Detention Lines: I will wear a helmet.

[BentMikey]

I think what you really mean is that you're more worried about a serious head injury when cycling, than when you're walking. You can at least take heart from the evidence out there that the risks aren't really different and that cycling is nowhere near as dangerous as most people imagine it to be.

 

[Crackle]

I think what you really mean is that you're more worried about a serious head injury when cycling, than when you're walking. You can at least take heart from the evidence out there that the risks aren't really different and that cycling is nowhere near as dangerous as most people imagine it to be.

Times out walking I have fractured my skull = 0
Times out walking I have banged my head = 0
Times I have fallen over after drinking beer = 1
Times I have fractured my skull drinking beer = 0
Times out cycling I have fractured my skull = 1

I'd say on a study of one, my risk is higher.

I take your point but that's not what I'm interested in. It's the greater potential of more serious injury and as I've said before, whilst I wear a helmet I'm ambivalent about their overall effectivness.

 

[BentMikey]

And yet that shows us exactly what? That you suffered an injury, but nothing at all about the risk of cycling compared with other forms of transport.

 

[swee'pea99]

Is 'drinking beer' a form of transport? No wonder I get around so much...

 

[Crackle]

And yet that shows us exactly what? That you suffered an injury, but nothing at all about the risk of cycling compared with other forms of transport.

It shows us that statistics are meaningless unless you set the context correctly. It shows you statisitics are statisitics until you're one of them and then they take on a different meaning.

Air travel is the safest form of travel right but in the event of a crash how many people survive compared to survival rates in a train crash. The risk is lower but the consequences are far more serious. It's exactly the same with riding a bike. I'm not concerned with overall risk, I'm concerned with consequence. I take the same view with rock climbing, mountaineering, motorcycling, that's why I'm not really interested in comparisons with walking and going to the pub, it's meaningless within context of cycling injuries and specifically cycling head injuries.

if you're going to discuss the effectivness of cycling helmets in an accident then do so within the context of the consequence of striking your head when cycling, don't muddy the waters with meaningless statistical comparisons.

 

[BentMikey]

Are they really more serious though? What about the large numbers of people that are out walking and get hit by a car, on the pavement, for example. It's you that's cherry picking examples, and ignoring the fact that walking accidents can be just as severe, and that the risks are about the same.

Why do so many pro-helmet people get so angry and wound up about the issue when confronted on the illogicality of wearing them? It's almost like an addiction - "I have to wear a helmet, cycling has to be VERY dangerous". It's not clear which one is the cause and which one the effect.

What about the some 500k people who injure themselves on street furniture whilst walking and talking on the phone and end up in A&E. According to your logic they should all be wearing a helmet "just in case".

 

[Maz]

Why do so many pro-helmet people get so angry and wound up about the issue when confronted on the illogicality of wearing them?

I for one am not wound up in the slightest. It's personal choice, after all. I'm curious to know what you see as illogical about wearing a helmet which could reduce head injuries if you were involved in a collision/fall etc, which, if you weren't wearing one, could be a lot worse.

 

[Origamist]

Times out walking I have fractured my skull = 0
Times out walking I have banged my head = 0
Times I have fallen over after drinking beer = 1
Times I have fractured my skull drinking beer = 0
Times out cycling I have fractured my skull = 1

I'd say on a study of one, my risk is higher.

Let me add my data point!

Times out walking I have fractured my skull = 0
Times out walking I have banged my head = easily double figures.
Times I have fallen over after drinking beer = between 5 and 10, I reckon.
Times I have fractured my skull drinking beer = 0 (but I do have a 40mm scar on my pate after colliding with a sign).
Times out cycling I have fractured my skull = 0

 

[BentMikey]

I for one am not wound up in the slightest. It's personal choice, after all. I'm curious to know what you see as illogical about wearing a helmet which could reduce head injuries if you were involved in a collision/fall etc, which, if you weren't wearing one, could be a lot worse.

Well yes, I've not seen you being wound up, but you're generally quite a sensible poster!!

The illogical bit comes from your assumption that helmets will reduce or negate injuries and make cycling safer overall. I don't make the same assumption, and I think overall they make things slightly worse from a safety point of view.

 

[Maz]

The illogical bit comes from your assumption that helmets will reduce or negate injuries and make cycling safer overall.

Nope. I'm not making that assumption. I'm saying that helmets could reduce injuries, where, if one was not worn, could be a lot worse.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Are they really more serious though? What about the large numbers of people that are out walking and get hit by a car, on the pavement, for example. It's you that's cherry picking examples, and ignoring the fact that walking accidents can be just as severe, and that the risks are about the same.

Why do so many pro-helmet people get so angry and wound up about the issue when confronted on the illogicality of wearing them? It's almost like an addiction - "I have to wear a helmet, cycling has to be VERY dangerous". It's not clear which one is the cause and which one the effect.

What about the some 500k people who injure themselves on street furniture whilst walking and talking on the phone and end up in A&E. According to your logic they should all be wearing a helmet "just in case".

You miss the point. Crackle is entirely right about the difference between the risk of an accident and the risk of a serious injury or fatality. Cycling is not a dangerous activity in terms of the likelihood of an accident occuring to you, however it is more dangerous than walking in terms of the likelihood of serious injury or death occuring in the event of an accident.

It's still not high so cycling cannot be said to be 'dangerous' in some general way, but frankly emotive silliness like your second paragraph is simply to point and laugh at people who chose to do something to reduce that second risk. It doesn't help. The big problem for cyclists and pedestrians is that both have to bear the brunt of the externalisation of the risk of injury by drivers. Drivers have a much higher risk of an accident, but a much lower risk of serious injury because of the introduction of so many 'safety' measures in cars (safe for them but unsafe for everyone else) in fact, by my own rough calculations a cyclist is overall, 3 times more likely to be killed of seriously injured in an accident than a driver (based on the percentage of journeys conducted by both compared to KSI rates for the whole population - journey distances would change this, but numbers of journeys is probably more relevant for comparison).

And of course there are many, many activities that are more risky in both terms.

 

[swee'pea99]

I don't suppose the figures exist, but I'd be interested to see what proportion of wearers/non-wearers actually hit their heads in the event of an accident. Not that I'd be so cretinous as to extrapolate any kind of a universal rule from my own experience, but I've had two high speed crashes in recent years, but tho' I shredded legs, arms, hands, hips, shoulders, in neither one did my head so much as touch the ground. Did I instinctively fall so's to protect it, knowing it was unprotected?

 

[Crackle]

The trouble is BM I don't think you understand what it is about helmets I'm debating.

I'm certainly not arguing that helmets make cycling safer, I'm arguing that they may make a difference in a cycling related accident because the consequences/risk for serious injury are potentially greater and the likelihood of the injury being to your upper trunk/head is greater because of where your centre of gravity is on a bike. You'll also note that despite my own accident I'm quite open minded about whether they do or don't. Spurious comparison to other risks and injuries are irrelevant and do the debate no good whatsoever. You'll also note I've only ever talked about cycling helmets saving you from yourself and not saving you from vehicular collisions.

Whether you choose to wear one is up to you but at least make your choice based on the right reasons and allow others to do the same and as far as I'm concerned those reasons are only to do with effectivness and vehicle driver perception and nothing to do with risks in other areas of life or other non-cycling injuries.

 

[LLB]

I was chatting to the son of my video shop on saturday (went in there with my bike), and he said he cycles most places. He mentioned that he was knocked off about 4 weeks ago by a bus and the impact split the lid in two. I haven't been wearing my lid for a few months now but it sewed the seed and as I was passing Cheltenham Cycles, I picked up a new bell for my Marin (which they supplied free ) and I picked up a MET lid (which fitted me far better than anything I've tried before including the Giro's).

 

[mickle]

My son's Primary school bans kids from cycling to school of they don't wear a helmet.

Are they legally allowed to do this? I shall ask Mrs Mickle (Primary Headteacher) forthwith.