Cycle helmets are useless?
- Thread starter sight-pin
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
D
Deleted member 23692
Guest
raleighnut
Legendary Member
- Location
- One of the 'Elite'
+1^^^^^^
smokeysmoo
Legendary Member
- Location
- Bolton, not very far from Nob End
DiddlyDodds
Random Resident
- Location
- Littleborough
ive pinged the mods , got no reply from the Who, but Paul Weller replied to say the local church jumble sale starts at 10am tomorrow, he had no opinion either way on should this thread be moved, sting replied with "we are the mods we are the mods" then threw a dustbin through a window .
Last edited:
gavroche
Getting old but not past it
- Location
- North Wales
Death is.
vickster
Legendary Member
Not necessarily... Those of us here now may not die!!
Exactly why pedestrians need helmets....
Or are you going to claim that hitting the tarmac is less painful, less damaging, or less traumatic if you are a pedestrian.
After all ..... only a nugget would think otherwise
May I suggest that you avoid garlic and pointy sticks!
nickyboy
Norven Mankey
- Location
- You want hills? We got hills
Going down a hill at 40mph, if a helmet will reduce my chances of serious injury by even 1%, I'll wear one. Appreciating the points made that cycling isn't inherently dangerous and other activities we do are as dangerous but we don't wear a helmet for them. But 1% is worth it to me
Davidc
Guru
- Location
- Somerset UK
Yawn
No, I don't feel safer when wearing one.
If they'd been around in 1972 and I'd been wearing one in the multiple collision I was in on Bridge Valley Road, Bristol, I would have been beheaded and there would have been 3 fatalities instead of 2. I walked away unhurt.
That is anecdotal, and as evidence is as totally useless as the huge pile of anecdotes along the 'helmet saved my life' lines.
The evidence, real evidence, is clear. Helmets are safety neutral, helping as often as they hinder.
Why isn't this in the Helmet Debates section where it belongs?
No, I don't feel safer when wearing one.
If they'd been around in 1972 and I'd been wearing one in the multiple collision I was in on Bridge Valley Road, Bristol, I would have been beheaded and there would have been 3 fatalities instead of 2. I walked away unhurt.
That is anecdotal, and as evidence is as totally useless as the huge pile of anecdotes along the 'helmet saved my life' lines.
The evidence, real evidence, is clear. Helmets are safety neutral, helping as often as they hinder.
Why isn't this in the Helmet Debates section where it belongs?
Profpointy
Legendary Member
The key word in your sentence is "if".
Leaving aside 40mph specifics, looking at Australia or Ontario where compulsion has been introduced, there does not seem to be an overall benefit.
So "if" is rather moot
Which rather raises a question over your speed.
Cycle helmets (even the highest rated) are only assessed at an impact energy equivalent to 12 mph
The claim that a 1% decrease in the chances of injury is worthwhile, I wonder about what percentage decrease you would gain by limiting your speed to a value that the helmet is validated for?
I would suggests that it is greater than 1%
Of course you could also achieve a far greater than 1% decrease by wearing a motorcycle helmet that HAS been validated to function at 40 mph
Or is that 1% really unimportant after all?
- Status
