Giro helmets - huge appreciation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Would you rather be taught to fly by someone who has analysed pilot behaviour or by a flight instructor?

The big advances in aviation safety came about from analysing pilot behaviour and by automating systems so you didn't have to rely on pilots. 90% of air accidents were pilot not system errors before automation and despite the big increase in automation that figure is unchanged. The last fatal Heathrow crash (BE548, 1972) was caused by "old school" pilot behaviour.
 
I guess that when they [Doctors] say "your helmet edge caught on a drain cover and whipped your neck around", it is fairly obvious that without the helmet there would have been no edge to catch, or if you were to be told "your helmet stopped the bullet" where it is fairly obvious that without the helmet the bullet would have hit the skull, you can pretty much take that on trust as a fact. If they say "your helmet saved your life" or "your helmet killed you" without reference to how it did this, it's probably not unreasonable to want to inquire further.

Its easy to show that at most only a handful of helmet saved my life stories each year can be true, the rest are exaggerations.
 

Dan B

Disengaged member
Its easy to show that at most only a handful of helmet saved my life stories each year can be true, the rest are exaggerations.

Yes, but only by use of statistics, which apparently is not persuasive. I was suggesting a mechanism on the human individual level which would explain why we are more likely to believe some of the stuff doctors tell us and not the other stuff
 
Have a look at my post a few pages back now - there's no such thing as a tell tale sign ;)

So you keep asserting but there definitely are. A helmet is designed to work in a very specific way* and that way leaves very specific tell tale signs behind. If those signs are not there a) nothing happened of sufficient impact to make them and/or b) it didn't do its job as intended.

*Read the test specifications for helmets if you don't believe me.
 

david k

Hi
Location
North West
I will consider continuing the discussion with you when you can tell the difference between reference to a single instance of personal experience, and discussion of trends on a population level. Oh, and when you stop using "arguments" that mean I can fill in an entire card of derailment bingo on a single page of posts.

Sam



so are they valid or not?
 

david k

Hi
Location
North West
you must have missed this dan, so ill try again,

The same logic as Dan uses could be applied to the other side of the argument

  • Reporting that wearing helmets results in more accidents
  • Continued discrediting the safety standard of cycle helmets
  • Requesting hard evidence that helmet wearing is beneficial
  • Continual reference to contradictory data/journals
  • and so on


This definitely comes across as anti helmet, yet after fiercly fighting this point of view you say you are not anti helmet?
 

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
A bit later than scheduled. But if we compare a cotton cap to my cycling shorts we can safely assume that my head would have looked like my hips

Not sure cotton caps cause mutations :biggrin: (Sorry I couldn't resist)
 
OP
OP
tigger

tigger

Über Member
Im not trying to be opposing for the sake of it, but my views are quite different. Just shows how different mindsets can enjoy the same sport... I can't seem to multi-quote but...

To me cycling is potentially a dangerous activity, be it falling off on a road, skidding on a root on a trail or getting hit by another vehicle. Wearing safety equipment merely shows that particular participant is aware of the risks and decided to take some precautionary action. It could also be viewed positively, i.e. cyclists are seen as responsible for wearing helmets. Yes, this could put potential new cyclists off who don't want to get into a "dangerous" sport. Shame. But is this a bad thing? In my view cycling carries inherent risks, no point hiding the fact. If the realisation puts someone off, good - it aint the sport for them.

Health benefits (and I'd add general enjoyment too) definitely outweigh the dangers - agreed. In terms of having to wear protection due to other road users. Yes this is perverse, but no its not unfair - its just recognising the risks and taking action, we are more vulnerable on a bike at the end of the day and people (or animals it seems!) don't always see us.

False protection - for sure helmets could be improved, but shockingly the test criteria is only 33% lower than motorbikes. Helmet design has to be a balance betweem safety, comfort, ventilation, weight, aero etc etc... striking the overall balance means we don't need or want top ride in motorbike or fighter pilot lids. Still work to be done but...

Re cycling in a way to minimise danger. I think sometimes I put myself at risk - but I love the performance aspect of cycling - thats why I personally keep doing it. If I temper it too much I lose the thrill. So thats why I wear an expensive pro lid.

They do work, FOR ME, they prevent some injuries. But for sure they could be better. Too much hype, without a doubt... but then thats marketing of frames, tyres, wheels.... everything...

I'm going to take some positives from my fall. The helmet outweighed my expectations - and yes, I was there I'm the only one who knows for certain it workef for me. I have to replace it. I get to do that at half price. Giro get another sale at the same price as they get at wholesale. They also get the damaged helmet back to evaluate with a description of the accident. I hope they use this info to improve the safety of their products... maybe they will.

So personally, I'M happy with helmets....




Putting risk compensation aside for a moment. My personal view is that the widespread adoption of bicycle helmets suggests to the general (cycling and non-cycling) public that cycling is a 'dangerous' activity. Well it must be dangerous, why else would they all wear helmets? By wearing a helmet we propagate that myth. Anything which puts people off cycling is a Bad Thing. Every bicycle helmet is an attack on cycling.



Cycling - as we all know from analysing the statistics - is not a dangerous activity in itself. As we know: the health benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers by a factor of twenty to one. Any danger posed to cyclists is delivered by other road users. If we want to remove that danger it seems to me perverse and wholly unfair that the victims of the danger be obliged to 'protect' themselves. It would be like suggesting that people must wear bullet-proof vests because someone is shooting off an AK-47 nearby.

And they are a false sense of security - you only have to look at what is involved in the official test procedures to see that.

I would much rather ride my bicycle in a way which minimises my exposure to danger than wear a lump of foam on my head in the delusion that it will do me any good when I fall.

And as Cunobelin so lucidly illustrates - by any measure, cyclists are way down the list of people who should be wearing head protection.

So, they don't work, they don't deal with the actual danger which would be a better target for our efforts, and even if they did we'd save more injury and deaths by making drunks wear them.

There is a massive industry behind cycle helmets - don't believe the hype.
 
I can totally understand people wanting to fight against compulsion, thats fine.
If you dont want to wear one fine, i think they are beneficial, is there anything wrong with that? if i think they are beneficial for me it stands to reason i think they are beneficial for you eh? whats wrong with me thinking something is better for you?

an extreme argument is one that states helmets are not 100% beneficial and therefore are useless, rarely any safety precaution is 100% beneficial but that does not mean it is of no benefit.

Excellent... which takes us to tin foil hats

tin-foil-hat-3.jpg



I can totally understand people wanting to fight against their compulsion, thats fine.
If you dont want to wear one fine, many people think think they are beneficial and prevent alien abduction, is there anything wrong with that?

If they think they are beneficial for them it stands to reason that they are beneficial for you eh? whats wrong with them thinking something is better for you?

An extreme argument is one that states tin foil hats are not 100% beneficial and therefore are useless, rarely any safety precaution is 100% beneficial but that does not mean it is of no benefit.

Tin foil hats for everyone?
 

david k

Hi
Location
North West
another worthy post , a picture of someone in a tin foil hat is a worthy argument in your attempt to make me out to be foolish when deciding to wear a cycle helmet.

I await your next picture of a piece of fruit
 
the medical profession have been dismissed in the past in terms of having the required knowledge to judge cycle helmets. Are we now saying their opinion is valid?


If it is valid in promoting cycle helmet compulsion then we really need to seriously look at compulsory Thudguards!

The "elephant in the room" is the fact that the same organisations endorse cycle helmets and Thudguards.

No-one has yet been able to explain why their advice is sacrosanct in the former case but not in the latter
 

david k

Hi
Location
North West
If it is valid in promoting cycle helmet compulsion then we really need to seriously look at compulsory Thudguards!

The "elephant in the room" is the fact that the same organisations endorse cycle helmets and Thudguards.

No-one has yet been able to explain why their advice is sacrosanct in the former case but not in the latter



just a load of waffle, is it valid or not
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom