Has your helmet saved your life poll

[david k]

Overused word number 2........ erroneous

 

[srw]

When you are sick i take it you don't put your trust in internet chatrooms??

When it comes to matters of risk I don't trust a doctor. Doctors are good at treating sickness when it's presented to them. They're not good at working out how likely it is to be presented to them. That's why we've got public health experts.

 

[Bill-H]

HMMM User i am on this forum to discuss cycling not my punctuation or grammer i am a 43 year old man not a child i do foget punctuation,grammer i am dyslexic so have a habit of paraphrase things and i apologise if that upsets you but back off on the high and mighty grammer police
the fear grips me on a bike but not any other time my answer to that is it doesnt when involved in riots i wear a helmet when being shot at i wear a helmet when canoing i wear a helmet when rock climbimg i wear a helmet their is a slight chance i could protect myself when doing these activitys

 

[Bill-H]

Adrian i agree i feel it everyones choice i climbed and canoed with friends who dont wear helmets i wont wear a helmet in deep water but will in fast flowing shallow water
however i would take umbridge over the fact if i was forced to do so against my free will

 

[srw]

In answer to your question, in this instance, i would rather listen to the experts

I think that's what you're being invited to do. And what you're not doing.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

When it comes to matters of risk I don't trust a doctor. Doctors are good at treating sickness when it's presented to them. They're not good at working out how likely it is to be presented to them. That's why we've got public health experts.

Well who do you trust and what do they say RE helmets?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

I think that's what you're being invited to do. And what you're not doing.

Show me these experts please. I show evidence and it's "irrlevant". You guys show evidence and i am not listening. Once again a touch one sided.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

I've solved it! A new product.
It's called the Air helmet!!

A few possible tag lines:

"FOR THE CYCLIST WHO WANTS TO LOOK COOL, NO MATTER WHAT!!"

"USES AIR RESISTANCE TO REDUCE SPEED OF IMPACT"

"AVAILABLE FOR ALL AGES"

"PROVEN TO WORK BY FORUM MEMBERS ACROSS THE GLOBE"

Disclaimer: Air helmet accepts no responsibilty for cracked skulls, brain injuries or death. Air helmet will not necessarily make the user look cool.

 

[theclaud]

Ok, that's the best thing (btw, I tried to convince a taxi driver that my being in the middle of the road at that particular stretch was for my own safety, he said I'm an idiot ).
Are we allowed to do the other things also, because they make us feel saf(er)?
Like wearing high viz and helmets?
Without other cyclists telling us we have an agenda?
Without other cyclists dismissing us because we do not quite believe in statistics?
Without indeed other cyclists calling us the enemy because, well, sometimes even though you understand "the evidence" you think "better safe than sorry".

Of course. I'm also quite happy for people to carry a rabbit foot or wear a St Christopher for the same reasons, but mercifully I don't often have to suffer lectures or raised eyebrows for not doing so myself. Where on earth have I suggested that anyone shouldn't be allowed to wear helmets or hi-viz? I consider both of these to be poor choices in terms of effectiveness (not to mention aesthetics), and I also consider them to be choices that are, taken collectively, detrimental to the interests of cyclists (and pedestrians).

 

[mickle]

I've solved it! A new product.
It's called the Air helmet!!

A few possible tag lines:

"FOR THE CYCLIST WHO WANTS TO LOOK COOL, NO MATTER WHAT!!"

"USES AIR RESISTANCE TO REDUCE SPEED OF IMPACT"

"AVAILABLE FOR ALL AGES"

"PROVEN TO WORK BY FORUM MEMBERS ACROSS THE GLOBE"

Disclaimer: Air helmet accepts no responsibilty for cracked skulls, brain injuries or death. Air helmet will not necessarily make the user look cool.

Why do you think so many people are against compulsion? And why do you think a small percentage of people are against helmets all together? Any ideas? (clue: it's not about 'looking cool')

 

[srw]

Well who do you trust and what do they say RE helmets?

Show me these experts please. I show evidence and it's "irrlevant". You guys show evidence and i am not listening. Once again a touch one sided.

You've already linked to www.cyclehelmets.org, which is, to my mind, both fair-minded and comprehensive. It's as close as you're ever going to get to a systematic review of all of the evidence. Your citation of a handful of studies and statistics is not a systematic review of all of the evidence. It is also not an assessment of risk.

So far as can be determined, nowhere in the world has an increase in helmet use resulted in a fall in head or brain injuries relative to cycle use.

That, more or less, is my understanding of what evidence exists - and I say that based on some knowledge of risk assessment. THERE IS VERY LITTLE RELIABLE EVIDENCE OUT THERE. And my best guess is that there never will be, simply because the research would be very expensive, very difficult and not worth the bother.

In the meantime, the question is becoming academic. As more and more people take up cycling as a past-time or means of transport fewer and fewer of them are bothered about buying all the kit.

 

[mickle]

No one has concrete proof. I can tell you that around half of my cycle club are all sort in the medical profession and they ALL say people who don't wear lids simply don't know what they are talking about. Their personal and professional experience speaks volumes and certainly is more relevant than those on a forum coming to conclusions based on assumptions.

Hey, I'm in the cycle industry, surely that makes my opinion every bit as valid as someone in the medical profession?

You claimed to have provided proof that helmets 'do what they say on the box' (metaphorically, because actually they don't make any claims about their ability to prevent head injuries). Unfortunately the evidence you provided was shown, in it's own words, to be invalid. That's a fail. Right? Or are we using different laws of logic?

Again, if you will, please provide some evidence that cycle helmets deliver a net benefit to cyclists, or that they reduce the likelyhood or severity of head injuries in cyclists.
When you eventually give up looking I hope you'll have a quiet think with yourself about why, if helmets really do protect against head injuries, why there's not a scrap of evidence available.
I suggest you start with the helmet manufacturers first.

 

[Licramite]

Its the same mindset that are against helmets for motorcyclists - still fiercely contested
and the Anti-Seat belt lobby

Protection is not needed - because of the best safety device available - its the "it won't happen to me" device.
it works 100% - right up to the time you have an accident.

 

[screenman]

Apart from keeping their hands warm what are the other benefits of gloves?

 

[newfhouse]

I've solved it! A new product.
It's called the Air helmet!!

A few possible tag lines:

"FOR THE CYCLIST WHO WANTS TO LOOK COOL, NO MATTER WHAT!!"

"USES AIR RESISTANCE TO REDUCE SPEED OF IMPACT"

"AVAILABLE FOR ALL AGES"

"PROVEN TO WORK BY FORUM MEMBERS ACROSS THE GLOBE"

Disclaimer: Air helmet accepts no responsibilty for cracked skulls, brain injuries or death. Air helmet will not necessarily make the user look cool.

So pretty similar to the claims made by polystyrene hat vendors then. Why might that be the case?