode 0.4 km downhill, both bareheaded and wearing a cycle helmet.

Routine helmet users reported higher experienced risk and cycled slower when they did not wear their helmet in the experiment than when they did wear their helmet, although there was no corresponding change in their heart rate. For cyclists not accustomed to helmets, there were no changes in speed, perceived risk, or any other measures when cycling with versus without a helmet.

The findings are consistent with the notion that those who use helmets routinely perceive reduced risk when wearing a helmet, and compensate by cycling faster. According to the authors, they thus give some support to those urging caution in the use of helmet laws.

 

[david k]

So on the link that I provided, that you may or may not have opened:-


Helmet wearers may compensate by cycling less safely
A study from Norway investigated risk compensation by cyclists in response to bicycle helmet wearing by observing changes in cycling behavior, reported experience of risk, and a possible objective measure of experienced risk.

Variations in heart rate were used as a measure of perceived risk and tested in a pilot exercise by getting participants to watch a thriller movie. Then heart rate variability was used along with cycling pace and self-reported risk in a field experiment involving 35 cyclist volunteers, some of whom normally wore helmets and others who did not. Each cyclist rode 0.4 km downhill, both bareheaded and wearing a cycle helmet.

Routine helmet users reported higher experienced risk and cycled slower when they did not wear their helmet in the experiment than when they did wear their helmet, although there was no corresponding change in their heart rate. For cyclists not accustomed to helmets, there were no changes in speed, perceived risk, or any other measures when cycling with versus without a helmet.

The findings are consistent with the notion that those who use helmets routinely perceive reduced risk when wearing a helmet, and compensate by cycling faster. According to the authors, they thus give some support to those urging caution in the use of helmet laws.

i understand the risk compensation theory. but having debated this before it was decided that the disadvantage of wearing a helmet in terms of this is insignificant. if it is not then surely people should be campaigning to have helmets banned, if they are so dangerous that is, which is it?

this also take the presumption that all riders will ride more dangerously. My point is not about riding style, for me this is a different point, my point is if in a accident, you are safer imo with a helmet on than without one. do you agree or not?

 

[4F]

i understand the risk compensation theory. but having debated this before it was decided that the disadvantage of wearing a helmet in terms of this is insignificant. if it is not then surely people should be campaigning to have helmets banned, if they are so dangerous that is, which is it?

this also take the presumption that all riders will ride more dangerously. My point is not about riding style, for me this is a different point, my point is if in a accident, you are safer imo with a helmet on than without one. do you agree or not?

Of course as you know the answer to that question is "possibly".

Those who have suffered rotational neck injuries caused by their helmet would disagree.

 

[mickle]

Well i dont know where you are sitting but you do appear to have blinkers on being so selective with your responses.

Please note that I havnt tried to prove to you that wearing a helmet is going to save your life, i've presented my view and some people including you by the look of it have took exception to it.

Now I believe that i am safer wearing a helmet than not. Now, for some reason you wont accept that, mmmmmmmmmmm why could that be???????

If your not looking to just argue then i presume you take the same approach to all things, you wait for evidence to prove that you should reduce speed when driving outside a school, or do you use 'common sense'?

Imagine a room where people come and go, and where there is a subject being discussed. At any given moment there might be any number of people in the room, either partcipating actively or quietly observing.

When someone makes a statement, and they are called on it, it's customary for the person defending the claim to momentarily leave the room and return with evidence to back up what they have said.

What seems to me to be happening with an awful lot with pro-helmet protagonists is that they make claims which they cannot back up with any evidence - and worse, when presented with evidence which contradicts their view refuse to read it, or to acknowledge it.

You are that person standing in the middle of the room spouting things you believe to be true and refusing to try and understand evidence which contradicts your POV. People keep placing it in front of you but you refuse to read it.

I admire Redlight for his perseverance but wonder why he bothers in the face of such ignorance.

 

[david k]

Imagine a room where people come and go, and where there is a subject being discussed. At any given moment there might be any number of people in the room, either partcipating actively or quietly observing. LOL Im with you pal, im in a room, crack on

When someone makes a statement, and they are called on it, it's customary for the person defending the claim to momentarily leave the room and return with evidence to back up what they have said. really, customary to prove your own thoughts? If someone made major claims maybe but when someone just says they prefer to wear a helmet why do you demand proof that i prefer to wear a helmet? bit odd?

What seems to me to be happening with an awful lot with pro-helmet protagonists is that they make claims which they cannot back up with any evidence - and worse, when presented with evidence which contradicts their view refuse to read it, or to acknowledge it. What claims are these, the extreme ones you anti helmet protagonists keep putting into our mouths. making something up and asking us to prove it is futile and quite frankly desperate

You are that person standing in the middle of the room spouting things you believe to be true and refusing to try and understand evidence which contradicts your POV. People keep placing it in front of you but you refuse to read it. Oh, im back in a room, yep seen it and discussed it. if you get frustrated because you cannot brow beat me into believing that wearing a helmet is not of benefit that is different to not considering it. fail to consider the response if it makes it easier for you

I admire Redlight for his perseverance but wonder why he bothers in the face of such ignorance. Lol, kissing redlights backside does not make the argument any better. I admire his dedication, doesnt mean i agree or have to agree with him.


I understand you find it hard not being able to bully someone to think the same way as you, I prefer to debate the points and listen and counter comments as I see fit. Youve failed to make any comment that supports your argument that I have yet to explain in respect of my own opinion, im sorry that makes you angry

 

[david k]

If you are pro choice why does it make you so angry when i say i prefer to wear a helmet, if you were truly pro choice you would accept that i prefer to wear a helmet.

You try to take the moral choice high ground whilst compiling long winded replies trying to force me to accept there is no benefit to wearing a helmet, in fact your proof is that it is dangerous to wear a helmet. So why do you not lobby for helmets to be banned?

 

[ufkacbln]

my view is still not proved wrong, your safer in a crash with a helmet on than no helmet using extreme examples doesnt prove it wrong

posting a link does not constitute a worthwhile post, rather a desperate one

Ok - let's accept this.....

The same is true for a pedestrian, they will "be safer in a crash with a helmet on then no helmet" . Given that more pedestrians are admitted to A&E departments, does this argument not equally justify pedestrian helmets?

Anyone care to explain why not?

 

[Bicycle]

If Louis Armstrong had landed on the moon in 1969 without his helmet, there's no way he's be alive today.

Fact.

Please do not try pick holes in that carefully crafted line of argument. It is closer to perfect than a history lecture by Sarah Palin.

 

[4F]

any bets on how long it will be before Thudguards get a mention now Cunobelin has joined the party ?

 

[ufkacbln]

but the wall without a helmet, but the wall with, then make up your mind

Another Pro-fruit argument.......



Butt the wall without a canteloupe on your head, and then with, then make up your mind

There we have it folks - conclusive proof that "Cyclists should wear fruit on their heads"


Make Canteloupes compulsory NOW!

..or even pumpkins

 

[ufkacbln]

any bets on how long it will be before Thudguards get a mention now Cunobelin has joined the party ?

I'll start with the fruit thank you.....

 

[Red Light]

this also take the presumption that all riders will ride more dangerously. My point is not about riding style, for me this is a different point, my point is if in a accident, you are safer imo with a helmet on than without one. do you agree or not?

And the research evidence is that in all probability it will either make no difference or make it worse. If there are accident scenarios where you are better off then there are at least as many where you are worse off and since you don't get to choose your accidents, overall you are equally or more likely to be worse off.

Now its perfectly reasonable to say that accidents are so rare (one fatality per 20 million journeys in London, no serious injuries per 6 million Boris Bike journeys) that it really doesn't matter so if it makes you happy wear a helmet or a St Christophers or a lucky rabbits foot. If not don't.

 

[david k]

There are far more pedestrians than cyclists. You need to prove likelihood so, cyclists per head injury compared to pedestrians per head injury.

In with keeping with anti helmet wishes for hard evidence you will have to show evidence to support your claim, or it will be discarded