Cycling helmets.Opinions please

[ufkacbln]

I just ate a melon exactly like that. It was delicious. I did not think to save the skin for cycling in. It's gone on the compost heap.
I am not sure if cycling helmets belong on the compost heap too. I asked the question at the beginning of this thread after doing my own bit of research of peer reviewed papers.

Guess what? I am none the wiser. For now I will not be buying a helmet. When there is some compelling evidence to demonstrate that a particular standard of helmet reduces head injuries, then I will purchase one right away. Until then I reserve my right not to do so.

Which is the way it should be.


Funniest thing is that "Nutcase helmets" now make a watermelon helmet

 

[RedFeend]

Which is the way it should be.


Funniest thing is that "Nutcase helmets" now make a watermelon helmet.]

I think that is so amusing. Funny thing is, it doesn't look too unattractive.

 

[smutchin]

Without actually performing these tests...

...any prediction is not evidence, it's a guess.

 

[ShipHill]

...any prediction is not evidence, it's a guess.

Yes it's a guess, but I would suggest that it's a reasonable guess or assumption.

For example, If I drop a hammer on my bare foot I guess it would hurt.
Having done it once or twice at work with my toetectors on and have it not hurt is quite nice though.

 

[smutchin]

Yes it's a guess, but I would suggest that it's a reasonable guess or assumption.

Brilliant. I think you should write that up and get it peer-reviewed asap so all the engineering journals can publish your wisdom.

 

[ShipHill]

Without actually carrying out the tests I can also predict with equally reasonable foresight that there would be similar results for the melon:

after test 1 your head would ache and the melon may split/suffer damage
after test 2 you would hit the deck with blood bailing out a large wound

Of course let us not forget that his is a test arrived out whilst on one's feet (pedestrian mode), so it is only reaally valid for someone standing beside a wall on their feet.

I take it that you believe helmets to be little or no use in a cycle related accident?
Or is it that you think current helmet designs are poor?

Genuine question. Not trying to be funny.

 

[ShipHill]

Brilliant. I think you should write that up and get it peer-reviewed asap so all the engineering journals can publish your wisdom.

I'm not trying to be a smarty pants here, I'm genuinely curious as to the.. shall I say aversion.. or even loathing of helmets... in the cycling world by some folks. A number of people believe them to be no use whatsoever it seems to me. Do you think they are of no use at all? In any circumstances?

Compulsory wearing is another matter and I'm not advocating that at all.

You didn't like my hammer on the bare foot example then I assume. I thought it was rather good. Dropped one on my toetector last week so it was the first example that sprang to mind.

 

[mcshroom]

The toe-tector line reminds me of why a BOC driver told me that they had stopped using them. The toe-tectors protected the toes, and instead promoted broken ankles.

 

[ufkacbln]

I take it that you believe helmets to be little or no use in a cycle related accident?
Or is it that you think current helmet designs are poor?

Genuine question. Not trying to be funny.

Neither, I think that these scare tactics are neither acceptable nor valid arguments.

Showing just how unrealistic these ridiculous claims are is part of encouraging informed decisions.

 

[ufkacbln]

Yes it's a guess, but I would suggest that it's a reasonable guess or assumption.

For example, If I drop a hammer on my bare foot I guess it would hurt.
Having done it once or twice at work with my toetectors on and have it not hurt is quite nice though.

Again proof for pedestrians to wear protective equipment

 

[User6179]

Again proof for pedestrians to wear protective equipment

Are you saying peds should wear helmets or just using that as an argument as peds would benefit wearing helmets as much as cyclists or even more so?

 

[smutchin]

I'm genuinely curious as to the.. shall I say aversion.. or even loathing of helmets... in the cycling world by some folks. A number of people believe them to be no use whatsoever it seems to me. Do you think they are of no use at all? In any circumstances?

I have no strong personal feelings about helmets, and I make no claims regarding their efficacy or otherwise.

What I can't stand is the bullshit that is spouted on the subject. Licramite's "practical test" is a case in point.

Making up a test (the methodology of which is extremely flawed to start with), not actually carrying it out but still positing your assumptions about its likely outcomes as evidence in support of your prior position is not exactly scientific, is it?

You didn't like my hammer on the bare foot example then I assume.

I don't see the relevance of it. I don't often drop a hammer on my foot while cycling.

 

[ufkacbln]

Are you saying peds should wear helmets or just using that as an argument as peds would benefit wearing helmets as much as cyclists or even more so?

The use of emotive blackmail and the "proof" that this test constitutes has no place in the debate on helmets, it is the worst form of scaremongering.

Helmet use should be discussed using facts and these then lead to the individual to make an informed decision. If you feel you need to wear one, then do, if you feel that your personal asessment is that you don't need one then don't.

Someone telling you that unless you do there are going to be painful consequences is not a helpful or constructive contribution to your decision

The pedestrian analogy works as it shows simply how absurd and unfounded these claims are

But to answer your question...
1. Helmets are designed to act in low speed impacts and are more suited to pedestrian use than cyclist
2. There are more head injury admissions from falls on stairs than cyclists, and overall pedestrians feature far more highly in head injury statistics.
3. The "proof" put forward with the wall test and claimed as valid is equally "valid" for proving pedestrians need helmets.
4. If you are going to spout a "wear a helmet or suffer pain" argument you really have to justify why you are limiting this theory to cyclists

Overall though it is simply a tool to show the weakness and poor science of many pro-helmet myths and claims

 

[ufkacbln]

I'm not trying to be a smarty pants here, I'm genuinely curious as to the.. shall I say aversion.. or even loathing of helmets... in the cycling world by some folks. A number of people believe them to be no use whatsoever it seems to me. Do you think they are of no use at all? In any circumstances?

Compulsory wearing is another matter and I'm not advocating that at all.

You didn't like my hammer on the bare foot example then I assume. I thought it was rather good. Dropped one on my toetector last week so it was the first example that sprang to mind.

The point is that any decision should be informed and based on evidence........... not trying to scare someone int wearing a helmet with absurd "tests" and claims that if they don't wear helmets they will suffer injuries.

Put this sort of tripe in and it will be challenged.

It is NOT anti-helmet it is anti-BS

 

[snorri]

I'm not trying to be a smarty pants here, I'm genuinely curious as to the.. shall I say aversion.. or even loathing of helmets... in the cycling world by some folks. A number of people believe them to be no use whatsoever it seems to me. Do you think they are of no use at all? In any circumstances?

I doubt if anyone would claim that helmets can never offer some protection in certain types of crash.
The problem arises on helmet threads when someone comes along claiming that those who don't wear helmets when cycling are mad, crazy, irresponsible etc etc., yet when questioned that person shows an amazing lack of awareness of the research material on helmets and helmet wearing which available to us all.
It is of course "common sense" that a shell around your head will offer a degree of protection to the area it covers, but there is considerably more to it than that, as the research shows. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
Delve into the research and decide for yourself if helmet wearing is for you.

Edit to say that helmet discussions usually relate to utility cycling where the incidence of crashes is very low, and not to higher risk activities like competitive , off road, mountain biking etc.