Detention Lines: I will wear a helmet.

[dudi]

what's not in contention?

 

[BentMikey]

Catrike, there's no need to take it personally. The fact remains that you can't conlude the helmet saved your life. It might be your opinion, but that's all it is, and you should really be honest enough to admit that.

A point of order is that we are actually discussing cycle helmets here, not motorcycle ones. Motorcycle helmets are certainly designed to much more rigorous standards than cycle helmets.

 

[Riding in Circles]

Pedestrian helmet

Not uncommon amongst sufferers of cerebral palsy and people with balance issues.

 

[Riding in Circles]

Catrike, there's no need to take it personally. The fact remains that you can't conlude the helmet saved your life. It might be your opinion, but that's all it is, and you should really be honest enough to admit that.

A point of order is that we are actually discussing cycle helmets here, not motorcycle ones. Motorcycle helmets are certainly designed to much more rigorous standards than cycle helmets.

I'm not taking it personally, I just think it is a really naff statement, can you prove conclusively that some who claims a helmet saved their life is wrong? If not then their statement could just as easily be conclusive.You must be able to see just how bad an argument yours is in response to theirs? A better response is to say, that may or may not be so and to get onto more valid things such as the statistics of head injuries, or the cruddy reporting in the press where they say x cyclist killed on Sunday, they were not wearing a helmet, but they fail so say they died as a result of massive internal injuries. Rather than making a glib statement that neither proves or disproves anything. The one thing that a person making the claim of a helmet saving their life has, over and above anything you have, is particular experience of the event in question, which makes them instantly and unequivocally more qualified than you to comment on any aspect of that event.

 

[Origamist]

Not uncommon amongst sufferers of cerebral palsy and people with balance issues.

I hadn't thought of that. I assumed it was a cyclist (trousers rolled up, Copenhagen etc) who chose to wear a helmet when off the bike.

 

[BentMikey]

The point is that you claim FACT: a helmet saved your life. I'm just pointing out that this is an opinion, not a fact, and that it's dishonest to try and claim otherwise to either prove or disprove the efficacy of helmets. The experience of the event doesn't change that.

 

[dodgy]

When I read helmet debates on internet discussion forums, it becomes apparent that the anti-helmet wearers have an agenda, they draw increasingly random analogies and conclusions. It's almost as though they enjoy the debate and couldn't care less if it's about helmets, it could just as easily be about cabbages or kitchen doors. Devil's advocates?
Carry on

 

[ufkacbln]

3 things make walking less dangerous than cycling.

1) Speed. i don't know about you, but i cycle faster than I walk. therefore any accident is likely to happen faster, and likely to hurt more.

Couldn't agree more, but as cycle helmets are only designed for impact at less than 12 - 16 mph you should either remain in these limits to ensure effectiveness or upgrade to a motorcycle helmet.

]2) we share the roads with cars. who travel very fast. if cars were driving along pavements regularly, perhaps peds would wear protection.

In an answer to a parliamentary question Jeff Banks stated that between half and two thirds of all pedestrian vehicle incidents happened on a pavement! Again though there is a small flaw in that these accidents would be better suited to body armour to protect that areas more frequently inflicted or again a motorcycle helmet designed to cope with impact at these speeds.

3) contact points with the ground: the amount of surface area of tyre in contact with the road is many times lower than the area in contact when walking. even the sole of just one shoe is many many times larger.

So we need to design cycles ifthay are unsafe for this reason?

But anyway, you seem to be missing the point again.

I don't think any real cyclist expects their helmet to prevent a MASSIVE head injury.

It'll just help a bit if you topple off your bike and knock your head a bit. not that we're expecting to fall off, or that we somehow possess lower bike handling skills. helmet clad cyclists are just as optimistic and skilled as non helmet clad ones. Helmets are just a precaution.

Let me ask you a simple question.
If you had to headbutt a wall, Would you rather do it with or without a helmet?

Which again shows the ridiculousness of cycle helmet arguments would you rather ........

1. Perform your experiment whilst sat on a bike?
2. Perform your experiment whilst standing on your feet?
3. Perform your experiment wearing a pink tutu, Doc Martens and lace full arm gloves?

Which would hurt more?

If the result is the same it proves that sitting on a bike and wearing a pink tutu both require helmets!

 

[ufkacbln]

What facts say otherwise?

can you conclusively prove that walking is just as dangerous as cycling? This is asked in the same manner as you require conclusive proof that helmets reduce injury before you will accept them as a potentially useful item of ptrective clothing.

Malcolm Wardllaw "Assessing the actual risks faced by cyclists" published in Traffic Engineering and Control" 2002

Wardlaw looked at road accident fatalities and reported showed that the risk of death per kilometre is greater for pedestrians than cyclists by a factor of 1.5, this was true for ALL age groups except 11 - 14 year old boys!

 

[ufkacbln]

When I read helmet debates on internet discussion forums, it becomes apparent that the anti-helmet wearers have an agenda, they draw increasingly random analogies and conclusions. It's almost as though they enjoy the debate and couldn't care less if it's about helmets, it could just as easily be about cabbages or kitchen doors. Devil's advocates?
Carry on

NO - the idea is to show how ridiculous some of the arguments actually are and to make you think.

Many of the "soup'n'straw brigade" insist on protection in a group that is only featuring in 4 - 6% of hospital admissions, yet will accept head injuries in groups that feature in 40 - 45% of admissions!

One really has to ask does the mode of injury make the soup taste better?

Why are we trying to emotionally blackmail cyclists into protection when there are groups that would benefit more?

If only the money, will and effort that goes into promoting a technology that is not proven to work as an intervention was spent on proper training of road users (including cyclists) then we would see a benefit.....

 

[dudi]

From the same report, a small quote is
"Cyclists in Britain run a higher risk per hour than the other
modes (see Chart 2)."

Also, the report is mostly comparing cycling with other forms of vehicular travel. not pedestrians.

Another problem with the source you cited is that it only compares fatalities. not inicidents.

 

[Riding in Circles]

The point is that you claim FACT: a helmet saved your life. I'm just pointing out that this is an opinion, not a fact, and that it's dishonest to try and claim otherwise to either prove or disprove the efficacy of helmets. The experience of the event doesn't change that.

It is just as valid for me to say unless you prove my claim is not a fact, then it stands as a fact, and it is dishonest of you to claim otherwise.

A 45 mph impact of a human head with a solid object would result in death simply from the g force experienced in instant deceleration.

 

[mickle]

A 45 mph impact of a human head with a solid object would result in death simply from the g force experienced in instant deceleration.

A cranium free-fall of 24 inches onto a solid surface has the potential to inflict permanent brain damage. A fall of 36" has the potential to cause death.

What effect if any would a cycle helmet have in a 45 mph collision?

 

[BentMikey]

No it's not just as valid to say that. If I were doing what you are, I'd be saying helmets don't work from your example, but I'm not. The honesty comes where I'm suggesting that it can't be proved either way.

If only 10% of cases where someone claimed that a helmet saved their life were true, the safety effect of helmets would be incontrovertible and evident in all the population level studies. Clearly most of these claims are false because there's no obvious effect of helmets on safety.

 

[dudi]

A cranium free-fall of 24 inches onto a solid surface has the potential to inflict permanent brain damage. A fall of 36" has the potential to cause death.

What effect if any would a cycle helmet have in a 45 mph collision?

he was on a motorbike at the time, with a motorbike helmet on.

bike helmets aren't designed to help in a 45mph collision, as the majority of cyclists wont be going that fast...