Has your helmet saved your life poll

[Drago]

thats not the case, nobody here has asked you to justify why you dont wear a helmet. Although people who do wear them or think they are a benefit are having to continually justify their choice, having to answer questions such as, why dont wear a helmet when walking etc.

I don't wear a helmetcwhe walking. While its not infallible by any means, the structure of the human head has evolved so that it will most likely withstand the forces that a human can subject it to within the height of the animal, and within the speeds that the animal is capable of achieving.

If cause, humans have buggered it up somewhat by building stairs, laying concrete etc, but then we've compensated by geberally becoming more sedentary. Nature did pretty good and most of us will fall over many times in our lives while walking or running, but only a few will compromise the integrity of the skull during these falls.

Conversely, cycling is an un natural activity that subjects us to heights, velocities and impacts that evolution hasn't accounted for. An effective cycle helmet would be great.

But are cycle helmets as we know them today effective? I wouldn't bank on that.

 

[benb]

thats not the case, nobody here has asked you to justify why you dont wear a helmet. Although people who do wear them or think they are a benefit are having to continually justify their choice, having to answer questions such as, why dont wear a helmet when walking etc.

On this forum, we frequently get people implying that we're idiotic, suicidal, or stupid for not wearing a helmet. In society at large, I am often asked about it, and in quite a few sportives helmet use is mandatory.

What the pro-helmeters are being asked to justify is their arguments and logic. And that's important, because every unsubstantiated argument on here in favour of helmets is also used by lobbyists who want to remove our freedom of choice and make helmets compulsory.

To clarify: I utterly support someone's choice to wear or not to wear a helmet, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. I will however challenge shoddy arguments, lack of evidence, appeals to authority, and plain ignorance when they are put forward.

 

[ufkacbln]

I wish I hadn't Googled it!!!!

Why do you think I did not put the story on a family forum.

 

[mrandmrspoves]

Why do you think I did not put the story on a family forum.

I had no idea until I looked!!
I love my bikes.....but not in a physical sense.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Pedro, the reason helmets for pedestrians keep coming up, is that there is no logically consistent argument in favour of cycle helmets that does not equally apply to pedestrians. Yet only cyclists are singled out for criticism if they do not wear helmets.

Helmet use in pedestrians would almost certainly save many more lives than in cyclists, as there are more of them, so why are there no pressure groups calling on compulsory pedestrian helmets?

The likelihood of getting a head injury as a pedestrian is broadly similar to that as a cyclist. So why is only one group encouraged to wear a helmet?

That is why pedestrians are frequently mentioned: to illuminate the logical inconsistencies and, occasionally double standards, in the pro-helmet arguments.

That's an argument against compulsion, not an argument against wearing a helmet whilst cycling. you can compare it to pedestrians or anything else slightly related, it still doesn't change the issue. That being the question of a helmet as a valid safety measure in cycling. Thanks for explaining your position though.

 

[benb]

That's an argument against compulsion, not an argument against wearing a helmet whilst cycling. you can compare it to pedestrians or anything else slightly related, it still doesn't change the issue. That being the question of a helmet as a valid safety measure in cycling. Thanks for explaining your position though.

Hi. Not really, it is a useful illustration to make people question why they are in favour of safety equipment for one group of people, but not for another group at similar risk of head injuries.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

I guess we were just pondering whether there was any evidence for your belief that Norm is not widely liked, or whether, like the benefit of cycle helmets, it's something you simply expect to assert without challenge. The legions of anti-Normists are free to speak up without fear of reprisal - he's not an especially touchy sort, and I reckon he can handle it.

It was actually a prediction about Norm. Not his current likability.

If i expected not to be challenged i would not really still be here would i?

I am not an anti-Normist. I am sure he's a real gent outside an internet forum.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Hi. Not really, it is a useful illustration to make people question why they are in favour of safety equipment for one group of people, but not for another group at similar risk of head injuries.

That's one view. Another is that if pedestrians want to wear helmets they can, it's not illegal. The other is that if cyclists want to wear helmets they can, it's not illegal. If i was to claim just now that both instances would be effective it would go down a damn sight better than if i claimed it only for cycling.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

I'd just like to point out, in case anyone missed it, that david k seems to think it's perfectly sensible for pedestrians to wear helmets, and Pedro doesn't think Thudguards™ are silly. The reductio ad absurdum is totally wasted on these guys! There's no absurdity or pointless indignity to which they are not prepared to subject cyclists in the name of "safety".

Who are you to decide what is absurd? someone probably went to a lot of time and effort to design the amazing Thudguard!! Children's heads will safe everywhere from now on.

Oh and did i really say they aren't silly or was that one of the Rebuttal squad putting words in my mouth again.
Is there really no length we will go to?? I thought we were just saying helmets were a good idea for ones noggin?? Hmmm......

 

[benb]

That's one view. Another is that if pedestrians want to wear helmets they can, it's not illegal. The other is that if cyclists want to wear helmets they can, it's not illegal. If i was to claim just now that both instances would be effective it would go down a damn sight better than if i claimed it only for cycling.

Sorry, you're missing my point.

You, I presume, are in favour of helmets for cyclists.
I also presume that you don't think they are necessary for pedestrians.

Seeing as cycle helmets, if they are effective at all, would be at least as effective at reducing head injuries in pedestrians, why is it only cyclists that are being encouraged to use them?

Why are they necessary (or at least a good idea) for cyclists, but not necessary for pedestrians?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Oh I'm sorry - are you not getting the response you hoped for?

It seems to depend on what meds you are on whatever day you are posting.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

The "benefits" of helmet wearing are so minuscule as to be statistically undetectable, so why are they constantly pushed onto cyclists, but not pedestrians?

And these "benefits", that are so minuscule, are measurable to be as you claim i gather?? Some recent study with concrete evidence??

 

[Norm]

I guess we were just pondering whether there was any evidence for your belief that Norm is not widely liked, or whether, like the benefit of cycle helmets, it's something you simply expect to assert without challenge. The legions of anti-Normists are free to speak up without fear of reprisal - he's not an especially touchy sort, and I reckon he can handle it.

Yeah, but the pros have hats so they are both warmer and cooler.

We will evolve so that in the womb the child actually grows a helmet on the head. True story.

It's already happened, it's called the skull.

 

[benb]

And these "benefits", that are so minuscule, are measurable to be as you claim i gather?? Some recent study with concrete evidence??

I don't quite follow your first sentence. By definition, you can't prove a negative, so what we have is a public health intervention, which is lacking in evidence of efficacy.

To me, the most compelling research that helmets are not statistically significant in reducing head injuries, is that in the places that have introduced a mandatory helmet law, and seen a large increase in the % of cyclists wearing a helmet, the % of cyclists with head injuries hasn't reduced. There's an interesting graph showing this, I think Red Light has it.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

they are not designed or tested at speeds above this, AFAIK.

I believe the stat you are manipulating is that cycle helmets are "most" effective at or around 12mph. Not up to or exactly 12mph.

Everyone in a pro race wears a helmet. It is a fact. Why would they wear a helmet in a race where they not likely sniff 12mph let alone average it?? Do the pro's not fall??

Please don't say because of sponsorship or advertising. It is a law within the sport not a recommendation.